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.
