Search News


Browse Archives

News

Blackboard: Bully or Misunderstood?

August 18, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Al Gore has yet to live down reports that he claimed to have invented the Internet. Now Blackboard is facing criticism from those who say the giant of the course management industry claims to have invented chat rooms. (If you are wondering, Blackboard says it never made such a claim.)

On Thursday, leading advocates for open source systems of course management announced that they were linking up with the Software Freedom Law Center to try to prepare legal and other defenses for attacks they fear will be coming from Blackboard.

"The recent announcement by Blackboard that it is attempting to assert patent rights over simple and longstanding online technologies as applied to the area of course management systems and e-learning technologies, and its subsequent litigation against a smaller commercial competitor constitutes a threat to the effective and open development of software for higher education and the values underlying such open activities," said the announcement from the Sakai Foundation, which helps dozens of colleges and universities run open source course management systems.

Blackboard's general counsel, Matthew Small, said in an interview Thursday that he was glad that the Sakai Foundation was getting legal advice because it might find out that Blackboard was in no way threatening the open source movement. "There's a lot of misinformation out there," Small said. "There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what [the patent] represents and what it doesn't represent."

In the interview, Small said repeatedly that Blackboard has no plans to challenge open source projects on patent issues, and he said that such challenges "wouldn't make good business sense" for the company. At the same time, Small declined to directly answer whether Blackboard believes that open source projects are infringing on the company's patent rights. "No patent holder is under obligation to go out and find infringement wherever it may be," he said. "We are not focusing on the open source community or the education community."

The patent rights that open source advocates fear Blackboard will use against them were awarded to the company by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in January, after years of review. This month Blackboard sued Desire2Learn, a Canadian-based competitor, asking for royalties on technologies covered by the patent (and that Desire2Learn says are not covered). Blackboard -- especially since its merger with WebCT -- is by far the dominant player in the course management market, and many experts have predicted that open source would prove more of a competitor to the company than would other corporations. At the same time, Blackboard officials have repeatedly said that they want to work with open source programs, and many colleges mix Blackboard and open source services.

Since the suit against Desire2Learn, blogs dealing with course management systems -- many of which are advocates for or sympathetic to open source -- have been harshly critical of Blackboard, suggesting it was overstepping its rights. Some bloggers in this community, not known to be particularly fond of software companies, are going so far as to declare Desire2Learn "a hero" to educators who work with open source. By refusing to settle with Blackboard and pay a royalty, they argue, the company is taking a stand for the idea that some key technologies in education shouldn't be patented.

In a related effort, open source advocates are building on Wikipedia a chronology of the development of online learning tools, designed to show the developments in which Blackboard did not have a hand.

Charles Severance, executive director of the Sakai Foundation, said that the suit against Desire2Learn was a clear signal of Blackboard's intentions -- and not just to Desire2Learn. Severance said that many companies seek patents for "defensive reasons" -- to prevent themselves from being sued. Blackboard's suit against Desire2Learn, he said, was "offensive." Further, he noted that Blackboard is seeking other patents and that open source advocates need to fight this battle now, before the company gains the rights to control more technology.

Blackboard's Small, however, said that much of the online anger is based on a misreading of Blackboard's patent. The patent has 44 parts, he said, independent parts and dependent parts. The former are the central claims and the latter parts only are relevant when applied to the central claims. So a reference to chat rooms does not mean that Blackboard claims to have invented them or has a right to royalties on their use -- unless they are part of a larger system that makes use of Blackboard's patented technologies, Small said. Much of the criticism of Blackboard is based on reading the dependent patent clauses as if they were independent.

"In reality, the patent covers only specific functionality that was invented by Blackboard," he said.

"This is not a patent on e-learning," Small said. "We are not bullying anyone. We are not looking to put anyone out of business. We are looking to obtain a reasonable royalty for use of our intellectual property."

Small also noted that protecting patent rights is hardly a novel idea for academe, and that among the entities that regularly sue or threaten to sue over royalties are colleges and universities.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Blackboard: Bully or Misunderstood?

  • Posted by Matt Desailly on August 5, 2007 at 6:55pm EDT
  • I agree with Jack, this is all about the big and powerful trying to push out the little one. This is happening all around the world and somebody should put a stop to it. Blackboard has really gone too far this time.

