IP in EM - Revision history

EGraeff: /* Blackboard 2006 e-learning Patent Dispute */

2009-08-03T16:58:35Z

Blackboard 2006 e-learning Patent Dispute

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 3 August 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:

	In mid-2008, Blackboard decided "to team up with Syracuse University to develop software that would allow institutions to connect their Blackboard systems to the Sakai open-source course management system". Syracuse will develop what the so-called 'Blackboard-Sakai Connector'. "The open-source community was concerned, despite Blackboard assurances, that it would be the next target after a court case against competitor [http://www.desire2learn.com/ Desire2Learn] is completed" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 154)]]. Blackboard sued Desire2Learn for patent infringement in 2006; in defense, Desire2Learn petitioned for re-examination of the patent. "The jury upheld Blackboard’s patent, but judgment against Desire2Learn is on hold pending final resolution of the patent issues" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(ibid.)]].		In mid-2008, Blackboard decided "to team up with Syracuse University to develop software that would allow institutions to connect their Blackboard systems to the Sakai open-source course management system". Syracuse will develop what the so-called 'Blackboard-Sakai Connector'. "The open-source community was concerned, despite Blackboard assurances, that it would be the next target after a court case against competitor [http://www.desire2learn.com/ Desire2Learn] is completed" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 154)]]. Blackboard sued Desire2Learn for patent infringement in 2006; in defense, Desire2Learn petitioned for re-examination of the patent. "The jury upheld Blackboard’s patent, but judgment against Desire2Learn is on hold pending final resolution of the patent issues" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(ibid.)]].

			A U.S. federal appeals court ruled on July 27, 2009 in favor of Desire2Learn's appeal and ruled that Blackboard must return the $3.3 million in damages required by the previous ruling. Blackboard says it will continue with further patent infringement litigation against Desire2Learn on 3 other patents, which Desire2Learn maintains are overly broad and should not have been approved by the US Patent Office in the first place. [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(Young 2009)]]

	== Public Domain ==		== Public Domain ==

EGraeff at 19:11, 19 June 2009

2009-06-19T19:11:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 19 June 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) (remember the exercise done in genomics and proteomics).		Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) (remember the exercise done in genomics and proteomics).
	:(note to R.A. - try to create a matrix that cross references the previous two questions - let's try several ways to visualize how the narratives either hit barriers based on protection or can be synergistic via open licensing approaches - an example is the table in the Case Analysis Framework)		:(note to R.A. - try to create a matrix that cross references the previous two questions - let's try several ways to visualize how the narratives either hit barriers based on protection or can be synergistic via open licensing approaches - an example is the table in the Case Analysis Framework)

			== Introduction ==
			[[#Copyright\|Copyright]] represents the most significant intellectual property tool involved in this field due to the textual nature of its outputs. [[#Patents\|Patents]] are also involved when factoring in the educational software segment; however, educational software represents a significant amount of copyrightable material as well. The use of strategies focused on copyright is one of the fundamental points on which ideological differences can be identified between private companies, the set of universities and independent organizations interested in OER, and the advocatory associations that represent each. Similar to the issues facing the newspaper industry, and by analogy the film and music industries, the protection afforded by copyright has become uncertain as EM goes digital and the ability to monetize digital distribution still presents a challenge and potential barrier to innovation.

	== Copyright ==		== Copyright ==

EGraeff at 10:22, 11 June 2009

2009-06-11T10:22:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 11 June 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	see [[Alternative Business Models in EM#Public Domain]]		see [[Alternative Business Models in EM#Public Domain]]

	~~== Outputs + IP Matrix ==~~		= Navigation =

	== Navigation ==
	[[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM]]<br>		[[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM]]<br>
	Back to [[The Higher Education Level]]<br>		Back to [[The Higher Education Level]]<br>

EGraeff: /* Research Questions */

2009-06-11T10:21:49Z

Research Questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 11 June 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Research Questions ==		== Research Questions ==
	Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) (remember the exercise done in genomics and proteomics).		Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) (remember the exercise done in genomics and proteomics).
	:(note to R.A. - try to create a matrix that cross-references the previous two questions - let's try several ways to visualize how the narratives either hit barriers based on protection or can be synergistic via open licensing approaches - an example is the table in the Case Analysis Framework)		:(note to R.A. - try to create a matrix that cross references the previous two questions - let's try several ways to visualize how the narratives either hit barriers based on protection or can be synergistic via open licensing approaches - an example is the table in the Case Analysis Framework)

