Is it PR, irony or doublespeak?

I wrote a while back two articles related to the patent application by blackboard (From blackboard to whiteboard and Life after blackboard). This week, Blackboard is in the press again for two reasons. 1) the patent office is re-examining its patents and 2) Blackboard announces Patent Pledge in support of Open Source Software and Home-grown Content Management Systems.
It ironical that they had to issue this pledge when they have a case pending in court and when their patent is to be re-examined - although they claim they have a high chance of success.
Isn't it doublespeak their claim that the

Pledge commits Blackboard not to assert U.S. Patent No. 6,988,138 and many other pending patent applications against the development, use or distribution of open source software or home-grown course management systems anywhere in the world, to the extent that such systems are not bundled with proprietary software..

without naming the 'many other pending applications'? What of the contradictory statements:

the Pledge, Blackboard promises never to pursue patent actions against anyone using such systems including professors contributing to open source projects, open source initiatives, commercially developed open source add-on applications to proprietary products and vendors hosting and supporting open source applications.

Q. How can you have "commercially developed open source add-on applications to proprietary products" that is "not bundled with proprietary software"?

All in all, I agree with them that this is "unprecedented for a product company such as Blackboard" to conceal and misrepresent facts to appear to be friendly or in support of the general public good.

Life after Blackboard

If home is where the heart is, then we should make our homes better places to live. An equity trend analysis by Forbes has shown that Blackboard Inc is on top of the chart of companies whose insiders are disposing off their shares. This clearly shows even the insiders have no confidence with Blackboard's future or at least it opens up avenues for speculations as to what its future holds. The speculation is favoring the view that most people are not living Blackboard they are leaving. It is no longer a place where hearts can be at home. Saddening, among those featured to have sold most of the shares in the recent past are Mathew Pittinksy -the chairman of the board and director of Blackboard Inc. If this is related to the latest move to do business in the court corridors, then the Blackboard's future looks dull. Is it time to prepare for life after Blackboard?

From Blackboard to Whiteboard

A walk around some educational institutions have shown that there is a great decline in the number of blackboards in use. Instead, most of the the educational institutions are using whiteboards. I do not know if the person who invented the blackboard had patented the various ways you could hang it up in a classroom, or the various types of chalk you could use. When I was schooling, in the times of blackboard and chalk, most of the teachers used to drink alcohol after work - to down the chalk dust. Nowadays, most of the whiteboard markers are made from alcohol. I do not have evidence that teachers no longer drink alcohol, or they now use another 'solvent' to down the alcohol. Isn't innovation interesting? History tells me that the first writing material was the scroll then the paper. I am wondering here if the paper inventor patented the art of writing or the paper itself. I am thinking of the billions of dollars that would have translated to. Well, this are just side thoughts and trying to picture how far we have come and yet to go with innovation - with or without Blackboard's Patents.
Stephen Downes in the December 2006/January 2007 issue of Innovate has presented a patent dilemma that has seen one Learning Management System transform itself to a Litigation/Lawsuit Making System thanks to Blackboard's patents. I would echo what he says in his last paragraph and I quote:

I have argued in the past that the thieves in our community are not the file sharers and the advocates of open source, but rather, those who use the nuances of the legal system to take something created by others and to make it their own (Downes 2003). I agree with Howard Rheingold: "Blackboard's actions are shameful, greedy, and bogus, and they have the potential for retarding the development of online learning throughout the world" (2006, ¶ 1).

BUT, like I have said before, online learning is an idea whose time has come, and NO action by the likes of Blackboard would stifle it.