[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.