  • Will there be competition?
  • Posted by L.L. on August 18, 2006 at 6:55am EDT
  • Yes. Because what BB does isn't rocket science. For example (and, anyone else, post other URLs):

    http://www.lon-capa.org/

    Less functional:

    http://groups.yahoo.com

    http://groups.google.com/

    I hope the owners of BB aren't vain enough to believe they can pull off another Windows. The public is a heck of lot smarter than that.

  • A day late and a dollar short
  • Posted by Michael Feldstein on August 18, 2006 at 7:55am EDT
  • It is a shame that Inside Higher Ed, which has been lagged badly behind its peers in covering this story, also did such a poor job of gathering facts. It is also a shame that the only person interviewed for your article was Blackboard's General Counsel. That's not exactly balanced reporting. Had you interviewed any of the many people (including but certainly not limited to Open Source-advocating bloggers), you might have discovered that Mr. Small's assertions about the scope and implications of Blackboard's patents are open to challenge, to say the least. For example, had you spoken with a unversity CFO, you might have heard that there is now justifiable concern among universities that adopting any non-Blackboard platform--whether Open Source or proprietary--could expose the institution to legal liability. Mr. Small is well aware of the impact that this threat could have on all of Blackboard's competitors, regardless of whether the company chooses to litigate against them.

    Your article also could have benefited from reading the blogs you reference a little more carefully. For example, when you implicitly paraphrase me by linking to my blog, you note that "some bloggers" who are "not known to be particularly fond of software companies" have hailed D2L being a hero "to educators who work with Open Source." To begin with, I wrote no such thing. I argued that D2L is a hero to anyone who supports platform choice. If your university uses ANGEL--a proprietary platform--you have just as much reason to fear Blackboard's anti-competitive litigation of a weak patent as users of Open Source platforms do. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Open Source, other than the fact that some Open Source projects are threatened by it. Even the most staunch defenders of intellectual property acknowledge shortcomings with the current U.S. patent system that have lead to specious and anti-competitive litigation that harms consumers.

    Furthermore, given that I used to be a software vendor myself, I find it amusing to be characterised as somebody who is not fond of software vendors. Although I have been known to question specific business practices of specific vendors in my industry, I would simply call that good consumerism.

    While I am disappointed in this particular article, I hold out hope that you will raise the quality of your coverage on this issue to the same high level as that of the rest of your publication or, alternatively, to that of your competitors. (After all, I wouldn't want you to think that I'm not fond of journalists.) If you want a blogger's perspective, feel free to call me or any of my colleagues. You apparently know where to find us.

  • Open Source and Blackboard
  • Posted by Sharon Hamilton , Associate Vice Chancellor at IUPUI on August 18, 2006 at 9:15am EDT
  • Yes, of course there will be competition, and rightly so. Blackboard offers not only course management and eportfolio software, but also a complete support system for colleges who choose their product. Colleges pay for both the expense of developing the software and for the ongoing support. Open source provides access to the software that is collaboratively developed within the consortium of colleges and universities that are part of the Open Source Initiative and, originally, with a 2.2 million dollar grant from Carnegie-Mellon. Users do not have to pay for the sofware -- hence "open source" -- but they do need to provide their own support on campus. They can also choose to use R-Smart, a fee-based consulting firm that provides start-up support for colleges chooinsg open source. So, Blackboard and Open Source provide two distinct options for universities and colleges. The competition comes in providing the best software program for the particular needs of the users.

  • Posted by CJ on August 18, 2006 at 9:15am EDT
  • While I don't see the bias that some other commenters see (it looks to me as though IHE interviewed Sakai's Executive Director as well as the BB counsel), I do think this article could have been improved by an interview with an independent intellectual property attorney or two. Blackboard may not be required to go out and search high and low for infringement, but they are required to protect their patents against any obvious infringement. Both Sakai and Moodle (two OSS learning management systems) have large and growing market shares, and both contain core features (as does every LMS since the dawn of time) that are claimed as 'original' by Blackboard; from what I can determine, Blackboard will be obligated to go after them at some point, if it wants to maintain its claims. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Similarly, while some of the 44 patent claims may be dependent on others and thus secondary, the reporter makes no effort to discuss the validity of even the core claims, accepting instead BB's straw-man argument about chat rooms as somehow exemplary of the entire patent, which it most certainly is not. Moreover, the brief mention of prior art fails to adequately capture the level of astonishment and even outrage in the higher education community that this patent was ever granted, given the remarkable lack of anything even remotely unique or novel about the core aspects of Blackboard's products (or, indeed, any of the competitive products in this area).

