Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Khan Academy Seeks Patent On Education A/B Testing

Posted by Soulskill on from the no-room-for-C-and-D-students dept.

theodp writes: The Education Revolution will be patented. USPTO records show that Khan Academy is seeking a patent for Systems and Methods for Split Testing Educational Videos. From the patent application: "Systems and methods are provided for comparing different videos pertaining to a topic. Two different versions of an educational video may be compared using split comparison testing. A set of questions may be provided along with each video about the topic taught in the video. Users may view one of the videos and answer the questions. Data about the user responses may be aggregated and used to determine which video more effectively conveys information to the viewer based on the question responses." Now it's up to the USPTO to decide if something like the test and control studies conducted 40+ years ago (pdf) by the PLATO system to measure the effectiveness of different teaching methods would count as prior art. In response to an earlier post on Khan Academy's pending patents on learning computer programming and 'social programming,' Slashdot user Khan Academy said that the nonprofit is using patents for good, so not to worry.

12 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Uh huh... by waspleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gandalf: Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

    Some how I think Sal Khan is less high minded than Gandalf...

    1. Re:Uh huh... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I can only think of a couple of instances when patents were essentially opened to everyone, both of them automotive. The first was when Volvo invented the three-point seatbelt, patented it, and then declared that everyone could use it because they felt it was a moral obligation to reduce automobile crash deaths. The second more recent example was when Tesla announced that its patents would be free to use. I'm mildly on the fence if that will hold out or not. The seatbelt was a fairly simple device compared to the large numbers of devices covered in Tesla's patents.

      If Khan Academy is seeking this patent in order to prevent someone else from patenting it, they need to do something to release the patent as something like the public domain or else a license along the lines of GPL. Otherwise everyone would need to individually strike agreements with Khan Academy to ensure that they're not later going to be sued.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re: Uh huh... by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

      Patents should be granted and immediately sold exclusively to the government, who can then open them up for everyone to use. A good example of how this works is the photography patent which was sold by Louis Daguerre to the French government, who opened the technology to the world. In this way we fix all the greatest problems with patents in one swoop. No more patent portfolios that create barriers to entry for innovative new startups, no more frivolous patent lawsuits about square looking smartphones, no more chilling effects based on the threat of being sued, no more protection money (aka licensing/royalties) rackets, and if the government must buy all potential patents then there is a balance between income (from patent examination fees) and expenditure (from buying the granted patents) so that the worst excesses of the current system are automatically held in check.

    3. Re:Uh huh... by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I can only think of a couple of instances when patents were essentially opened to everyone, both of them automotive.

      Another one is the QR Code patent, yet another automotive-related one.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  2. Re:Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Caldera was once a very pro-open source company. Then they morphed into The SCO Group. Top executives come and go.

  3. Twitter pledge is too weak by Eloquence · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the summary states, Khan follows Twitter's patent pledge. This is a good first step as far as it goes, but it still explicitly allows for offensive litigation if the "inventor" agrees. That's not sufficient. At the very minimum, Khan should adopt a clear, irrevocable policy never to enforce patents against open source projects, like many Patent Commons participants. Ideally it should partner with Creative Commons to work out an even stronger patent license, consistent with its mission. CC has previously developed model patent licenses and I'm sure they'd be happy to help.

    If the Khan Academy user who originally posted in Slashdot in response is reading this -- please bring these resources to the attention of management.

    1. Re: Twitter pledge is too weak by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Informative

      That doesn't work. What if Khan gets a new management and/or new owners? They can change the rules and repudiate all those promises, no matter what. For example, Google used to be trustworthy in the early days, now they are an evil spying organisation who takes so much heat that even the founders are distancing themselves with a nondescript holding company called alphabet. If it can happen to Google, who had so much promise in 1999, then you betcha it will happen to Khan once the pressure of economics start to bite them. Trusting the intentions of companies is simply a woeful approach to economic decision making.

  4. I read the patent application. Need prior art by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    I actually read the patent application and it is bullshit; the summary isn't misleading. Normally when a Slashdot headline says "Company X trying to patent Y", that really means Company X is trying to patent some specific invention RELATED to Y. Not this time. They're actually trying to patent A/B testing of videos.

    To prevent this patent from being issued, someone needs to send USPTO -printed- prior art such as a magazine or journal article describing A/B testing of educational videos. Along with the printed prior art, they need to include a "301" letter. The letter and prior art will become part of the patent file which should be examined before any patent is issued.

  5. An old adage applies here. by stevez67 · · Score: 2

    There's no need to patent the incredibly obvious when patenting the merely obvious will do!

  6. Oblig by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Funny

    khaaaaaan!

  7. Re: This is like "Alice" by paleosonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most education majors are aware of that despite the fact that A/B testing is ubiquitous, it lacks serious reliability and/or validity as a serious methodology for evaluating teaching techniques or evaluation models for those techniques. It's a sad comment on the state of online training that most methodologies end up being evaluated in this fashion. Teachers use A/B testing because it's quick and easy as a way of putting some kind of data point in a teaching or evaluation process; it's time for online training to understand this and work to rise above such primitively approaches in creating new teaching techniques involving the increasing use of technology. It's only in this way that online education can truly compete with conventional education practices.

  8. So it other words.... by BlueCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are creating a patent portfolio so they can counter-sue other companies that may sue them. Doesn't matter if the patents are bogus.. it takes time and lawyers fees to go through the federal courts. And the patent system isn't broken?

    We need a patent system with more critical examiners. But the examiners are understaffed and only seem to rubber stamp patents anyway so lets create a separate court system for just patents; with an overstaffed public defenders office whose job it is to strike down patents. All patent must go before a judge before they are officially approved. Furthermore anyone in the public can sue to challenge the patent to augment the public defenders. And the judge must have the special responsibility to not approve a patent if he has any doubt. Meaning it's up to whomever submitted the patent to prove their case and that all issues have been brought up. Make it mandatory that the patent has to serve the public's interest; and in conjunction with that judgement make the term length of the patent variable. Furthermore the court should have the ability to set the valuation of a patent and to forcibly grant licenses to others.