decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Patent Office Orders Re-Examination of Blackboard Patent
Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 08:20 PM EST

The US Patent and Trademark Office today ordered re-examination of the e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc. Once again, we have the Software Freedom Law Center to thank for filing the request. Their press release tells us this:
The Patent Office found that prior art cited in SFLC's request raises "a substantial new question of patentability" regarding all 44 claims of Blackboard's patent....

A re-examination of this type usually takes one or two years to complete. Roughly 70% of re-examinations are successful in having a patent narrowed or completely revoked.

All 44 claims. Here's the press release.

**************************

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Patent Office Orders Re-Examination of Blackboard Patent

NEW YORK, January 25, 2007 -- In response to a formal request filed by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today ordered re-examination of the e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc.

SFLC, provider of pro-bono legal services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software, had filed the request in November on behalf of Sakai, Moodle, and ATutor, three open source educational software projects. The Patent Office found that prior art cited in SFLC's request raises "a substantial new question of patentability" regarding all 44 claims of Blackboard's patent.

The patent in question, "Internet-based education support system and methods" (U.S. 6988138), grants Blackboard a monopoly on most educational software that differentiates between the roles of teacher and student until the year 2022. In July, Blackboard filed a lawsuit against Desire2Learn, a competing educational software maker, alleging infringement of its e-learning patent.

Although Desire2Learn's software is not open source, the open source and educational software communities responded with concern to the possibility of an additional lawsuit that targets them.

"We filed this re-examination request to help free software developers create and distribute their original software without having to fear being sued over this patent, a patent that should never have been awarded in the first place," said Richard Fontana, the SFLC attorney who filed the re-examination request. "We are now a step closer to keeping everyone safe from this patent."

A re-examination of this type usually takes one or two years to complete. Roughly 70% of re-examinations are successful in having a patent narrowed or completely revoked.

Shortly after SFLC filed its request for re-examination, Desire2Learn filed its own separate re-examination request. The USPTO has not yet acted on that request.

About the Software Freedom Law Center

The Software Freedom Law Center -- chaired by Eben Moglen, one of the world's leading experts on intellectual property law as applied to software -- provides legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software. The Law Center is dedicated to assisting non-profit open source developers and projects. For criteria on eligibility and to apply for assistance, please contact the Law Center directly or visit the Web at http://www.softwarefreedom.org.


  


Patent Office Orders Re-Examination of Blackboard Patent | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Well, it's a start... (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 08:32 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ALL 44 CLAIMS?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 08:36 PM EST
The examiner should be fired for gross incompetence. NO kidding. GROSS
INCOMPETENCE.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 08:50 PM EST
Please make any links clickable.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Norway declares itunes DRM illegal
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 08:53 PM EST

http://tinyurl.com/3bb7pn

(Fina ncial Times Article)

"... Norway’s powerful consumer ombudsman ruled that its iTunes online music store was illegal because it did not allow downloaded songs to be played on rival technology companies’ devices."

...

"The ombudsman has set a deadline of October 1 for the Apple to make its codes available to other technology companies so that it abides by Norwegian law. If it fails to do so, it will be taken to court, fined and eventually closed down."

(Sorry about the OT in the wrong place. No OT started yet, and I didn't want to start it as an anonymous

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent Office Orders Re-Examination of Blackboard Patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 09:29 PM EST
Roughly 70% of re-examinations are successful in having a patent narrowed or completely revoked.

This right here demonstrates quite well that the patent system is fundamentally flawed, and needs a serious re-work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's About Time!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 09:59 PM EST
As a daily user of BlackBoard who teaches programming techniques, I fail to see
anything at all that can remotely be considered as patentable in BB.

You can upload files and messages to a central server! That surely deserves a
patent! And even email to a distribution list! Big deal!

The sooner the patent is revoked, the sooner we can get a *functional* academic
solution. People who have not used this system have no idea what a
user-unfriendly kludge the whole system is.

If there's ever an argument about why software should not be patented, BB is the
poster-boy of user-unfriendly recycled bad programming. Gee! They can put stuff
up on a screen! Surely that deserves a patent!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strange bedfellows
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 10:06 PM EST
Desire2learn didn't ask for help. Help was thrust upon them because it was felt
that they didn't have the resources to properly defend themselves. Their noses
are slightly out of joint. Blackboard's nose is probably out of joint too.

Sidebar story: 'John Hancock should have read the constitution' ... I thought he
wrote it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The PTO has been broken for a long time
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 25 2007 @ 10:58 PM EST
I first realized it when I saw a display in a large US Post Office of some old
patents--a "quaint old technology" exhibit. One was a patent on
molding chocolate candy in the shape of animals. The date was ~1910 as I recall.
Not only was a patent on this "invention" granted, it was upheld in
court against competitors who copied the idea and made chocolates as
differently-shaped animals.

It's not just software and business methods that have flaws: US businesses and
the PTO have been playing this silly, greedy game for a long, long time. The
recent problems are simply a result of scaling up the same old circus act.

I don't know, maybe the triviality is just my perception, colored by the
availability of chocolate in any shape you can imagine. But people have been
shaping stuff like animals ever since there were people, as far as I know. It
doesn't seem like a real un-obvious concept.

I say there should be a indefinite moratorium on awarding any patents until some
genius invents the obviousness detector.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: gopherbyrd on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 01:54 AM EST
If you find anything, point it out to help PJ get it corrected.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Obviousness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 08:29 AM EST
Is when you smack yourself on the forehead and say; "Why didn't I think of
that?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Obviousness - Authored by: sgtrock on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 08:50 AM EST
  • Obviousness - Authored by: tinkerghost on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 09:22 AM EST
  • Obviousness - Authored by: Winter on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 09:34 AM EST
    • Obviousness - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 10:01 AM EST
    • History of paperclips - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 10:07 AM EST
  • Obviousness - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 10:37 AM EST
  • Obviousness - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 10:47 AM EST
    • Obviousness - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 11:38 AM EST
  • Obviousness - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 12:25 PM EST
  • Obviousness - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 01:00 PM EST
  • Obviousness Test - Authored by: Wardo on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 02:55 PM EST
The History of Invention & Patents.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 02:31 PM EST
This book has an interesting take on technology, Including patents. It uses
cases from history about who was credited with an invention and in some cases
has some interesting perspectives.

Anyhow the book is...

The Evolution of Technology, by George Basalla, Cambridge University Press, 1988
Isbn: 978-0521296816

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent link
Authored by: Wardo on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 03:04 PM EST
For your convenience, go here and search for patent number 6988138. I couldn't get the URL to work from the result, but you're a step closer to the patent...

Wardo

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Patent link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 07:11 PM EST
    • Patent link - Authored by: Wardo on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 07:52 PM EST
      • Patent link - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 27 2007 @ 11:37 AM EST
        • Patent link - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, January 27 2007 @ 11:41 AM EST
Resonsible Patent Examiners
Authored by: zr on Friday, January 26 2007 @ 05:58 PM EST
If a patent is found invalid, it would make sense to place any other patents issued by the responsible examiner on hold until these too can be investigated for validity.

Of course expecting good sense and the patent system to ever go together has little historical precedent.

---
Don't follow leaders, watch the parkin' meters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )