Comments on: Conversations with Desire2Learn and Blackboard

By: sasha

sasha — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:00:25 +0000

I think it should be noted that open source ANYTHING though really cool for getting things done must eventually be bought and locked down for the protection of the actual info. If its open source then any hacker can and WILL know the loop holes.
That being said–it is in the communities BEST interest to let one or the other push towards a unified elegant design. Or let BB buy D2L out and do it that way.
Microsoft and Apple have been buying open source projects for years and then homogenizing them. Why not the LMS? I personally find it ridiculous that Ive had to learn 4 diff LMS in one year!
Neither is perfect–and D2L has a LOT of software issues at the moment.
Most of D2L’s issues are SECURITY and edit issues as well as a VB language issue that hates all but IE.
Blackboard isnt perfect–but its a thousand times easier to teach than D2L. D2L also has a content display variable that requires knowledge above “add file here” that makes it hard on tech support.
Elegant? nope…D2L is far from it. Powerful..yep.
Let BB buy it and make it ELEGANT and easy to use.

thats my vote.

By: Sydney

Sydney — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:28:50 +0000

The point I am making Scott, is that if D2L was selfish and scheming, then they would have paid the royalties to Blackboard – necessitating that all others would then have to follow suit as well. This would have eliminated Open Source from the marketplace. However resisting, D2L or whoever BB attacks, will certainly gain good will. If D2L wins then Open Source is saved. If they lose then Open Source is gone. BB attacking D2L was really designed to destroy Open Source. The only event BB failed to anticipate and which is now threatening to throw the whole BB locomotive off the tracks, was D2L resisting with tenacity.

As it drags on, how do you think the reviews of the LMSs by various academics within the educational institutions currently using or considering using BB will unfold? Do you think that educators will consider the fact that if they vote to accept BB then they are really providing BB with the funds to destroy the Open Source and other LMS choices we now have – and thus reduce the competetive marketplace. This is the harvest BB is bringing home with this patent lawsuit – and I think this was their intent from the very beginning.

By: Jesse Ezell

Jesse Ezell — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:24:16 +0000

D2L doesn’t ever need to point out that it is fighting for itself. The case is Blackboard vs. D2L. It’s implicitly understood knowledge.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:09:54 +0000

Perhaps more to the point: yes, no one has claimed D2L is being selfless. But if this blog is to take a journalistic approach to the issue, and I think Michael has accomplished that to a commendable degreee, then D2L shouldn’t be allowed to present such a populist position without someone *explicitly* noting that D2L’s fight is most certainly motivated by the need to protect its own business.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:00:33 +0000

OK, this is making my head hurt. Read Michael’s original post, then my initial comment, then perhaps you’ll see the distinction I’m making.

I simply think Michael should not be content to allow D2L convenient talking points such as “we’re fighting for the community” without noting that the company, first and foremost, is fighting for itself. Failing to do so portrays one company as a big, nasty for-profit company and the other as some sort of non-profit, grassroots initiative–when in fact, this is a legal dispute between two for-profit companies.

Jesse, by sarcastically implying that this a “straw man” argument, you’re only perpetuating an unflattering image of yourself. An image of a smug and arrogant unwillingness to hear a viewpoint that doesn’t match your own. I regret that you can’t find a more civil and thoughtful way to respond.

By: Jesse Ezell

Jesse Ezell — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:22:25 +0000

If you agree that D2L is sincere, then I don’t see what your point is. To my knowledge, they have never claimed to have a selfless interest in the case, nor has anyone claimed that they are being selfless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:01:06 +0000

“to suggest that they are too self absorbed to realize that the outcome of the case will effect the entire industry and that they are fighting for the industry at the same time is shortsighted and myopic.”

——-

I neither said nor implied the above. In fact, in my previous post, I wrote: “BTW, I’m not questioning the sincerity of D2L’s assertion that it’s (also) fighting for the academic community at large.”

If we can stick to what’s actually been written, I think we’ll have a much more productive conversation. That said, I think this particular thread has reached a dead end.

By: Jesse Ezell

Jesse Ezell — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:32:17 +0000

You simply don’t see that they can be truly and honestly fighting for both do you? It isn’t news to anyone that they are fighting for themselves. However, to suggest that they are too self absorbed to realize that the outcome of the case will effect the entire industry and that they are fighting for the industry at the same time is shortsighted and myopic. Most software companies realize the dangers of software patent litigation and are perfectly capable of making the jump and realizing that they are fighting for a higher cause.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:12:13 +0000

Sydney,

I’m not disagreeing with much of anything you just wrote. My point is that D2L shouldn’t get a free pass to posture as if its resistance was done on the behalf of others. That is my *sole* point. You are arguing other points that I didn’t address and don’t disagree with.

Yes, D2L is the underdog, the good guy, the entity everyone is cheering for. I get that. Let us not forget, in the process, that D2L is a for-profit company. Its manifest purpose is to make money. As such, I believe it shouldn’t be allowed to portray its motivations as selfless. Is that an unreasonable request?

By: Sydney

Sydney — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:41:58 +0000

Scott,

“If BB loses – we all win except D2L who must foot the legal bill; if BB wins, then we all lose (with D2L losing the most)”. Do you agree with this?

Win or lose, D2L will be praised for taking a stand and will most likely reap increased business as a result. However, I do not think that D2L initiated the patent lawsuit; BB began the lawsuit the day they were granted it without even negotiating with D2L.

D2L had two choices; D2L could agree with BB and start paying the royalties (read everyone including Open Source will then have to start paying BB royalties there goes Open Source) or D2L could resist the lawsuit. I believe BB with its 0.75 billion capitalization, predicted that the small privately owned D2L would capitulate. I don’t believe BB entertained any possibility of D2L not negotiating and paying the royalties because they certainly have themselves in a public relations mess now, which was bound to come if D2L resisted.

The real losers in this play will be the students. Millions of dollars, that should have gone to research and development and producing LMSs with better features, are now going into legal pockets. And for this shameful loss, I hold BB fully responsible. Anyone who does not face this fundamental is indeed spouting rhetoric.