Slashdot Mirror


Khan Academy Seeks Patents On Learning Computer Programming, Social Programming

theodp writes: When it announced its brand new Computer Science platform in August 2012, Khan Academy explained it drew inspiration from both Bret Victor and GitHub (SlideShare). Still, that didn't stop Khan Academy from eventually seeking patents on its apparently Victor-inspired Methods and Systems for Learning Computer Programming and GitHub-inspired Systems and Methods for Social Programming, applications for which were quietly disclosed by the USPTO earlier this year. Silicon Valley legal powerhouse Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, which provides a pro bono team of 20+ to assist billionaire-backed Khan Academy with its legal needs, filed provisional patent applications for KA in August 2013 — provisional applications can be filed up to 12 months following an inventor's public disclosure of the invention — giving it another 12 months before formal claims had to be filed (KA's non-provisional applications were filed in August 2014).

65 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Goddamnit by weilawei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And I just donated to you fuckers.

    1. Re:Goddamnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where is the +1, Rageface mod when you need it? FFFFFFFFFUUUUUU!!1!11!

    2. Re:Goddamnit by ThosLives · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humanity moved beyond pictogram-based languages for a reason, and now the internet - that paragon of human achievement - is moving us back to pictograms again. WTF?

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    3. Re:Goddamnit by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      Should not be that hard, slashdot HTTP headers contain: Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 and the HTML header contains the line: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

    4. Re:Goddamnit by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Every other forum on the internet has emoticons, why not slashdot? Sooo behind the times.

      Pretty sure you answered your own question there.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    5. Re:Goddamnit by lq_x_pl · · Score: 2

      Honestly, I appreciate being able to read discussions here without having to fish through Lisa-Frank-esque emoji/emoticon vomit fests.

      --
      An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
    6. Re:Goddamnit by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humanity moved beyond pictogram-based languages for a reason, and now the internet - that paragon of human achievement - is moving us back to pictograms again. WTF?

      It's about the limbic system. Alphabets are a good invention for low-bandwidth communication (including fingertips) but also "a picture is worth a thousand words".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Goddamnit by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Every other forum on the internet has emoticons

      And every other forum on the internet ends up looking like a pre- teen's facebook conversation.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's most likely for a defensive purpose and something that the legal firm advised doing.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    1. Re:Defensive by weilawei · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is absurdly broad. Anyone want to venture prior art?

      A computer-implemented method for providing output(s) of machine readable instructions comprises providing software comprising one or more lines of machine-readable instructions. The one or more lines are associated with an output upon execution by a computer processor, and the output comprises at least one visual and/or audible component. Next, the software is executed using a computer processor to generate the output. The one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then displayed on an electronic display of the user. In some cases, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are displayed on a web-based user interface on the electronic display. Based on one or more edits received from the user, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then updated. In some cases, the machine-readable instructions are updated without re-executing the software.

    2. Re:Defensive by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's most likely for a defensive purpose

      In other words.... to help prevent competition / defend and prevent against someone else creating a competing service similar to Khan Academy that might take away some of Khan Academy's users, market share, or grant money and threaten KA staffs' ability to get paid.

    3. Re:Defensive by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's most likely for a defensive purpose and something that the legal firm advised doing.

      Then we can expect them to issue a legally binding promise to transfer the patent rights to the Patent Commons, yes?

    4. Re:Defensive by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      If you rearrange the letters...

      If I rearrange the letters in that first sentence, I can't make the latter one. I end up with an extra "eeefgghhlmtt", and still need "aiopsvwy".

      Lying is evil too, right?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Khan Academy is a non-profit.

      The defensive purpose is against patent trolls who may try to sue the Khan Academy.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    6. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't see any difference between the description and the various different online compilers out there.

      But even without prior art, I'd say the patent is not non-obvious enough.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    7. Re:Defensive by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      By patenting other people's works??? FYI non-profit does not mean they work for free. They still need to pay the bills.

    8. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      They pay the bills using money that is donated to them. None of that is affected by market share or grant money that mysidia mentioned.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    9. Re:Defensive by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      This is absurdly broad. Anyone want to venture prior art?