    Finally, to ignore or downplay the pall that claims like this cast over vibrant, competitive software markets is to ignore the evidentiary record from the past 25 years of software litigation.

    Fortunately, institutions that wish to assist higher education in preserving healthy competition in this vital software market have a relatively easy choice. Current customers can inform Blackboard that their contract will not be renewed, and institutions currently considering system purchases can inform Blackboard that the company will no longer be welcome in any RFP/RFQ processes, until and unless it assigns all patent rights, gratis, to the academic community. Faculty and students who do not have direct control over such decisions can lobby their institution's Provosts and IT operations to take a strong stand against this predatory assault.

    Patent assignment will not only protect the community against future predatory behavior by Blackboard, but also will help to protect the community against the next wave of venture-capital-fueled predators that want to find a clever way to ram a meritless application through the US Patent Office. (Ironically, the very fact that the patent is so hyperexpansive will provide even more protection if the rights are held by the community rather than by a predator.)

    At least for the moment, the market for learning management systems is open and competitive enough that every institution no longer wishing to do business with a predator has, not just one, but several good alternatives close at hand.

    I suggest that everyone currently involved with Blackboard consult their own long-term, strategic interest, and act to preserve the competitive market in learning management systems before Blackboard's actions create one more monopolistic software market in higher education, diverting still more money away from teaching, learning, and research, to absolutely no social benefit.

  • Bully is an understatement
  • Posted by MDG , Director of Graduate Studies at Kentucky State University on August 18, 2006 at 9:15am EDT
  • I once heard the then president of Blackboard (about six years ago) say that they wanted to be just like Microsoft. Now we are in 7.01010101 (or whatever is the latest) and, yes, BB is just like Microsoft. Like Windows, it is unfriendly to any non-MS browser, runs like a FORD built in the eighties (a former bully unconcerned customer needs), and replete with programming sloppier than most freeware.

    However, administrators who have never had to use it run like lemmings to pay a fortune for just the basic. Just like the millions who abandoned perfectly good programs, like Netscape and WordPerfect, we should all beware the fact that just on the other side of the band wagon is a very steep cliff.

    By the way, in thirty plus online courses, I have never used chat (can't type fast enough).

  • Blackboard Patent
  • Posted by Stephen Downes , Researcher at National Research Council Canada on August 18, 2006 at 9:50am EDT
  • I echo the remarks above by Michael Feldstein. This article demonstrates poor research (surprising since this story is now three weeks old) and a misrepresentation of the opposition to the Blackboard patent. It is indeed unfortunate that the only source consulted was a Blackboard representative, since (as numerous others have pointed out) what Blackboard is saying contradicts its actions, and demonstrably so.

    From the patent itself, readers can see for themselves that Blackboard is claiming to have patented "A course-based system for providing to an educational community of users access to a plurality of online courses... a server computer in communication with each of the user computers over a network, the server computer comprising: means for storing a plurality of data files associated with a course, means for assigning a level of access to and control of each data file based on a user of the system's predetermined role in a course; means for determining whether access to a data file associated with the course is authorized; means for allowing access to and control of the data file associated with the course if authorization is granted based on the access level of the user of the system." Link to the patent from http://www.blackboard.com/company/patentFAQ.htm

    In other words, Blackboard has patented course management systems. Their CEO can say whatever he wants, but what Blackboard has actually done is written in black and white on the patent.

    The reason open source and other advocates (opposition is by no means limited to open source proponents) oppose the patent is not because of what Blackboard might do but because Blackboard's claims are false. Blackboard did not invent the course management system, no matter what the U.S. patent office says. Numerous people, including myself, contributed to the development of course management systems before Blackboard came into existence as a company. To allow the patent to stand is to allow a company to claim an invention as its own, no matter who invented it.

    But, as has been argued, this article takes none of these, and myriad other considerations, into account. It resembles a slapdash job done at the last minute. It is sloppy journalism at best, and malicious at worst.

