"instead of blaming Blackboard for bad behavior"

If Blackboard is behaving badly, then yes, we should blame them for bad behavior. Abusing the patent system, and lawyering your competitors to death in a frivolous patent suit is nasty, low, bad for the customer, and should result in karmic consequences (but karma, unfortunately, is not as effective or quick as it is on TV). At the very least, the "bad for the customer" bit ought to be a sin in any business mans book. If it isn't, the business deserves to die...and probably will, eventually. SCOX isn't doing so well these days, for example (not that they were exactly swimming in success before becoming evil, but it certainly hastened their demise).

And meanwhile, before the patent system gets fixed (assuming it ever will), we shouldn't blame Blackboard if it bullies the competition out of existence?

After all, if Blackboard didn't get the patent first, some other company would, and Blackboard would be the one infringing.

That argument is along the same lines as not convicting a hitman for accepting a hit on someone by rationalizing that if he didn't kill the victim, the business would just go to some other hitman. I think convicting whichever hitman accepted the assignment is reasonable, don't you?

This analogy would work if killing someone for profit was legal.

The discussion is not about legality. I was responding to the OP saying that we shouldn't "blame Blackboard for bad behaviour" because if they hadn't done it, then someone else would have done it anyway. Hence the analogy is valid.

I agree that a better patent system is the solution, but as a Canadian company, Desire2Learn isn't in much of a position to fix the US patent system.

> After all, if Blackboard didn't get the patent first, some other company would, and Blackboard would be the one infringing.

Owning the patent is one forgiveable - If I were them I would want the patent too for self-defence. What is indefensible is aggressive litigating over that patent to scare competitors.