It is a commitment . . that patents can only be used for defensive purposes. We will not use the patents . . in offensive litigation without their permission.
I haven't read the whole agreement but the summary (above) certainly foreshaddows the need for a close read.
Offensive vs. defensive litigation? How well defined is that distinction? It's often said the best defense is offense. I can hear the lawyers arguing about who started the fight, who's the victim here, etc. "Nooooooo, this isn't offensive litigation. We're the good guys. We're just defending our interests . . . by crushing TinyCo."
I trust that a "former employee", i.e. a "you're fired" employee, wouldn't lose their right to halt litigation, but I'm doubtful it's all that cut and dry. Fired for cause? Hmmm . . no, YOU lose your right to vote.
The heck with the agreement. In the words of the bard: "First, we KILL all the . . methods and process patents . . "