I want to second the statement below by Michael Feldstein and supported by Stephen Downes.
Both Mr. Chasen (Blackboard CEO) and Mr. Small (Blackboard General Counsel) have stated publically (e.g. Chronicle) that our reading of the patent is incorrect. Please educate us then. Tell us what your patent covers and what it doesn't cover. If we are wrong, we will gladly retract our interpretations and admit the error of our ways.
And why did your company sue Desire2Learn as a first option? If your patent is as narrow as you claim, wouldn't it have made more sense to contact them first and explain how their product infringes your patent? Don't you owe an explanation to Desire2Learn customers and the hundreds of thousands of users who depend on the Desire2Learn system? How deep does D2L's patent infringement run? Don't you owe the same to everyone in the world who use or build learning tools? Why is it necessary to assert your patent rights in court as a first option?
The world deserves an explanation. We are waiting.
Michael Feldstein (excerpt from Blackboard CEO Responds on the Patent Issue):
"First of all, the fact that Mr. Chasen responded at all indicates that he is listening. It’s been less than two weeks since this story broke and we already have the attention of the CEO. I think that speaks well of Blackboard. But also, when Chasen says that he thinks the patent is narrow and confined to Blackboard’s legitimate inventions, I am willing to believe that he is sincere. Sincere, but not correct.
There are two issues. One is an issue of legality. If the patent is narrower than we have read it to be, then I invite Blackboard’s legal team to explain what they think it does actually cover and show us how the language of the patent supports that interpretation. (I believe that Stephen expressed a similar sentiment last night during the Skypecast.) By all means, educate us."
Recent Comments