	== Copyright ==		== Copyright ==

EGraeff: /* Blackboard 2006 e-learning Patent Dispute */

2009-05-08T16:27:34Z

Blackboard 2006 e-learning Patent Dispute

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 8 May 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	== Patents ==		== Patents ==
	=== Blackboard 2006 e-learning Patent Dispute ===		=== Blackboard 2006 e-learning Patent Dispute ===
	In 2006, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted [http://www.blackboard.com/ Blackboard] a "wide-ranging patent" for the e-learning functionality that "allows a single user to log on once and access multiple courses". In November 2006, the [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ Software Freedom Law Center] filed a request for re-examination of the patent on behalf of open-source software providers [http://www.sakaiproject.org/ Sakai], [http://www.moodle.org/ Moodle] and [http://www.atutor.ca/ ATutor], claiming that "the patent gave Blackboard a monopoly on most educational course management software" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 153)]]. In January 2007, the Patent office overturned its support for Blackboard's patent application and reopened the application approval review. The Patent office later "essentially invalidated the assertions Blackboard made to secure its patent" in a pre-decision announcement in March 2008 [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(ibid.)]].		In 2006, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted [http://www.blackboard.com/ Blackboard] a "wide-ranging patent" for the e-learning functionality that "allows a single user to log on once and access multiple courses". In November 2006, the [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ Software Freedom Law Center] filed a request for re-examination of the patent on behalf of open-source software providers [http://www.sakaiproject.org/ Sakai], [http://www.moodle.org/ Moodle] and [http://www.atutor.ca/ ATutor], claiming that "the patent gave Blackboard a monopoly on most educational course management software" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 153)]]. In January 2007, the Patent office overturned its support for Blackboard's patent application and reopened the application approval review. The Patent office later "essentially invalidated the assertions Blackboard made to secure its patent" in a pre-decision announcement in March 2008 [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(ibid.)]].

	Although Blackboard insists the patent will survive re-examination, the company issued a February 2007 pledge to 'never assert' its patent rights "against home-grown or open-source course management systems", specifically mentioning: Sakai, Moodle and ATutor, [http://www.elgg.org/ Elgg] and [http://www.bodington.org/ Bodington][[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 153)]].		Although Blackboard insists the patent will survive re-examination, the company issued a February 2007 pledge to 'never assert' its patent rights "against home-grown or open-source course management systems", specifically mentioning: Sakai, Moodle and ATutor, [http://www.elgg.org/ Elgg] and [http://www.bodington.org/ Bodington] [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 153)]].

	In mid-2008, Blackboard decided "to team up with Syracuse University to develop software that would allow institutions to connect their Blackboard systems to the Sakai open-source course management system". Syracuse will develop what the so-called 'Blackboard-Sakai Connector'. "The open-source community was concerned, despite Blackboard assurances, that it would be the next target after a court case against competitor [http://www.desire2learn.com/ Desire2Learn] is completed" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 154)]]. Blackboard sued Desire2Learn for patent infringement in 2006; in defense, Desire2Learn petitioned for re-examination of the patent. "The jury upheld Blackboard’s patent, but judgment against Desire2Learn is on hold pending final resolution of the patent issues" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(ibid.)]].		In mid-2008, Blackboard decided "to team up with Syracuse University to develop software that would allow institutions to connect their Blackboard systems to the Sakai open-source course management system". Syracuse will develop what the so-called 'Blackboard-Sakai Connector'. "The open-source community was concerned, despite Blackboard assurances, that it would be the next target after a court case against competitor [http://www.desire2learn.com/ Desire2Learn] is completed" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 154)]]. Blackboard sued Desire2Learn for patent infringement in 2006; in defense, Desire2Learn petitioned for re-examination of the patent. "The jury upheld Blackboard’s patent, but judgment against Desire2Learn is on hold pending final resolution of the patent issues" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM\|(ibid.)]].

	== Public Domain ==		== Public Domain ==

EGraeff at 16:16, 8 May 2009

2009-05-08T16:16:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 8 May 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field ==		== Research Questions ==
			Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) (remember the exercise done in genomics and proteomics).
			:(note to R.A. - try to create a matrix that cross-references the previous two questions - let's try several ways to visualize how the narratives either hit barriers based on protection or can be synergistic via open licensing approaches - an example is the table in the Case Analysis Framework)

	=== ~~Copyright~~ ===		== Copyright ==
	''~~coming soon~~''		=== Related Litigation ===
			*'''Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)'''
			*:A New York Federal District Court ruled that Kinko's Graphic Corporation infringed copyrights when it photocopied materials (including chapters of books and articles from periodicals) for sale to students as coursepacks for their university classes. The copyrighted works infringed included hardback and paperback editions of in-print and out-of-print trade and professional works as well as textbooks. The 12 copied excerpts in the case ranged from 14 to 110 pages and from 5% to 24% of the works. In addition to ruling against further photocopying by Kinko's without permission of the copyright owners, the Court awarded the plaintiffs damages, court costs, and attorney's fees resulting in almost $2 million. The Court's decision in this case did not prohibit the reproduction and sale of anthologies but rather the reproduction and sale of anthologies made without obtaining proper copyright permission or meeting the criteria of the Classroom Guidelines or the statutory 'fair use' provision in Section 107 of the Copyright Act." (http://www.nacs.org/public/copyright/AppendixB.asp)

