<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Conversation with My Own Imaginary Spinmeister</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mfeldstein.com/conversation_with_my_own_imaginary_spinmeister/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mfeldstein.com/conversation_with_my_own_imaginary_spinmeister/</link>
	<description>What Michael Feldstein Is Learning About Online Learning...Online</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:39:25 +0000</pubDate>
	
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Penney</title>
		<link>http://mfeldstein.com/conversation_with_my_own_imaginary_spinmeister/#comment-460</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Penney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:37:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">1654673606#comment-460</guid>
		<description>Fitz, I think you have a noble sentiment, however a problem is that:

&lt;i&gt;Blackboard may have a patent on the basic elements of today's e-learning environments&lt;/i&gt;

It seems to me that today's e-learning environments mostly provide an online means of conducting education in as similar a fashion as possible to the way it has been conducted in the classroom for some time (with different teacher/student roles, differential access to learning materials, ability to grade assignments, etc.). So a problem I see is that the processes Blackboard has patented were &lt;i&gt;invented&lt;/i&gt; by education institutions over the past few thousand years; BB has patented the implementation of these inventions in the online environment.

So it does seem to me that if the patent stands, even systems seen as innovative today would have a hard time not infringing (how are you going to create an e-Portfolio system without differing teacher/student roles and ability of teachers to assess student work, for instance?).

People have compared BB's patent to Amazon's one click, however it seems to me it is really different, as there was no way to 'one click' purchase an item before the web, while there were ways to provide different roles for teachers and students (and even for allowing a teacher in one class to be a student in another class8-o) before the advent of the web.

So it seems to me that coming up with a new  paradigm for e-learning (one without different roles for teachers and students, without assignments, etc.) is much more than a software problem, it would entail some pretty large changes in education in general, in accreditation, in how grades are given, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fitz, I think you have a noble sentiment, however a problem is that:</p>
<p><i>Blackboard may have a patent on the basic elements of today&#8217;s e-learning environments</i></p>
<p>It seems to me that today&#8217;s e-learning environments mostly provide an online means of conducting education in as similar a fashion as possible to the way it has been conducted in the classroom for some time (with different teacher/student roles, differential access to learning materials, ability to grade assignments, etc.). So a problem I see is that the processes Blackboard has patented were <i>invented</i> by education institutions over the past few thousand years; BB has patented the implementation of these inventions in the online environment.</p>
<p>So it does seem to me that if the patent stands, even systems seen as innovative today would have a hard time not infringing (how are you going to create an e-Portfolio system without differing teacher/student roles and ability of teachers to assess student work, for instance?).</p>
<p>People have compared BB&#8217;s patent to Amazon&#8217;s one click, however it seems to me it is really different, as there was no way to &#8216;one click&#8217; purchase an item before the web, while there were ways to provide different roles for teachers and students (and even for allowing a teacher in one class to be a student in another class8-o) before the advent of the web.</p>
<p>So it seems to me that coming up with a new  paradigm for e-learning (one without different roles for teachers and students, without assignments, etc.) is much more than a software problem, it would entail some pretty large changes in education in general, in accreditation, in how grades are given, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Feldstein</title>
		<link>http://mfeldstein.com/conversation_with_my_own_imaginary_spinmeister/#comment-459</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Feldstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">1654673606#comment-459</guid>
		<description>That might be a fine strategy if Blackboard only had one patent. But they have a whole slew of others in the pipeline. And they are not the only ones. The real issue isn't this particular patent. It's edupatents in general. And yes, they absolutely will stifle innovation. If I can't develop a new system without confidence that I won't be sued, then I won't develop a new system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That might be a fine strategy if Blackboard only had one patent. But they have a whole slew of others in the pipeline. And they are not the only ones. The real issue isn&#8217;t this particular patent. It&#8217;s edupatents in general. And yes, they absolutely will stifle innovation. If I can&#8217;t develop a new system without confidence that I won&#8217;t be sued, then I won&#8217;t develop a new system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fitz</title>
		<link>http://mfeldstein.com/conversation_with_my_own_imaginary_spinmeister/#comment-458</link>
		<dc:creator>Fitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">1654673606#comment-458</guid>
		<description>Full disclosure: I'm a former employee of Blackboard. I own stock in the company. And while I would like my investment to appreciate with time, I have significant reservations about Blackboard's decision to pursue litigation against a competitor.

All that said, I think fear is running slightly amuck here. Granted, Blackboard's patent claims may be unfounded, and so too the lawsuit against D2L. But the idea that Blackboard, or any company, can stifle the will of dedicated, creative people strikes me as defeatist.

