I can’t remain as blasé as some about Blackboard’s recent win in court and the obscene patent they have been granted (as usual, Stephen Downes has a good roundup of reactions to the decision). Here’s why:

Whether it should or will matter later, the LMS matters now. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m all about getting out from under the thumb of the LMS. That being said, my own institution is– like many others– pretty tightly wedded to Blackboard and is likely to remain so for quite some time. It doesn’t matter if I agree with it, the situation is simply part of the context. I’m also relatively pessimistic about how long it will take before a significant amount of instruction at institutions– particularly those that use Blackboard now– moves outside of the LMS. If it does… and there are no guarantees that it will.

The LMS can improve! Given the reality of institutional bonds and decision-making around technology, I can’t just quietly overlook removing one of the only significant forces stimulating the already slow improvement of Blackboard. And it can improve… perhaps not to the point that it could challenge the much better idea of the PLE, but that leaves a lot of room for positive change.

A better LMS actually helps my (our) cause. Ironically, by getting better it would be a lot easier to guide faculty toward new, superior tools. For example, I can just imagine how much more readily an educator who had experience with a good discussion tool in Blackboard would consider and accept a move to more open, social systems. In fact, I don’t have to imagine… I’ve seen it happen with analogous situations. The only way most institutions will change away from Blackboard (or resist it) is if they have a base of vocal, successful educators exerting appropriate pressure.

You can’t expect rational business decisions to follow irrational ones. I don’t buy the argument that the bad taste coming from this decision will spur institutions to move beyond the LMS. The reasons for adopting and keeping a system like Blackboard have very little to do with good teaching or pedagogical affordances (particularly this late in the game), and much to do with economic pragmatics, utilitarian information technology-centric feature sets, and systemic inertia. Expecting a rational decision to switch away from a product when the things that spurred its adoption and powered its retention remain largely– if not wholly– unchanged is wishful thinking at best.

I’d like this decision to be something other people have to worry about, but it isn’t. I’d like the decision not to matter– in line with my inclinations and general philosophy– but it does. At least for me and my institution… and I suspect many others in a similar position.