Stephen has a press statement [.doc] from iParadigms, as does Al Essa. There are definitely (at least) two sides to this story, but I do want to highlight one bullet point from the statement:
Our letters asked Blackboard to educate us regarding whether a new technology Blackboard acquired was related to our patent so that we could see if it was appropriate to establish an additional business relationship with Blackboard.
It’s hard to read “establish an additional business relationship” in this context as meaning anything other than Blackboard paying patent royalties to iParadigm. Generally, when you get a letter from a lawyer saying that your products may infringe on patents owned by the lawyer’s client, you’re not going to interpret that letter as the opening for a cheerful talk regarding how you all can do more business together.
I think it’s important to be clear about the nature of iParadigm’s letter when evaluating the appropriateness of Blackboard’s response to it.
Michael Feldstein is the founder of e-Literate who currently works as the Senior Program Manager for MindTap at Cengage Learning. For more information, see his profile page.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Blackboard v iParadigms Is Over As has already been reported in several other fora, Blackboard...
- Sorting Out the Issues in Blackboard v iParadigms The latest news is that Blackboard has stated that the...
- Has Blackboard Filed Another Patent Suit? It certainly looks that way. As usual, immagic has what...
- The Economic Impact of the Blackboard Patent Suit One of the topics that I’ve been meaning to get...
- The Cost of the Blackboard Patent Suit (and Who Pays It) An e-Literate reader comments on my post about Blackboard owing Desire2Learn...
