Talk:Blackboard v. Desire2Learn

Please contribute here with the latest news and analysis of this case. Desire2Learn is going to have to spend a lot of money to defend itself, even if the patent is ultimately ruled invalid due to the invention not meeting the statutory requirements for patentability. Such a lawsuit aimed at Moodle or Sakai would be quite ruinous. By the way, I am an inactive lawyer (no, not disbarred, just not practising anymore :-), and this seems like a great way to keep the community up-to-date. --Mike Strong 13:21, 3 August 2006 (WST)

I guess this is different from the mother-of-all-prior-art pages.

But all the same...what can we do to help? Perhaps if Desire2Learn or someone could put a list of things that they want researched then people might take on a portion.

Here's something every LMS/CMS/elearning/distance ed. person out there should consider. I'm willing to bet that eventually Desire2Learn would love to have expert witnesses volunteer their time to offer up their expert opinions on how this technology has evolved over the last 30 years or so. This wouldn't happen for some time - but you would be deposed and if your testimony is good, you might called at the trial (if this thing ever actually goes that far). Were you using/developing/coding the elearning mentioned in the Wikipedia/Moodle Docs prior art pages? Does your use precede the filing of the '138 patent application. Did you write scholarly or popular articles on elearning prior to the application that provided enabling disclosure of the technology (such that the '138 patent claims are viewed as not novel, and as obvious). --Mike Strong 10:03, 8 August 2006 (WST)