Desire2Learn Fights eLearning Patent

Nordelius writes "Desire2Learn has responded to the patent infringement claim (PDF) cited by Blackboard Inc. regarding eLearning systems. They have argued that Blackboard was negligent in not submitting details of prior art with their patent application, and further alleged that the material described by the patent was documented in 1998 (PDF) by a collaborative international organization, IMSprogram.org, which was actually working with Blackboard at the time."

Comments

Question: any liability?

[Baavgai]

Other than having the patent revoked, what is the real penalty to filing a blatantly invalid one?

It would seem that there is no incentive not to file for every idea imaginable, if the repercussions are non existent or minimal.

Re:Question: any liability?

[Qzukk]

Disclaimer: Long ago I used to work for Bb. I own Bb stock. I'm rather unhappy with this litigation. :(

Well then, withdraw your proxy's voting rights, attend the next stockholders' meeting, and voice your concerns.

More than "must get money at all costs" corporations are beholden to follow their stockholders' wishes. If (in the general scheme of things) stockholders start to express concern that their company is wasting its money patenting someone else's invention, or better yet, express concern that the company will be liable for the other side's costs for this stupid litigation, then perhaps corporations will stop doing this.

Of course your voice is only as large as your share, and no doubt the majority of the stock is actually held by other soulless corporations that must get money at all costs, so it probably will not do all that much. But at least it's a start.

Re:Patent the wheel

[RAMMS EIN]

``It is a sad thought, but the patent application process should make it difficult for so-called "patent hunters" (people who search for unpatented products in order that they might try to patent in order to receieve exclusive rights to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import an invention).''

Actually, that sort of behavior would indicate that the system is working. After all, people are inventing things to strike up the bounty that a patent offers them. That's exactly what the patent system aims to do.

``The process requires the "inventor" to provide a description of the product in enough detail to allow another individual skilled in the art to create the patented object...this is difficult to do for someone who isn't exceptionally skilled in the given area.''

That depends very much on the area. Some of the ideas that people have patented in the area of websites could have been invented by anyone who had ever used a website. Patents for methods for producing chemicals are often only obtained after years of experimenting.

``A patent, however, isn't necessarily a complete monopoly...yes, patents give the original inventor the right to keep others from making/selling/using the original invention, but others can still file "improvement" patents to better the original product, granting them the right to make/use/sell/blahblahblah the improved version of the product.''

Yes, you're right, and this seems to work very well in the chemical industry.

``Additionally patents on a product last either 20 years (for utility and plant patents), or 14 years (for design patents). Very rarely does an invention stay valid for this long, with no necessary improvements.''

But the flip side to that is that many inventions have become effectively useless by the time the patent expires.

Re:Good grief!

[lobut]

I was an intern at Desire2Learn and I know the whole dev, qa team and I still talk a few on msn. So I'm particularly outraged at this patent. It makes no sense and the claims that they make that they're just looking for getting some payment for what they've pioneered is just a flat-out lie. Btw Blackboard software is s*** in comparison anyways.