San Francisco, CA (US), April 2007 - A broad eLearning patent held by Blackboard, the education and course-management software company, is a growing source of controversy in the education community. The patent could potentially threaten increasingly popular open-source course management platforms like Moodle and subject universities to the risk of litigation. In a recent interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) lawyer Jason Schultz explains the need for patent reform. In addition, he describes the dangers of broad patents like the one held by Blackboard.
The patent, granted to Blackboard in July 2006, covers an "Internet-based education support system and methods." Blackboard has publicly pledged not to enforce its patent against open-source software distributors, universities, or non-commercial entities, but there are many gray areas that make it difficult to guess what is permissible and what is not.
For instance, Schultz points out that the pledge allows Blackboard to sue proprietary software vendors that incorporate open-source software components in their offerings. Schultz believes that Blackboard's pledge is "a nice gesture" but lacks the efficacy and legal significance of an official royalty-free patent license.
Schultz also discusses another similar situation related to the patent-holding company Acacia. It owns patents on "the transmission and receipt of digital audio and video content via various means, including the Internet." Acacia routinely attempts to collect licensing fees from universities that use streaming media for distance learning.
The Chronicle's interview with Schultz reveals some of the detrimental consequences of the patent system and illuminates the need for reform. The system was initially devised to promote technological progress by protecting innovation. Today, however, it is being exploited by self-interested patent-holding companies that are determined to use intellectual property to coerce quick settlements out of easy targets.
The patent office clearly lacks the technical expertise to make accurate determinations regarding the obviousness of inventions. The end result is a market stifled by opportunistic monopolists to the detriment of innovation.
