Please let this thread die. It has degenerated into a largely content-free flame war.

Michael, please accept my apologies. I should read more carefully next time.

I hope it goes without saying that my original impression of you was correct, and I’m so very sorry to have mistakenly suggested otherwise.

Best,
Scott

“These advances have little relevance to the patent as written, granted….”

“It seems there is no legal remedy for this scenario, assuming as many do that this patent is so broadly written and lacking in merit that it will surely be overturned.”

Seems as if I prematurely praised your decorum, Michael. To liken my knowledge of patents to that of an 8th grader is certainly an inflammatory and unjustified thing to write. Am I a patent lawyer? No. Are you? I don’t think so.

It seems as if you and others won’t accept at face value that I’m as disappointed by, and opposed to, the patent as you are. I’ve only tried to add some balance to a conversation that is almost unremittingly anti-Blackboard.

Perhaps I *have* fallen short of attaining objectivity on this subject. But to imply that I’m “pretending” to be objective … wow, that’s extremely cynical and flat wrong. And I might say that with the exception of some of Michael’s posts, one of which I specifically commended, I haven’t seen a lot of objectivity from the other participants on this board.

But that’s OK, because true objectivity is a difficult thing to attain. Our perspectives on the world are invariably colored by our backgrounds and our experiences. As a former newspaper reporter, I can tell you that many journalists don’t even believe in the concept of objectivity. The goal in journalism, and my goal here, is to seek balance and remain fair to all parties involved. I fall short of that standard more than I’d like, but it’s certainly what I strive for.

I’ve truly enjoyed the back-and-forth here and learned a lot from folks who have knowledge that I lack. But Michael, your decision to callously diminish my good-faith attempts at dialogue has exposed a second row of teeth. It was your gentlemanly demeanor that drew me to this board in the beginning; now the lack of same is driving me to find some other place to discuss the issue.

And I have ask … have you considered that perhaps *you* are the one pretending to be objective? As Oscar Wilde said, “All criticism is autobiography.”

Best to all. I truly hope for a resolution that allows Blackboard to thrive and the e-learning community to innovate. I believe strongly in the power of unfettered creativity, and I sincerely hope the current litigation doesn’t jeopardize experimentation and exploration on college campuses.

Best,
Scott

That said, I do think this debate has outlived its usefulness. I think we all know where everybody stands on this issue.

I would also ask all parties to refrain from ad hominem attacks in the future.

I agree with Scott that Blackboard has contributed to the Elearning space. But, again, the fact that they have contributed to the space has no bearing on whether their actions in this patent ordeal are justified.

Regardless, he does seem very passionate about the subject for someone pretending to be objective. Apparently passionate enough to mistake you and Alfred for people who aren’t being levelheaded and intelligent about this whole situation.

Did you ban my e-mail address because you no longer wish me to post to this board? If so, I’ll gladly take my leave. All you have to do is ask.

Scott

OK, I’ll plead guilty to a little unnecessary rhetoric. But if you haven’t seen the inflammatory, uninformed bashing of Blackboard that’s floating around on the Web, then I suggest you Google “blackboard patent” and see for yourself some of the nonsense being written.

As for the contention that I “go on to repeat the Blackboard propaganda,” I was merely using your language (”IDEA”) to express my original point.

No, Blackboard didn’t event the idea of e-learning. I don’t believe that, never said that. But Blackboard has invested a lot of money in developing and enriching the idea, and that’s my primary point. If a company like D2L comes along and rides someone else’s development dollars, does that not have a chilling effect on investment in e-learning? Why should I throw $50 million into a company if I can sit back, invest nothing, and then use the other company’s advances as a blueprint for my own product? It seems there is no legal remedy for this scenario, assuming as many do that this patent is so broadly written and lacking in merit that it wiil surely be overturned. Nevertheless, Blackboard’s advancement of the IDEA certainly should be recognized. To dismiss Blackboard as a “patent troll,” as many have, is unfair in my opinion and fails to recognize the company’s significant contributions to e-learning around the globe.

And it’s completely unfair to diminish those contributions as nothing more than “code.” Blackboard has spearheaded a tremendous amount of conceptual development in the idea of a full-blown e-learning system, particularly as it pertains to the complexities of back-end integration that go far beyond the basic e-learning framework that most agree existed before Blackboard’s patent application was filed. These advances have little relevance to the patent as written, granted, but it should serve as a reminder that Blackboard has been a huge contributor to the evolution of the e-learning environments that so many students use today.

Anyway, until such time that the patent is overturned (if indeed it is), Blackboard apparently intends to use the patent to, among other things, protect that significant monetary investment in its products. This doesn’t seem like a ludicrous or predatory action to my mind; though I do wish–as I have stated many times–that the company had instead focused its energies on building a start-of-the-art product so good that it protects itself.

If you want to debate the merits of the patent case, let’s do it. I agree with your basic point that we need to be careful when making comparative judgments (e.g. Microsoft vs Blackboard). This thread began with my making the same point.

But you don’t contribute to the debate one bit by flinging rhetoric around such as “torch-wielding mob”. Do you wish to name names? Who might be members of this mob?

You state that you understand the distinction between a patent and a copyright. But then you go on to repeat the Blackboard propaganda that they have invested millions of dollars in their IDEA. Blackboard has invested tens of millions of dollars in developing code (no one disputes that) but zero dollars in developing the IDEA underlying their patent. You might want to take the time to understand this basic distinction.

I think you’re reading me too literally–and interpreting the words “copy” and “clone” rather narrowly. If we can move beyond my choice of verbs just for a minute, my point is this: if it turns out that D2L took Blackboard’s implementation of a learning environment (i.e., the IDEA, as you put it) and essentially monkeyed that IDEA, then Blackboard may have chosen to sue because they have millions invested in their IDEA (whether it should be patentable or not), whereas D2L, I believe, has bypassed the capitalization stage (i.e., private financing) and may have been able to do so by copyping/cloning/imitating/monkeying (choose whatever verb you prefer) Blackboard’s IDEA.

BTW, I perfectly understand the distinction between copyright and patent, but thanks anyway for the insulting implication to the contrary. Did you actually think I meant that D2L might have copied the source code itself? I mean, come on.

Thanks also for restating the obvious–i.e., that the core of this whole brouhaha lies in establishing the origin of the IDEA. I thought that went without saying. My primary point was merely to speculate as to the mindset that prompted Blackboard to pursue litigation against D2L.

BTW, I’m no fan of the patent and no apologist for Blackboard. I *am* trying to provide an alternate perspective for the torch-wielding mob that has vilified Blackboard beyond what I believe is reasonable. (And no, Michael, I don’t include you among that mob. )

Scott says things like: “if D2L did indeed copy Blackboard’s software..”, “If it turns out that D2L gained a competitive advantage by *cloning* Blackboard’s e-learning system,..” These types of remarks show a complete lack of understanding of the patent case.

D2L did not “copy” or “clone” Blackboard’s sofware. Nor is that the accusation. Go back and try to understand the distinction between copyright and patent.

D2L is being taken to task for implementing an IDEA. That IDEA did not originate with Blackboard. It was stolen from the commons. Whether or not the courts establish that, the community of experts in computer science and e-learning will soon enough.