February 18, 2008 1:06 AM
by Stephan Kinsella
|
Other posts by Stephan Kinsella
|
Comments (11)
A patent infringement trial is about to start where
Blackboard (a large educational company) is suing Canadian company
Desire2Learn for infringing Blackboard's
patent for "Internet-Based Education Support System and Methods".
Heroically, patent victim Desire2Learn is
blogging about the trial. And what's this patent about? As one piece
notes,
Blackboard claims to have originated the idea of a learning management system in which the same user (call him "Joe User") through a single account can have multiple roles. (See diagram below). Thus, Joe User can have the role of a teacher in one class (e.g. Physics 101) and simultaneously the role of a student in another class (e.g. English 343). Each role corresponds to a different permission set. In his role as a teacher in Physics 101, for example, he might have the permission or ability to create tests. But in his role as a student in English 343 he can only take tests, not create them. Millions of dollars have been spent on both sides over the "intellectual property" of this single Idea.
As they note,
"Now, the entire problem with this patent is that the idea is obvious. The idea of roles, including multiple roles, has been around for ever in computer science. And since most software engineers don't think about writing down obvious ideas (unless there are management types hovering over their shoulder and goading them on), let alone patenting them, there might not be a paper trail anywhere to establish prior art."
Ah, well, so what? Our courts of "justice" will figure it out, right? Or is this another example of monopoly capitalism at work? As one blog
notes,
Blackboard is a publicly traded company with a market cap of over a $1 Billion. Desire2Learn is a small but rapidly growing Canadian company with a relatively loyal customer base. By all accounts Blackboard's patent is a stupid one and never should have been issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The litigation cost (est. $4M - $8M) is a drop in the bucket for Blackboard. But it means a terrible bleed for Desire2Learn.
Comments (11)
I'm a software developer and have written several programs I've written that use roles. I sure as hell didn't get the idea from Blackboard.
Published: February 18, 2008 8:14 AM
As a another software developer, I second what James Foye says. Separation of actors and roles is a common design pattern.
Their patent seems to have been filed in June of 2000. A quick Google search can turn up instances of similar design patterns being used before the year 2000.
Reasonable people can disagree over the efficacy of IP in industries like pharmaceuticals. However its nearly impossible to look at the use of IP in computer science and claim its been beneficial.
Published: February 18, 2008 11:29 AM
I'm a database administrator, and likewise, the concept of roles has been around in relational database management systems for probably 20-30 years. Blackboard didn't come up with anything original here. This is patently ludicrous (pardon the pun).
It makes one wonder whereby Blackboard came to bring suit against a much smaller competitor, if for no reason than to simply drive them out of business. I've worked in the corporate world for years, but being a tech guy I've never been privy to what goes on in the realm of the C-I-E-I-Os. Perhaps some companies have departments whose sole function is to seek out possible infringements upon their patents and sue the living heck out of them? It's incidents like this that make me sort of understand the distaste most people exhibit toward capitalism and "big business."
Published: February 18, 2008 3:28 PM
"Perhaps some companies have departments whose sole function is to seek out possible infringements upon their patents and sue the living heck out of them?"
There are law firms that specialize in doing this.
Published: February 18, 2008 4:22 PM
Sounds a lot like Access controll lists where were a big deal in the 1990s. Only then we applied them to filesystems, not websites.
Published: February 18, 2008 5:41 PM
Ron,
Yes, this sort of thing is done very commonly to drive smaller competitors out of business. Even completely bogus patent suits take tons of time and money to defend against. This sort of criminal behavior is what you get when you have an incentive-incompatible system of law. Yay.
Published: February 18, 2008 8:10 PM
Sorry, this begs sarcasm:
Role based permissions... I don't know, maybe Berkely/AT&T should rethink the way they designed "groups" in Unix (40 years ago? What year is it?). However, it would likely be more profitable for the company to sue Oracle, Microsoft, and SAP. They are obviously the larger violators of this patent.
Published: February 19, 2008 1:49 PM
There are law firms that specialize in doing this.
Say, that gives me an idea for a business...an independent law firm that searches for possible patent violations and contacts the firm they think has the greatest chances of success in winning the suit (patent-holder or -violator). They then goad that firm into bringing suit against the other, making a tidy profit from the ensuing circus.
I imagine some blood-sucker has already thought of this, though.
Published: February 19, 2008 2:30 PM
The litigation cost (est. $4M - $8M) is a drop in the bucket for Blackboard. But it means a terrible bleed for Desire2Learn.
Yes, but without IP there would be no incentive to innovate and inventors would starve to death and . . . what are you laughing at?
Published: February 20, 2008 12:17 AM
Am I getting this wrong or did the USPTO _grant_ the spurious patent?
We always read about "regulatory agencies" that are used by the very same ones they are supposed to regulate to stop the competition. Think railways, FDA, etc.
Now I see the same here, patents and judiciary procedures (not "justice") are endangered of becoming tools too ...
Published: February 20, 2008 6:25 AM
Torres writes, "Yes, but without IP there would no incentive to innovate and inventors would starve death..." I accept the point. But it needs to be understood is that there is a world of difference between IP in the form of software copyright and IP in the form of a software patent. Many of us believe that software copyrights are legitimate whereas software patents are not.
I have published an article in Educause Review (Software Patents: Why Should We Care?) on this topic. If you don't want to read the whole article, just read the section: "Software and Intellectual Property".
Published: February 21, 2008 10:33 PM