    Readers wanting to see for themselves what has been said about the patent, instead of depending on the misrepresentations in this article, can find complete coverage at
    http://www.downes.ca/blackboard_patent.htm

    -- Stephen

  • Chat
  • Posted by Stephen Downes , Researcher at National Research Council Canada on August 18, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • P.S. though Blackboard does not claim to have invented chat (and I might add that I haven't seen anyone who actually says this) it *does* claim to have invented "linking to chat".

    Seriously. From the statement of claim:

    "The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the communications hyperlink provides a web page comprising hyperlinks to a group of communication tools comprising an asynchronous communication tool and a synchronous communication tool. "

    and moreover:

    "44. The method of claim 36 further comprising the step of providing a synchronous communication tool accessible to student users enrolled in the course for enabling synchronous communication amongst the student users."

    (For those who don't know, 'chat' is a type of 'synchronous communication'.)

    As Blackboard states in its "detailed description of preferred embodiments," "An example of a tool engine 115 is the chat/whiteboard communication tools (synchronous and/or asynchronous) provided by education support system 100 that allows for student group interaction and collaboration associated with a given course."

    Now you can read the statements by Blackboard executives who say, misleadingly, that they do not claim to have invented chat. However, should you attempt to link to chat in your LMS without Blackboard's permission they can send the lawyers after you.

    In the same vein, when Blackboard says "Blackboard has no plans to challenge open source projects on patent issues" it leaves open the question of whether it might go after users, or developers, or commercial companies providing open source solutions, or any number of things that do not technically fall under the heading of "open source products".

  • Bb misunderstood
  • Posted by Paul Jacobelli , President at EdTek Services, Inc. on August 18, 2006 at 11:30am EDT
  • The following is only my personal opinion and may, no doubt, contain factual and chronological errors. I apologise for this in advance - after I turned 40 many memories started to get fuzzy....

    If we look at the short history of Bb in the eLearning software market one can discern a pattern. Very early in the history of the company they purchased a rival in order to acquire the technology and put together some critical mass. Years later they purchased Prometheus and, despite assertations to the contrary at the time, they closed it down. Everyone knew at the time that this was inevitable as it would have been ruinous for Bb, so early in its life cycle, to support two platforms.

    Several years later they buy WebCT. My inner voice tells me that much of that fine company will go the way of the dodo-bird. While they may preserve key personnel and key technology pieces it really is not smart business practice to support two very different platforms.

    There were strong rumors, though unsubstantiated, that Bb put the call in to D2L a while back with an offer to buy the company. D2L declined the offer.

    It does not take much web searching to understand that D2L has been a major thorn in the side of Bb for the last several years and that Bb needed to take some action to address this. So what to do if you cannot buy your competitor. A review of the basic competitive intelligence literature would present you with several options. Litigation is one of them and herre is why....

    One of our colleagues rightly points out in the above comments that educators do not like risk and uncertainty when it comes to mission critical systems for the school. What this legal suit has done is to cast a pall of uncertainty over D2L and added a not insignificant risk factor to any decision to utilize that company's products. The risk of litigation and any legal judgment and subsequent financial award is one thing CIOs want to avoid like the plague. As long as this uncertainty exists this will give Bb a behind-the-scenes competitive advantage.

    The cost that D2L will incur to defend themselves will no doubt add to the cost of doing business - possibly resulting in incremental cost increases. This also gives Bb a potential competitive advantage.

    The funds D2L spends defending the company will not be available to invest into new technology enhancements and enhanced customer service. This gives Bb further competitive advantage.

    The risk of litigation adds a premium to the cost D2L will have to pay if it seeks to raise capital in the open market. Again, a competitive advantage.

    If the patents stand then D2L may find itself forced to pay royalties - adding to the cost of the product. If you don't beleive it just take a look at what happened to Blackberry.

    I know I do not understand all that is going on here but I do believe that the people at Bb are much too smart to not have known what they were doing and the effect this would have on the market. My guess is they have done their risk assessment and came to the conclusion that they will come out on top once all the dust settles.

  • disclaimer on BB site.
  • Posted by dave cormier at Worldbridges on August 18, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT
  • As for their current unwillingness to sue Moodle and Sakai, in addition to what someone above mentioned about the 'implicit threat' of litigation that will affect CFO decisions i would also point to this quote

    "These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the Company's views as of any date subsequent to July 26, 2006." http://blackboard.com/company/press/release.aspx?id=887622

    on the blackboard page describing the patent. To true, today they are not going to sue Open Source... but tomorrow?