	~~=== Trademark ===~~		*'''Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. , 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)'''
	''~~coming soon~~''		*:"In this case, Princeton University Press and two other publishers filed suit against Michigan Document Services, Inc., and James M. Smith for making coursepacks, without permission, that included excerpts of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. The copied materials ranged from 17 to 95 pages and from 5% to 30% of the original works. Ultimately a majority of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that the use of the copyright materials for an educational purpose does not itself constitute fair use and held MDS and Smith to be infringers. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision, MDS and Smith settled the case, the settlement providing that MDS may not use more than one page of copyrighted material belonging to one of the plaintiffs or any member publisher of the Association of American Publishers to create coursepacks without obtaining copyright permission." (http://www.nacs.org/public/copyright/AppendixB.asp)

	=== ~~Software~~ ===		== Patents ==
	''~~coming soon'~~'		=== Blackboard 2006 e-learning Patent Dispute ===
			In 2006, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted [http://www.blackboard.com/ Blackboard] a "wide-ranging patent" for the e-learning functionality that "allows a single user to log on once and access multiple courses". In November 2006, the [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ Software Freedom Law Center] filed a request for re-examination of the patent on behalf of open-source software providers [http://www.sakaiproject.org/ Sakai], [http://www.moodle.org/ Moodle] and [http://www.atutor.ca/ ATutor], claiming that "the patent gave Blackboard a monopoly on most educational course management software" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 153)]]. In January 2007, the Patent office overturned its support for Blackboard's patent application and reopened the application approval review. The Patent office later "essentially invalidated the assertions Blackboard made to secure its patent" in a pre-decision announcement in March 2008 [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(ibid.)]].

			Although Blackboard insists the patent will survive re-examination, the company issued a February 2007 pledge to 'never assert' its patent rights "against home-grown or open-source course management systems", specifically mentioning: Sakai, Moodle and ATutor, [http://www.elgg.org/ Elgg] and [http://www.bodington.org/ Bodington][[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 153)]].

	~~=== Trade Secrets ===~~		In mid-2008, Blackboard decided "to team up with Syracuse University to develop software that would allow institutions to connect their Blackboard systems to the Sakai open-source course management system". Syracuse will develop what the so-called 'Blackboard-Sakai Connector'. "The open-source community was concerned, despite Blackboard assurances, that it would be the next target after a court case against competitor [http://www.desire2learn.com/ Desire2Learn] is completed" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(Mickey and Meaney 2008, 154)]]. Blackboard sued Desire2Learn for patent infringement in 2006; in defense, Desire2Learn petitioned for re-examination of the patent. "The jury upheld Blackboard’s patent, but judgment against Desire2Learn is on hold pending final resolution of the patent issues" [[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM}\|(ibid.)]].
	~~''coming soon~~''

	==~~= Patents ===~~		== Public Domain ==
	~~''coming soon''~~		see [[Alternative Business Models in EM#Public Domain]]

	~~=== Contracts~~ ===
	~~''coming soon''~~

	~~===~~ Public Domain ~~===~~
	~~''coming soon''~~

	== Outputs + IP Matrix ==		== Outputs + IP Matrix ==
	~~''coming soon''~~

	== Navigation ==		== Navigation ==
	[[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM]]<br>		[[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM]]<br>
			Back to [[The Higher Education Level]]<br>
	Back to [[Educational Materials]]<br>		Back to [[Educational Materials]]<br>
	Back to [[Report April 2009#Educational Materials]]		Back to [[Report April 2009#Educational Materials]]

	[[Category:Educational Materials]]		[[Category:Educational Materials]]

EGraeff at 15:11, 17 April 2009

2009-04-17T15:11:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 17 April 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	== Navigation ==		== Navigation ==
	[[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM]]<br>		[[Bibliography for Item 4 in EM]]<br>
	Back to [[Educational Materials]]		Back to [[Educational Materials]]<br>
			Back to [[Report April 2009#Educational Materials]]

	[[Category:Educational Materials]]		[[Category:Educational Materials]]

EGraeff: /* Patents */

2009-03-25T01:47:50Z

Patents

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:47, 25 March 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:

	=== Patents ===		=== Patents ===
	''coming soon'		''coming soon''

	=== Contracts ===		=== Contracts ===

WikiSysop at 17:44, 24 March 2009

2009-03-24T17:44:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 24 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field ==		== Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field ==
	~~=== Patents ===~~
	~~''coming soon''~~

	=== Copyright ===		=== Copyright ===
Line 7:		Line 5:

	=== Trademark ===		=== Trademark ===
			''coming soon''

			=== Software ===
	''coming soon''		''coming soon''

	=== Trade Secrets ===		=== Trade Secrets ===
	''coming soon''		''coming soon''

			=== Patents ===
			''coming soon'

	=== Contracts ===		=== Contracts ===

EGraeff at 09:32, 16 March 2009

2009-03-16T09:32:28Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Answer the questions:
+== Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field ==
-#Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field  (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) (remember the exercise done in genomics and proteomics).
+=== Copyright ===
-#*(NOTE TO [[Erhardt Graeff|R.A.]] - try to create a matrix that cross references the previous two questions - let's try several ways to visualize how the narratives either hit barriers based on protection or can be synergistic via open licensing approaches - an example is the table in the Case Analysis Framework)
+''coming soon''
 [[Category:Educational Materials]]