Khan Academy Seeks Patents On Learning Computer Programming, Social Programming 97
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).
Goddamnit (Score:5, Interesting)
And I just donated to you fuckers.
Re: (Score:1)
Where is the +1, Rageface mod when you need it? FFFFFFFFFUUUUUU!!1!11!
Re: (Score:2)
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">
Re:Goddamnit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Goddamnit (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?
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Every other forum on the internet has emoticons, why not slashdot? Sooo behind the times.
Pretty sure you answered your own question there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Defensive (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Defensive (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
But even without prior art, I'd say the patent is not non-obvious enough.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: Defensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a computer terminal, invented in the 1950s.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that in the claims or the preamble?
My hardware patents all contain pages of boilerplate defining what a computer is.
Re:Defensive (Score:5, 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.
Re:Defensive (Score:5, Informative)
The defensive purpose is against patent trolls who may try to sue the Khan Academy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd no market share, do you think they'd still get the same level of grants?
Of course they wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: Defensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 n
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 yo
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Defensive (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Defensive (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?
Re: (Score:1)
"something that the legal firm advised doing."
Making it pure evil.
If you rearrange the letters in that sentence it spells:
"A Devil was my top advisor in all things I do."
Definitely evil.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Ah! Made you look! :) I wondered how many people would try it... :)
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
no more answers (Score:3)
As Kirk once said... (Score:1)
Khaaaaaaaaaan!
Re: (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... [calormen.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You must be a martial artist because you sure beat the hell out of that strawman.
I don't get it (Score:3)
How can you patent course material? I could see copyright, but a patent?
Re: (Score:2)
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 used to like them (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you patent "learning something"? (Score:2)
Not even wrong... (Score:5, 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?
The wrath of Khan (Score:3)
First to File (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: First to File (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 pe
Re:First to File (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Billionaire backed? (Score:2)
$cientology never patented their courses (Score:2)
Using patents for good (Score:2)
As a not-for-profit organization, and to meet our commitment to using patents for good, we have adopted the Innovator’s Patent Agreement [github.com] and made it an integral part of our company culture. By signing IPAs with our employees, we safeguard innovation and pledge not to use the
I can wipe the floor with Khan Academy (Score:1)