    But as Mr. Downes says, it is neither here nor there, they did not invent the CMS. full stop.

  • the anti-competitive pall
  • Posted by Peter Campbell on August 18, 2006 at 1:25pm EDT
  • I want to echo the criticism of this article and the way which it caricatures opppostion to the Bb patent. A more serious examination of Bb's claims is certainly in order on the part of IHE.

    I also want to lend support to the argument that this patent -- whether it ultimately succeeds or not -- drains precious resources away from D2L. But more importantly, the FUD -- fear, uncertainty, and doubt -- that this lawsuit creates will most certainly cause CIO's to reconsider their options.

    To wit: what CIO in his/her right mind is going to bet on the future of any of Bb's competitors right now? Or, to put it another way, if your CIO walked up to you tomorrow and said, "Guess what gang? We're dropping Bb and going with D2L." How would you react? Sure, D2L *might* make it. They might. But they might not. But is that a risk that your institution is willing to take? And compared to Bb, who has the greater likelihood of survival?

    I doubt rather seriously that D2L will acquire any new business while the Bb lawsuit is hanging over their heads. The question for D2L is, can they make it without acquiring any new business? If I were Bb, I'd draw out the lawsuit as long as possible and keep the cloud of doubt hanging over the competition. The most urgent question for D2L is, can they maintain existing business with the lawsuit going on? While no CIO in his/her right mind will jump ship from Bb to D2L, it's very feasible to see CIO's jumping ship from D2L to Bb. After all, if you are betting on D2L making it and it looks like they might not, you'd be irresponsible as a CIO not to do something proactive.

    Hey - I'm a practical guy. I like options. When I do business with a company -- a bank, a phone company, an ISP, whatever -- I like to know that my business means something. The reason it means something is because I always have the option to take my business elsewhere. I'm not attacking Bb or saying they are "bad" or "evil." All I'm saying is: please keep my options open. Compete fairly with the competition and let the best company with the best products and services win. Because although you might be very happy with how things are going with Bb now, there is no guarantee whatsoever that things will always be this way. But if you decide you want to take your business elsewhere and there are no other businesses left, you are stuck. Big time.

  • Open Source Services
  • Posted by Stuart Sim at Sun Microsystems on August 18, 2006 at 3:05pm EDT
  • I don't think BB going after the Moodle or Sakai foundations is ever going to be an issue. They don't represent revenue competition but the service suppliers is a whole different issue.
    May of our partners offer support services for Open Source LMS and CMS solutions and it will be a brave CIO that signs a services support contract with a company that might or might not infinge on the BB patent.
    I agree with Stephens comments entirely but as always - follow the money. The communities themselves don't affect the BB revenue stream but a competing support contact does.

  • A Wee Bit of Clarification
  • Posted by Charles Severance , Executive Director at Sakai Foundation on August 18, 2006 at 5:30pm EDT
  • The nice thing about online articles is that you can "clarify" what you are "quoted" as "saying". Probably the only part of my "quote" that misrepresents the situation that this is a "battle" and one to be "fought now". The issue is that there are more patents coming from Blackboard and others and we should not simply look at this one single patent from a single source. What we do need to do starting immediately is prepare ourselves for dealing with patent issues in the LMS/CMS market for "a while". Hence the need "get started" and to engage competent legal advisors to help with patent issues so that we open source folks can get back to building innovative technology for teachers, learners, and collaborators.

  • Shot across the bow
  • Posted by Japanned , Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan on August 18, 2006 at 10:05pm EDT
  • There's no downplaying the huge repercussions of this issue, since commodification and privatization have increasingly been encroaching upon the academic way of life. Now what should be a mere brand copyright is mistakenly granted a patent. Suing a competitor in another country, ironically where much of the real innovations in LMSs occurred, sends a shot across the bow of everyone involved in educational technology who cares to notice.

    Among the implications of patenting generic technologies, innumerable systems include a number of those elements. For example, ETS's Criterion online essay-checking software has a number of functions familiar to LMS users, and they have very deep pockets (always the idealist giving away free advice). But I wonder if Michael Feldstein is reconsidering the optimistic conclusions of his e-Literate series on iTunesU, since Apple has partnered with Blackboard on it?