      A computer-implemented method for providing output(s) of machine readable instructions comprises providing software comprising one or more lines of machine-readable instructions. The one or more lines are associated with an output upon execution by a computer processor, and the output comprises at least one visual and/or audible component. Next, the software is executed using a computer processor to generate the output. The one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then displayed on an electronic display of the user. In some cases, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are displayed on a web-based user interface on the electronic display. Based on one or more edits received from the user, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then updated. In some cases, the machine-readable instructions are updated without re-executing the software.

      That's the abstract of the patent. It has no legal weight and is only there to aid in searching through patents.

    10. Re:Defensive by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      That's the abstract of the patent. It has no legal weight and is only there to aid in searching through patents.

      Then tell me how different from the patent's independent claim (1) below?

      1. A computer-implemented method for providing output(s) of machine readable instructions, comprising: (a) providing software comprising one or more lines of machine-readable instructions, wherein said one or more lines are associated with an output upon execution by a computer processor, wherein said output comprises at least one visual and/or audible component; (b) executing said software using said computer processor to generate said output; (c) simultaneously displaying said one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and said output on an electronic display of a user; (d) receiving from said user one or more edits to said one or more lines of machine-readable instructions; and (e) updating said one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and said output based on said one or more edits, wherein said output is updated without re-executing said software.

    11. Re:Defensive by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      That's the abstract of the patent. It has no legal weight and is only there to aid in searching through patents.

      Then tell me how different from the patent's independent claim (1) below?

      Claim 1 has legal weight, unlike the abstract. You can tell it's a claim because it starts with a number, is a single sentence, and is in the section that starts "I claim" or "we claim" or "what is claimed is", rather than the section that says "Abstract".

    12. Re:Defensive by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a computer terminal, invented in the 1950s.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Defensive by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

      If that was truly the case, they could have filed the provisional, and then not followed on with the full filing. Or they could have made an announcement that they were simply preventing future lawsuits. Or they could have filed in the name of the actual inventors (which would be far more defensible in court than what they did)... you get the point.

      When we're seeing non-profits being accused of corruption, bribery, racketeering, greed, and money laundering on massive scales, simply being a non-profit is not enough to earn the benefit of the doubt in a situation like this.

    14. Re:Defensive by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      If that was truly the case, they could have filed the provisional, and then not followed on with the full filing.

      If they did that, the provisional application would never be published or open to public inspection, so it would be useless to prevent a troll from getting a patent on the same technology.

      Or they could have made an announcement that they were simply preventing future lawsuits.

      Looking at the people here calling for blood, do you think such an announcement would be taken without a grain of salt? There's nothing binding in an announcement.

      Or they could have filed in the name of the actual inventors (which would be far more defensible in court than what they did)... you get the point.

      They did file in the name of the actual inventors. If you click the links, they're by John Resig and Joel Burget.

    15. Re:Defensive by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Khan Academy is a non-profit.

      So what? You haven't contradicted any of my propositions.

      There are many non-profit Educational organizations.

      Just because they are non-profit does not mean that every activity they conduct or pursue is ultimately beneficial to the public.

      The people who operate and govern a non-profit still get paid, And many non-profit educational organizations sell products or services; e.g. Just about every private and public college.

      Non-profits also don't want competition, at least not direct competition within their specific niche. They still need revenue and recognition to fund their enterprise.

      Also, schools do compete with one another for students and for donations.

      At an organizational level; there are many schools whose administrations would favor kick out / make themselves the only university in a region, if they could get away with it / legally succeed at doing so.

      I would encourage you to drop the "Non-Profit = Always good", "Profit = Evil" ideas.

    16. Re:Defensive by blang · · Score: 1

      I don't know how anyone could have modded your post insightful. as you demonstrate a profound lack of even the most basic understanding of the topic at hand.

      No, defensive patents are primarily a tool to avoid being sued by patent trolls, when rolling out their new product.

      USPTO of course does not distinguish one from the other, and once KA or whomever goes belly up, the offfice furniture and patent portfolio gets sold to patent collectors who quickly turn around and sue the world.

