This past week the Blackboard patent trial began. I've been following the blogs and news coverage hoping to hear some positive signs that the ridiculousness of the whole thing had been exposed. No such luck from any of the accounts I've read as of yet. I am hopeful for next week though. Any reasonable person is sure to see the absurdity of Blackboard's claim right? I sure hope there's a few reasonable people in Lufkin, TX where Blackboard filed suit.

For anyone reading this that's not familiar with the case there are plenty of summaries out there. Alfred Essa's blog from yesterday is my new favorite. I love his comparison of Blackboard's approach to that of the conquistadors:

Old-style conquistadors used to lay claim to land on behalf of the monarch by looking yonder and chanting some such phrase: "We claim this land in the name of God and our Savior by killing everyone who already lives here. By this land we mean all the land as far as the eye can behold and way beyond also for good measure." These days modern-day conquistadors lay claim to "intellectual property" by going to the Patent Office and chanting the modern version of the mantra: "We claim this intellectual property in the name of Innovation and our Shareholders by killing anyone who dares use that Idea for the next twenty years." In order to qualify as a patent the idea, at least in theory, must be "non obvious" to a skilled practitioner and there must be no "prior art" (i.e. there is no record of someone else beating you to that idea).

With all the existing prior art and the sheer obviousness of Blackboard's claim, it's baffling how it could have been approved in the first place. It's incomprehensible that it could have made it this far and wasted so much of the education community's time and money fighting.

Alfred also does a nice job of articulating the essence of Blackboard's claim (the part that hasn't already been thrown out) in straightforward terms that make the obviousness and sheer ridiculousness of the claim clear. I worry that, as he points out, the claims are dressed up in so much unrecognizable legalese that they might actually succeed in confusing even reasonable people. It is good to know that there are two other endeavors to destroy Blackboard's patent. The USPTO has approved two independent requests to re-examine the patent. Odds are that between these two re-exams the patent will be invalidated. The only question is how much damage Blackboard will do before it's gone.

I do wonder why Blackboard's customers (educators with high ethical and moral standards) continue supporting a company who's actions are so "ethically challenged." I empathise with their clients who are locked-in and hope that projects like Sakai and Moodle provide an escape route. This absurd patent is costing the education community millions of dollars and has only one objective: To further conquer and lock colleges, universities, and primary/secondary schools into Blackboard's monopoly. Leaders in education should tell them clearly, in the only language Bb understand$, that this behavior isn't acceptable. I hope the court sends the same message by finding in favor of D2L.