[dbr]

I know it isn't going to be popular to say that Blackboard is not a bad company for getting these patents and suing others for infringement. The truth is, the patent system is what mandates Blackboard's behavior. If Blackboard didn't get the overbearing patent when they could, another company would, and Blackboard would be the ones being sued for infringement right now. So blame the patent system and lobby to change it instead of getting mad at Blackboard.

By the way, my school is switching from Blackboard to ANGEL (open source) to save money.

[paulgb]

Not a bad company for owning the patents? Agreed. Not a bad company for litigating on them? No. No one, not even a bad system, forced them to litigate. Just because a what a company does is legal doesn't mean it shouldn't cost them in public image.

I do agree with your main point, which is that the patent system needs to be changed. But startups like Desire2Learn are too busy to spend time fighting the US Patent system, especially when (like D2L) they aren't even based in the US.

[dbr]

They are a publicly traded company and litigating the issue makes business sense for them. For Blackboard to not sue their competitors for infringing on patents they own would not be against stockholder interest.

[paulgb]

That is true. But it doesn't mean we should grant publicly traded companies immunity. The threat of bad press can be enough to make "doing the right thing" the better business decision.

If public perception is aligned with what is ethically right, it is better business for companies to be ethical. Although ethics is subjective, to me what Blackboard, Inc. is doing is unethical. Since it seems the majority here (and around the web, including current and potential customers) feel the same way, maybe litigating doesn't make so much business sense after all.

[dbr]

I think that must factor into their decision. Unfortunately, public opinion probably won't have much of a sway on their decision. Or rather, the public won't have an opinion. I could be wrong, but I imagine most of the money they make comes from a relatively small amount of customers buying for big school districts and universities, who certainly have other metrics than whether or not the company enforces patents it owns. In this case it seems they are doing what is best for shareholders, which is to hold and enforce the patents they own (regardless of if they really should have these patents or not, they were awarded them). It comes down to if the long-term decision to oust competitors pays off more than the short-term decision to lose some amount of paying customers.

A sad fact is that the average Joe doesn't really care enough to be aware of these patent issues.

*I added one to many 'not' in my last comment.

[paulgb]

That's a good point. Blackboard is probably not going to change their decision from public opinion. I think where we differ is that I still think that public outrage is justified, if only to set an example for other companies (to whom public opinion is more valuable).

By the way, I hate to see you being downmodded just for having a contrary opinion, so I've upvoted your comments where I hadn't already. Hopefully some others who value discussion over groupthink will do the same.