      It would however be gross negligence to not seek defensive patents. A single run-in with a patent troll is enough to put a startup out of business.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    17. Re:Defensive by pubwvj · · Score: 2

      Ah! Made you look! :) I wondered how many people would try it... :)

    18. Re:Defensive by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Patents are basically intellectual land mines. Sure, they're 'defensive' in nature... until one day the war ends, the land changes hands, the maps are lost, and somebody builds a preschool next door.

    19. Re:Defensive by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Is that in the claims or the preamble?
      My hardware patents all contain pages of boilerplate defining what a computer is.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    20. Re:Defensive by ciaran2014 · · Score: 1

      If they'd no market share, do you think they'd still get the same level of grants?

      Of course they wouldn't.

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    21. Re: Defensive by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right. Keep going..we're reading.

    22. Re: Defensive by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you missed the billionaire backed phrase in the original article.

    23. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Khan Academy started with 0 market share. Khan Academy was hardly the first attempt at building online teaching tools.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    24. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      I would encourage you to look at what the Khan Academy is. Maybe they're new to you, but from the years I've heard about their existence, they have been nothing but benign. Salman Khan still makes the bulk of those 10 minute videos himself using nothing but a paint program.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    25. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      You seem optimistic about the war ending. As long as patent trolling is condoned by the legal system, a small operation like Khan Academy would never be out of the clear. They can be sunk by just one lawsuit.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    26. Re:Defensive by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I thought KA benign, until they started getting patents.... it does not matter how benign they seem to be now, however, as the patents are not inherently tied to their current behavior which can change over time, And, moreover.... the possibility exists that the patents could change ownership in the future.

    27. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      How would you propose they protect themselves from threats of infringement lawsuits from patent trolls?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    28. Re:Defensive by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I don't know. But for sure, filing for your own patents does not protect against patent trolls.

      It's not as if you can countersue a patent troll, as by definition: a troll is not an engineering business but a business centered around acquiring patents and generating revenue from them.

      The only patent that would really defend against trolls would be a patent on patent trolling and methods thereof.

    29. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if the suing party is a bona fide patent troll or a frivolous suit from a "legitimate" company. You nitpick on the "patent troll" part. The issue is simple: Khan Academy doesn't have that much money to defend itself against patent lawsuits, no matter who they come from.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    30. Re:Defensive by ciaran2014 · · Score: 1

      You ignored my question.

      Khan started, with zero market share, in 2004 and it was only in 2010, when he had lots of users, that he started getting big grants.

      (This much info is from a few quick web searches.)

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    31. Re:Defensive by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if the suing party is a bona fide patent troll or a frivolous suit from a "legitimate" company.

      Then why did you ask about defending themselves against patent trolls?

      How likely is it that a legitimate company suing them is going to be in their same field and practicing their patents? It's extremely unlikely, that's for sure.

      Acquiring a few BS patents is not a defense against patent trolls OR legitimate companies, instead you need MANY generic patents, like IBM or Microsoft has, if you expect to use patents as a defense, AND....

      Khan Academy doesn't have that much money to defend itself against patent lawsuits, no matter who they come from.

      Non-sequitur. The process of applying and going through the process and obtaining a full-blown patent is expensive, and you say they have little money for defense... that's just inconsistent with them getting a bunch of patents. This is a method of defense against would-be infringement lawsuits that is quite expensive, which could come from any source patent troll or legitimate company in ANY industry, not just your same industry.

      Just having a patent provides no defense, if you cannot use it as a basis for suing your litigator.

      If you want to make sure someone else doesn't patent your invention, then you just need to create a provisional patent or defensive publication, which doesn't involve many thousands of $$$ in application, research, and legal fees.

      The only reason to obtain just a few patents concerning what you are doing is for generating revenue....

    32. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have used "patent lawsuits" instead of "patent trolls". Didn't think I have to draw intestines on stick figures, but there you go. Some people need hand holding to generalize upon an idea, and I guess you're one of these people.