  • chat and other features
  • Posted by Murray Turoff , Professor at institution on August 20, 2006 at 8:15pm EDT
  • The EMISARI system at the office of emergency preparedness in the US government in 1972 had a version of chat called "partyline" written up in an early ICCC meeting (the first or seccond meeting).

    The EIES system at NJIT designed in 1975 had a complete Virtual Classroom build as a subsystem built in the late 80's and the term "virtual classroom" was trademarked by NJIT at that time. No one adheared to the trademark and NJIT did not persue it.
    Virtual classroom had a great many of hte features and functionality listed in the patent. So did a number of other systems built elsewhere and used for on line education.

    In the 80's the chronicle published an article in the 80s or early 90's on the njit virtual classroom system. Then the late 90's they published a note on us saying we had not write to trademark the term "virtual classroom" as they did not remember their own earlier article.

    This is a patent (blackboard) that never should have been granted if the patent office had done the job they are suppose to do. There is tremendous amount of published material and some related papers can be found on my website http://is.njit.edu/turoff having to do with the functionality that comprised the virtual classroom. Also some of the material appears in the 1978 book the Network nation by Roxanne hiltz and myself as to the basic functionality of Computer Meidated Communication Systems that are required as a foundation for online learning systems of any type. Some fo he current conference only systems used for online learning like WebBoard could also be assumed to violate the patent as it is written. It does seem to cover the functionality of all asynchronous Computer Mediated Communication systems most of which have some form of hypertext included or "linking."

  • Posted by Kelly Riley on August 22, 2006 at 1:51pm EDT
  • Actually because the patent officed didn't do their job as stated above, there is a new lawsuit filed against Blackboard by an individual claiming Bb misrepresented itself and it's product in the patent process. It claimed it had a unique product when in fact, as most of us know, it does and did not. Unfortunately, you can't find this info on the web just yet. I think that any business that has evidence of their work on this type of thing prior to the patent should also file against them.

  • Posted by Charles Iqbal on October 27, 2006 at 8:25am EDT
  • Perhaps there would also be merit into addressing a patent system that allows such claims to be made.

  • Posted by Henry on March 13, 2007 at 3:42pm EDT
  • Really that is a big mistake patent office has made. I agree that anybody that has worked on this type of thing before patent should file a lawsuit against Blackboard.

  • Posted by Tony on March 16, 2007 at 6:21pm EDT
  • Blackboard really made a big confusion about dependent and independent patent clauses. I don't think they are being misunderstood. They are clearly trying to claim some patents that they shouldn't really have any right to.

  • Blackboard: User support and functionality is a joke
  • Posted by Brian Kaufman , Professor at University of Maine at Farmington on March 17, 2007 at 7:46am EDT
  • Blackboard offers much potential for saving trees, saving class time for discussions rather than assessment, and interesting time-saving features like automatic grading of multiple choice exams, item analysis, timed test, and automatic gradebook entries.

    The downside is that the system wobbles and crashes, to the point that professors and IT support staff get overrun with anxious students. The functionality of the software is problematic in that menu choices offer endless options, without adequate explanations of what the consequences of those choices are. Some software just doesn't work, such that correct answers earn no points, answers are lost, and the test timers don't necessarily appear on students' computer screens.
    Faculty are encouraged to use technology to save money and time -- but there is little intuitive about the software, and the user manual, including its search feature, leaves very much to be desired.
    I'm trying very hard to 'like' what Blackboard can offer to augment and enhance my courses, but it is difficult to feel good about it when it is so quirky and unreliable.

  • Posted by Winston on March 26, 2007 at 9:36pm EDT
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should not have awarded patent rights to Blackboard. Blackboard is constantly making controversial moves. They are saying one thing and doing quite the opposite. In my opinion Blackboard will be threatening the open source movement very soon.

  • Posted by Jack Thompson on April 8, 2007 at 6:26pm EDT
  • I really dislike such giants as Blackboard that want to take credit for everything like they own the world. This is a classic example of power demonstration and everybody should stand up against them.

  • Posted by Frank Beara on April 13, 2007 at 4:51pm EDT
  • I think that the blame is on the patent office. Blackboard tries to muscle in, but they wouldn't have a chance without patent office cooperation.