Slashdot Mirror
Would You Quit Over Patents?
PatentThis asks: "Like a large part of the Slashdot community, I have a problem with software patents. However, I work at a company where they are the norm, and are a major indicator of our performance. So far (over the past 18 months), I've managed to avoid patent work, but that will probably have to change this year. It's an otherwise great job, and I don't look forward to going back on the job market. Do you feel strongly enough about the patent war to give up your job? Should I try to obtain Conscientious Objector status?"
From what you say, it sounds like "Conscientious Objector status" and "going back on the job market" are the same thing.
Do not read this sig.
Reword every patent application so that the first letter of every sentence reads T H I S I S A B O G U S P A T E N T I R E A D H O W T O D O T H I S O N T H E W W W. That way, you get rewarded for your work, and in the unlikely event of it ever getting to court, your employer will be a laughing stock. Then you quit (and/or are fired).
I would refuse to work on the patents, and if that led to quittery/fireditude, then so be it.
/naive idealist
Frankly, though, I don't know if my job search would include companies that engage in such practices.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Only you know what your values are. (Don't you?) How much do they mean to you? Life is often a choice between comfort and applying one's principles. How you choose defines the strength of your character. That isn't some platitude. That's the way it is. Good luck to you.
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
Listen dude, you really have two choices: continue working there under the conditions that management has dictated, or quit. That's it! Trust me, there's no secret formula or magic word you can say that will make your company into a perfect place to work. And here's the kicker: if you do quit and get another job, there will be something at your new job you won't like either! <sarcasm> Oh no, what are you going to do!?!?!!?!? </sarcasm>
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Jeff Bezos has a patent on quitting your job, so proceed with caution.
What's more important to you - your principles or your job?
If you are principally against the idea of software patents, and yet work on applying and shoring up new ones, then no, there is no way around it - you're breaking your own principles. It is much like a pacifist having a job designing anti-personnel grenades, a PETA member working as a furrier, or a fundamentalist christian working on the production line for the day-after pill.
You don't have an "out"; you'll have to choose. Which, is of course up to you.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Your employer pays you to do your job. If your job is to do something you don't like, find a new job. I hardly doubt a "Conscientious Objector status" is something you can reasonably expect to get. Either way, it looks like you should be looking for a new job if you're really going to try to make a stand against the way your company operates.
First off. I really hate patents. See my Violent Protest Against Patents. But the reality is that even if you hate patents, and despize the thought of using them, you (or your company) may need to get them to hold back sue happy people and force your way into cross licencing agreements so that you can use other large companies patnets without getting sued. In fact, that's why I wrote it. I felt like I forced into the patent system in order to be part of the technology revolution. But I wasn't going to eat the bullshit along with it.
But first, please give me the phone number for your HR department.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I got nothing from it. I left the job before the patents were filed, worked on the applications gratis, and was screwed out of the application, grant and production fees by a crappy contract. (They never even paid the $1, so I suppose that those patents belong to me due to violation of the "contract" - though it wouldn't be worth trying to invalidate it at this point.)
Software patents were brand-new at the time. I did the work before the EFF was founded; I thought it was neat, an opportunity to make some money (that I was screwed out of) and get some accomplishment to my name.
I wish I had known better.
Any company should get the patent they can get, it's simply the only reasonable way to be in business currently. You know patent work like nukes, without the UNO in the middle ... even RedHat is getting as many patents as they can.
... is simply: If I don't do this, will someone else do it?
If the answer is "Yes," then you should find something more interesting to do.
Only if the answer is "No" are you in a position to change the world.
This applies to the question about patents, but it's also a more-general statement of how to find fulfillment in your career as a whole.
most patents are crap and are never enforced.
if you are about to patent some linux kernel thingy that got snuck in w/o linus knowing, sure you should raise a stink about that and not sign the patent paperwork.
but if its a patent on something ridiculously narrow or not actually useful then just go along.
if you want to quit, go ahead, but i suspect if you think real hard there are probably a couple other reasons making you think about quitting, not just patents. quit or don't quit based on the whole package. focusing on one issue is simpleminded.