      It's as if you didn't even read the summary. The patents are filed with help from pro-bono lawyers working on behalf of Khan Academy. It costs them NOTHING to file patents.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    33. Re:Defensive by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      Legally, you don't have to file a patent to prevent others from patenting things and then suing you. All you have to do is write up a description of your invention, as thorough as a patent, and publish it in any number of ways where the date of publication is verifiable. There are even services that will publish your article expressly for the purpose of establishing prior art. Remember, prior art does not need to be a patent. Dick Tracy's wrist TV was used as prior art at least once. Almost any public use of an invention is also enough to establish prior art. That is the main reason why inventors have to be careful not to let their invention be seen in public before filing. Your own invention can be considered prior art to invalidate the patent on that same invention.

      Though, I do have to admit, in the current environment, having a patent goes a long way toward scaring off those trolls.

      No, I am not a patent lawyer, but I have read a ton of patent law books over the years.

    34. Re:Defensive by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      As you say, the current environment warrants it. It really doesn't matter what the law is. They can afford to take a case to court and then prolong it until the defendant can no longer finance their defense, or they settle of court.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    35. Re: Defensive by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      If what you say is true, and I believe it is, then even having a patent does you no good if you aren't heavily financed.

  3. no more answers by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    I've just patented responding to posts.

  4. As Kirk once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Khaaaaaaaaaan!

  5. I don't get it by msobkow · · Score: 2

    How can you patent course material? I could see copyright, but a patent?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:I don't get it by msobkow · · Score: 1

      I actually browsed their website, too. I did see some crude edit-and-run tools for web development of JavaScript and such, but that kind of stuff had been bread-and-butter for a number of tools for years, so I can't see them being so stupid as to patent that. There is nothing "innovative" about it.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  6. I used to like them by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I used to like them, now fuck them all to hell

  7. How can you patent "learning something"? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    In particular, considering they specialize in online courses, how can they patent "learning the thing that other people already did which is why we even exist and you're reading about it"?

  8. Not even wrong... by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When it announced its brand new Computer Science platform in August 2012, Khan Academy explained it drew inspiration from both Bret Victor and GitHub (SlideShare). Still, that didn't stop Khan Academy from eventually seeking patents on its apparently Victor-inspired Methods and Systems for Learning Computer Programming and GitHub-inspired Systems and Methods for Social Programming,

    Well, yes, most improvements in technologies draw inspiration from earlier technologies. The Tesla Roadster draws inspiration from the Model T. The Boeing Dreamliner draws inspiration from the P51 Mustang. Windows 10 draws inspiration from Microsoft Bob. The question isn't "was this inspired by something earlier" but "is this obvious in view of what came earlier?"

    ... applications for which were quietly disclosed by the USPTO earlier this year.

    Also known as "published normally". Patent applications are typically published 18 months after their filing date. There's nothing "quiet" about it - it's included in the official gazette each Tuesday and Google Patents (among other services) take an image of it. But it's a nice attempt by Subby to imply that there's a dark conspiracy here.

    Silicon Valley legal powerhouse Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, which provides a pro bono team of 20+ to assist billionaire-backed Khan Academy with its legal needs,

    This appears to be a reference to the 20-person pro bono committee at Wilson Sonsini. Most law firms have pro bono committees of partners in charge of selecting and approving pro bono work, which is then taken on by junior associates. The committee itself doesn't do the work, so no, they didn't have a "pro bono team of 20+". They probably had a supervising attorney, a patent agent, and a paralegal, donating probably around 50 hours total for the two applications.

    ... filed provisional patent applications for KA in August 2013 — provisional applications can be filed up to 12 months following an inventor's public disclosure of the invention

    They can also be filed before the public disclosure. They're inexpensive placeholders that you can file without paying fees for search and examination. If you don't file the nonprovisional application within one year, the provisional expires and disappears forever, so they're particularly a good thing for startups who don't have revenue yet.

    — giving it another 12 months before formal claims had to be filed (KA's non-provisional applications were filed in August 2014).

    Then wouldn't that have been the bigger part of the story to focus on, Subby? The non-provisional applications with legal claims that people can look at to determine whether the patent is valid or invalid?

  9. The wrath of Khan by Going_Digital · · Score: 2

    Just getting their ammunition ready for war with the federation.

  10. First to File by meustrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they don't patent this, someone else will. Because we now have a "first to file" system, where prior art doesn't matter if the prior artist never patented it. And no, educational methods should not be patentable, but if this patent is granted then they did the right thing. Cheaper to file a patent than defend against a troll later on.

