Part of our success to date has been the confidence we have built up with our Solver community that they will not be taken advantage of by Seekers acquiring intellectual property (IP) without paying for it. The audit provision is important to demonstrate to our Solvers that we have a mechanism in place to protect their interests. If our Seekers are being fair and honest with the Solvers, the audit provision would not be needed. To date, there have been no incidences of audits having to be done as a Solver must identify specifically the Seeker who has stolen their IP. Again, the value of anonymity that InnoCentive provides for Seekers protects you from unwarranted Challenges to IP ownership or origination. All confidentiality provisions in the agreement apply to the review and it will be limited to the subject matter of the dispute.
Articles in this section
- What type of verification does InnoCentive do on the winning Solver?
- What if we need to ask the Solver clarification questions before making a decision on an award?
- What if we solve the problem after the Challenge is posted?
- Can we test a submision before we agree to pay the award?
- What if we terminate the agreement in the middle of one of our postings, what happens with the Challenge and potential award?
- Can a Solver later use the information that we included in the Challenge posting?
- Why does your agreement have an audit provision?
- Why doesn't InnoCentive or the Solver warrant that the solution is patentable or novel?
- What if we see a submission or idea that did not win, but we already knew about it and later use use it? Could the Solver sue us?
- Who decides if a Solver's submission is a winner?