Microsoft Researching Patent Law with New Experts

wikinerd writes "According to The Register, Microsoft seeks to hire new patent experts. In their words, patent experience itself "is helpful but not mandatory" and advance knowledge of patent law is not required. The applicants need only be Computer Science or Electrical Engineering PhD holders, without any qualification in law. They will be involved in prior art search, patentability research and technical analysis. The article outlines some of the most controversial MS patents, such as online bill payment."

Comments

What's the big deal?

[mrighi]

As much as I like to poke fun at Microsoft, I don't see anything wrong with this job posting.

Performing a prior art search requires 95% technology knowledge and 5% patent knowledge. The little patent knowledge their employees will need I'm sure they'll learn on the job. Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."

In my opinion, this is just a silly reason to ridicule Microsoft.

What PhD would do this?

[314m678]

Why would anyone devote the 10 years of intense study to become a PHD in a hard science like CS or CE just to do research to see if something someone else has done is similar to something that someone else has already done.

Wanted: PHD in physics to serve fast food through drive through window.

Re:When will we say "enough"?

[Hope Thelps]

Yes, copyright terms in general seem excessive and that's especially apparent in relation to software, but the general principal of copyrights still seems to be a good one.

Basically, if free software takes off and provides all the software everyone needs then there would be no need to revoke copyright laws since they wouldn't be doing any harm. If free software doesn't provide everything but leaves gaps for proprietary systems to fill then we still need an incentive mechanism to ensure that those gaps are filled. Either way, there is no good argument for abolishing copyright protection completely. Reforming it in some ways, most notably in duration, would make sense.

And when you can't innovate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Litigate.

Maybe money.

[KarmaBlackballed]

I know a Physics PhD that took a position about 10 years ago with a large IP law firm. He did it for the money. From what he described of his job, it sounded like a paralegal position where his specialty is to look at the science of patent applications. I imagine law firms have a need for specialized paralegal services in other areas too, such as medicine, etc; evidently, software too. Lawyers can't know everything.

In the end, the lawyer moves the paper and puts on the public face. The paralegals do the grunt work and directed research behind the scenes.

As a software developer, all this stuff makes me cringe. Makes me feel like I'm blindly jogging through a land mine field every time I create a new product.