    Of course that doesn't mean the patent should be unopposed and shouldn't be given out to the public for free. Khan Academy has no business sealing up their methods as proprietary. But there are no white knights in the patent system. You can't not play the game, you can only lose it to the trolls.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    1. Re:First to File by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I have no objection to organizations like KA patenting this kind of thing so long as they also then license that patent back to the general public at zero cost.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:First to File by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they don't patent this, someone else will. Because we now have a "first to file" system, where prior art doesn't matter if the prior artist never patented it.

      That's not true at all. The only thing that "first to file" changes from "first to invent" is interference practices: previously, if Alice and Bob both filed patent applications for the same exact invention, they would go onto an interference, which is like a mini-litigation, to determine which of them actually conceived of the invention first. They cost between $20-50k for each party, and there were on average about 20 per year... out of over half a million patent applications filed each year. Under the new system, it's just a question of who filed their application first.

      First to file has literally nothing to do with prior art. And prior art that was never patented absolutely matters - white papers, scientific journals, product literature, etc. can be and are all used as prior art, even under the first to file system.

    3. Re:First to File by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If they don't patent this, someone else will. Because we now have a "first to file" system, where prior art doesn't matter if the prior artist never patented it.

      You need to stop getting your legal advice from trolls on Slashdot (and people need to stop modding this up), because this is completely wrong.

    4. Re: First to File by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      That's like saying 'I have no beef with trialess, evidenceless conviction for crimes so long as all sentences are ultimately commuted.' It's a measure of your subjugation to what you know in your heart is nothing but mass, criminal-level intimidation. In this caseit's intimidation of everyone and anyone who might interfere with the business models of those currently in power.

    5. Re:First to File by meustrus · · Score: 1

      But if I'm part of the echo chamber I get modded +5 Insightful!

      Which I really wasn't expecting. All I'm really trying to say is that they're just defending themselves (pre-emptive strike style) in a hostile patent system. I hope that's what people ultimately read, not my Slashdot understanding of the law. I am not a lawyer.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    6. Re: First to File by meustrus · · Score: 1

      In this caseit's intimidation of everyone and anyone who might interfere with the business models of those currently in power.

      Really? Khan Academy isn't exactly the most powerful organization around. Or were you talking about those that most commonly abuse the patent system? They aren't the power players either. Unless you mean all the big tech companies (Intel, Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.) who have spent unnecessary billions on patent war chests just to keep themselves protected from each other. Nobody wants a repeat of the sticky and extremely expensive litigation between Apple and Samsung, and even that case was more of a personal vendetta than any kind of purposeful business decision. Just like nobody really wants to be in a nuclear war after seeing the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      There may be a number of ways to keep power in power, but I seriously doubt anybody in power really wants their "mutually assured destruction" patent policy to resemble the Cold War.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
  11. Re:Prior Art all over ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I've also seen these kinds of things before. There's also one for Apple Basic that's fun to reminisce with for those who grew up on 80's tech:

    http://www.calormen.com/jsbasi...

  12. Billionaire backed? by andy1307 · · Score: 1

    You mean like slashdot?

  13. $cientology never patented their courses by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    The $cientologists vigorously enforce the copyrights on their course material and they know^Wabuse the legal system. If they had been able to patent their courses, they would have. Khan Academy may not be awarded the patent based on precedent.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  14. Obligatory by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Khhhhhaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn!

  15. Re:Quietly Disclosed by KGIII · · Score: 1

    You must be a martial artist because you sure beat the hell out of that strawman.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. Using patents for good by Khan+Academy · · Score: 2

    Like many other technology companies, Khan Academy applies for patents in the normal course of business to protect ourselves and our learners from litigation. We do not profit from our patents nor use them to stifle innovation.

    As a not-for-profit organization, and to meet our commitment to using patents for good, we have adopted the Innovator’s Patent Agreement and made it an integral part of our company culture. By signing IPAs with our employees, we safeguard innovation and pledge not to use their patents in offensive litigation without their permission, while retaining the ability to protect ourselves against any company that initiates a lawsuit against us.