Yes, I want Blackboard to prosper for my own personal reasons. At the same time, I think Blackboard's aggressive patent stance might not only *NOT* stifle innovation, it might actually spur it. Because, let's be honest, e-learning platforms, as currently designed, are fairly simple beasts. Perhaps the Blackboard threat will inspire a new generation of online learning enthusiasts/entrepreneurs to approach online learning in an entirely different way. Sometimes opportunity arrives by way of disaster. If nothing else, Blackboard's stance is going to shake up the industry, and that might be a good thing for everyone.

Again, my fervent hope is that Blackboard conducts itself honorably, continues to grow, and provides leadership to the online learning industry. But if it chooses not to, it does so at considerable risk. Because when smart dedicated people get smacked in the face, they tend to come back with a vengeance. Perhaps 10 years from now we'll view this patent imbroglio as the precise moment when Blackboard ceded the high ground and a whole new e-learning paradigm arose in its place.

E-learning, in my opinion, is still in the first inning. Maybe even the top of the first. When I worked at Blackboard, I once collaborated with my boss (who was at that time the director of software development) on a vision document in which we schemed around 12 different paradigms for an e-learning environment. There were some promising, progressive ideas in that document. But Blackboard had neither the vision nor the resources to pursue them, and the document went into a drawer and was never seen again.

My point: Blackboard may have a patent on the basic elements of today's e-learning environments, but e-learning will ultimately become much more dynamic and useful--and as a consequence, evolve beyond the reach of this patent. I fully believe that document we shelved six years ago included ideas that, in theory, could today provide the seeds for a whole new approach to online learning.

Whatever happens with this patent and lawsuit, I think Blackboard's detractors should expend as much energy in looking for the opportunity as they currently are in "fighting the beast." 

George Bernard Shaw once said, "Progress depends on the unreasonable man." Be unreasonable, I say. View this moment in time as the opportunity to steer online learning in a new and better direction. Blackboard is but a single--albeit large--player on the e-learning stage. And the script has only begun to be written. Pick up that script, start writing, make change. Now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Full disclosure: I&#8217;m a former employee of Blackboard. I own stock in the company. And while I would like my investment to appreciate with time, I have significant reservations about Blackboard&#8217;s decision to pursue litigation against a competitor.</p>
<p>All that said, I think fear is running slightly amuck here. Granted, Blackboard&#8217;s patent claims may be unfounded, and so too the lawsuit against D2L. But the idea that Blackboard, or any company, can stifle the will of dedicated, creative people strikes me as defeatist.</p>
<p>Yes, I want Blackboard to prosper for my own personal reasons. At the same time, I think Blackboard&#8217;s aggressive patent stance might not only *NOT* stifle innovation, it might actually spur it. Because, let&#8217;s be honest, e-learning platforms, as currently designed, are fairly simple beasts. Perhaps the Blackboard threat will inspire a new generation of online learning enthusiasts/entrepreneurs to approach online learning in an entirely different way. Sometimes opportunity arrives by way of disaster. If nothing else, Blackboard&#8217;s stance is going to shake up the industry, and that might be a good thing for everyone.</p>
<p>Again, my fervent hope is that Blackboard conducts itself honorably, continues to grow, and provides leadership to the online learning industry. But if it chooses not to, it does so at considerable risk. Because when smart dedicated people get smacked in the face, they tend to come back with a vengeance. Perhaps 10 years from now we&#8217;ll view this patent imbroglio as the precise moment when Blackboard ceded the high ground and a whole new e-learning paradigm arose in its place.</p>
<p>E-learning, in my opinion, is still in the first inning. Maybe even the top of the first. When I worked at Blackboard, I once collaborated with my boss (who was at that time the director of software development) on a vision document in which we schemed around 12 different paradigms for an e-learning environment. There were some promising, progressive ideas in that document. But Blackboard had neither the vision nor the resources to pursue them, and the document went into a drawer and was never seen again.</p>
<p>My point: Blackboard may have a patent on the basic elements of today&#8217;s e-learning environments, but e-learning will ultimately become much more dynamic and useful&#8211;and as a consequence, evolve beyond the reach of this patent. I fully believe that document we shelved six years ago included ideas that, in theory, could today provide the seeds for a whole new approach to online learning.</p>
<p>Whatever happens with this patent and lawsuit, I think Blackboard&#8217;s detractors should expend as much energy in looking for the opportunity as they currently are in &#8220;fighting the beast.&#8221; </p>
<p>George Bernard Shaw once said, &#8220;Progress depends on the unreasonable man.&#8221; Be unreasonable, I say. View this moment in time as the opportunity to steer online learning in a new and better direction. Blackboard is but a single&#8211;albeit large&#8211;player on the e-learning stage. And the script has only begun to be written. Pick up that script, start writing, make change. Now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.405 seconds -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2009-01-06 02:39:25 -->
