Slashdot Mirror


US Patent Office To Re-Examine Blackboard Patent

Mr_5tein writes "Groklaw is reporting that the US Patent and Trademark Office has just ordered a re-examination of the e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc, thanks to a filing by the Software Freedom Law Center. SFLC's press release states, 'The Patent Office found that prior art cited in SFLC's request raises "a substantial new question of patentability" regarding all 44 claims of Blackboard's patent...' The SFLC explains that though such re-examinations may take a couple of years to complete, approximately '70% of re-examinations are successful in having a patent narrowed or completely revoked.'"

12 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. its nice, but... by gravesb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its good that there are agencies out there that look for bad patents and bring them to the gov't's attention, but it would be much better if the patent clerks did a better job screening the patents, or these challenges came during the comment period.

    --
    http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    1. Re:its nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If patent service worked as designed those patents shouldn't have been granted in a first place.

    2. Re:its nice, but... by inviolet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Right now, he patent clerk's job is to assess prior patents (easy) but not prior art (expensive).

      [...] it would be much better if the patent clerks did a better job screening the patents [...]

      That would require the patent clerks to be, or to hire, experts in the relevant field. That's possible but expensive. The cost of doing so is almost certainly higher than the cost of the current system: hire experts only when the patent gets challenged.

      Since very few patents ever do get challenged, we are probably all saving money with the USPTO the way it is.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  2. Who drives it and will they succeed? by chriss · · Score: 5, Informative

    I develop educational software myself, so I'm very pleased with this. Two points seem to be especially interesting:

    • Although Blackboard sued Desire2Learn, a commercial entity, for patent infringement, the reexamination is drive by three open source projects, supported by pro-bono Software Freedom Law Center. So a tendency of free software to fight patents directly.
    • According to TFA 70% of all reexaminations lead to narrowing or revoking the patent, but this is an average over all reexaminations. There has been a lot of prior art here, so I think the chances are even higher here.
    1. Re:Who drives it and will they succeed? by ajakk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reexaminations cause a change to be made in the claims in 70%. In only 12% are all of the claims cancelled. In the remaining cases, the applicant amends at least one of the claims. However, that really doesn't mean that much as most patents have 20-30 admitted claims. As a patent litigator, I find reexams mostly useless because the Patent Office cannot look at any art other than patents and printed publications. Also, in inter partes reexams (the most common type), the person requesting the reexam only has one shot to say anything. After the reexam starts, it is all between the PTO and the patent holder. During litigation, I can have my experts, my clients, and myself telling the court why the patent is invalid.

  3. "But its on the Internet" patents by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For years, the patent office was granting patents based upon adding the words "Internet based" to what was otherwise an unoriginal idea.

    Education? Not new.
    "But its on the Internet". Hey! That's new!

    There are still literally thousands of patents floating around that were based on this mindless logic, and it still happens today.
    Just last week, Microsoft patented a "digital means of recording one's life history". One might call it a diary -- or a time capsule,
    but no this was something new. Why? Because its ...wait for it.... "digital".

    Sigh.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:"But its on the Internet" patents by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A handwritten diary is also digital (unless the handwriting is really bad).

  4. Re:How much did *you* pay for this patent? by Marnhinn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Government is slow for many reasons - and in most cases that is a good thing given all the stupid and strange things people try to do each year (at least that I see).

    Realize that there is a tradeoff - if they make it fairly simple and quick to overturn patents, then the system will get bogged down with the same amount of spam through that pipe.

    The patent system was designed with the idea that it would protect the rights of the patent holder. In the beginning, it was decently hard to patent junk and things that had prior art (due to the fact that each application was reviewed by someone who hopefully had some knowledge in the area). Fast forward to today when there are millions of patents granted each year. There is no way the system can check and review each patent application before it grants the patent (as it should).

    Capitalism has little to do with it - the Patent office simply is getting overwhelmed by the numbers. It is more of a lack of qualified and trained staff to do the work (cause looking at patents all day is something that doesn't pay much and is fairly boring to most people).

    --
    There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
  5. USPTO a profit-center by golodh · · Score: 3, Informative
    Yes, you are completely right ... the USPTO is one of those rarest things ... a Government profit center. It's revenues come from the fees for the patents it awards. One granted patent = one billable fee.

    This might explain why the USPTO shows so little interest in making sure that the patents it awards are of high quality. For the USPTO it makes absolutely no economic sense to it spend more time on individual patents than the absolute minimum.

    After all, there is this appeal procedure right? So if people have objections to patents we issue they can use that. In the mean time, when you're paid by the item it makes absolutely no sense to spend too much time perfecting each item you make. And if people out there don't like a patent we issue, then they can pay us a fee for a review procedure.

    Simple economics really. That's what management is all about, right?

  6. Re:IMHO by Mr_5tein · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, several folks have commented that one should not be able to patent an educational process or method, implying that Blackboard has attempted to do so. They have not; instead, Blackboard has patented tools and features in it's online learning management software that they claim they invented--the problem is that these tools and features have existed in numerous forms in scores of other software packages on various platforms, and cited prior art demonstrates that these tools and features were even available on specifically education-oriented software prior to Blackboard's existence. Of the 44 Blackboard patent claims challenged, the SFLC's request includes Blackboards patents on user role/file access elements (e.g. use of a file dropbox for assignments, online testing, use of a hyperlink to access a list of course documents, use of a hyperlinks to access communication tools, the communication tools themselves such as chat and discussion forums, etc etc).

  7. Let's hope this is successful by theBeak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Having VERY intimate knowledge of Bb (no, NOT an employee), I can tell you for a fact they are the quintessential bullies: they may be the biggest kid on the block, but they're none too smart.

    They treat a good many customers as if Bb was the customer -- they are constantly issuing demands, determining their own timelines/deadlines. For example, they've been known to contact a school and say, "hey, we're taking your server down for maintenance/updates at such-and-such time, so be ready" instead of "when's a good time to do that?". They honestly feel these schools have no other choice as far as software, but a good many of their customers are waking up to the fact that Angel et al. are superior in most - if not all - aspects.

    My opinion is the folks at the top KNOW their software just doesn't stack up well against the competition and that's why they're such thugs and so vehement in this whole patent mess. They probably figure "well, if we prevail in this patent mess, we can just license it out to these other vendors, make a nice fat percentage off that, and not even bother producing our own software anymore."

    A good plan I guess. Make a piece off every distance learning program and lay off almost every staff member. That would make for a hell of an ROI.

    BTW, be warned: I'm following Bb's lead of patenting a concept by patenting: the wheel, the lever, gardening, internal combustion engines, electicity, underwear, English AND Spanish language, and supermodels. Definitely supermodels.

  8. Re:Blackboard patent? by dickens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm starting my fourth semester of blackboard classes, and while it sure is nice not to have to trek to a classroom miles away to go to night school, the software really is pathetic. I can only imagine what cool things could be done with it if there was a motivation to innovate.

    Oh, wait, that's why there is a patent system isn't it? This is going to be an object lesson in how much better the software (or its competitors) gets real quickly once stupid, overly-broad software patents get overturned.