Here's a thought - do your job, but do it REALLY well. Research all the prior art and don't apply for anything with a hint of prior art. Make the system that you hate, at least work as well as possible. And THEN if they try to make you apply for a patent with prior art, you can pull out your ethics stick.
No.
That is, I would hold on to the job for now, but start searching for another one right away.
It would be the best thing to do for now, because when the time comes and you're told to do something you have a moral problem with (in this case software patents) you won't depend on it for your survival, because you prepared a backup plan.
Otherwise you might end up frustrated doing something you're against, and you'll want to quit but won't be in the right mood to convince someone else to hire you. This is one big fucking social trap, why do you think most people end up doing things they don't like? Don't fall for it, prepare plan B before you need it.
Many of the slashdot replies amount to "why are you asking us?" (with varying levels of rudeness) It's true that we cannot answer this question for you. Only you can decide whether your anti-patent principles are stronger/more important than easy employment.
That having been said, I would say that if you're considering leaving over this issue, then you should try a few other things first. For instance, consider talking to your boss and saying that you do not agree with patents, hence you are a bad choice to work on those projects (you won't perform optimally). The worst that could happen is they fire you (in which case you take your severance money and go get a job you like better). But if your boss is reasonable, they will re-assign you or have others do those duties. Make it clear that this is not because you are lazy or don't like the tedium of patents, but rather because you do not agree with them. This may get you into hot water if the company's bread-and-butter is patents, but so be it.
Of course, if management is not receptive (or your boss is not the type of person to respond well to honest disclosures of that type), then you have a harder choice: say nothing and write patents, or go find other work.
As I said, I think if you're seriously considering quitting then you should explore other (slightly less extreme) options. Good luck.
If you work on the patentable code, just make sure that it infringes some other company's patents. Don't tell your boss. Then the patent will be worthless, but you still get paid.
yes
... is simply: If I don't do this, will someone else do it?
Many crimes have happened because of this way of thinking. The right thing to do is say "no", and if someone else does it, at least you won't have to sleep with it hammering your conscience.
This is "news for nerds" because it affects a nerdly profession, but it's "stuff that matters" more than anything else because of the effect the current economy is having on very basic freedoms of conscience. Corporate America has much greater leverage over employees than it once did partly because of economic factors that it had a role in manipulating, through lobbyists and Congress. The question might be weak in its phrasing but the issue is a strong one for many of Slashdot's readers. I welcome seeing this kind of question in Ask Slashdot.
1) Build a nice LARGE portfolio of confidential internal memos undermining the most lucrative patents.
2) Hide several backups to be released in the event of your untimely demise.
3) Negotiate yourself one hell of a payoff/severance package.
I would quit over a great many things. Thankfully, none of them have happened at my current job yet. But if they did I would look for a new job while still continuing to work. Then quit and let them know why. Always find a new job before quitting your current one. Keeping food in the stomach and rent paid is priority #1.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Exactly what is your objection to software patents based on?
I object to our current implementation of software patents. I think they stifle real innovation more than they promote it. The problem is in the patent system, in two areas: A) you cannot possibly know if what you're doing is already patented without an unreasonable amount of research due to huge numbers of broad, vague patents, which you cannot tell without taking them to court if they'll apply to you or not; B) Many of them last too long for the fast pace of the software world.
Yet I work for a company that generates a lot of software patents. I don't think what we do is evil. We are investing a lot of money in R&D, and inventing things, and I don't think it's bad for us to want to reap our profits from that work. We're making tons of money doing our own legitimate business, not trying to sue other companies. That's exactly what patents *should* do.
So what's your objection? Do you object to the very idea of software patents? Don't quit your job. That won't do anything to end software patents. It'll just cause a minor rearrangement in who ends up patenting what. Instead, get involved in patent reform.
On the other hand, if your company is one of the evil ones generating patents to try to milk money from other companies, quit. Not because they want you to work on patents, but because your company's business is evil.
I strongly disagree. If you think something is wrong, don't do it. Just because someone else is willing to do it in your place does not excuse you. Following moral principles is not just about changing the world, it's about making sure that you don't do something wrong that taints you, your honor, and your self-respect. Even if you can't stop the action, if you really feel that patents are wrong, you shouldn't participate.
If your boss asks you to shoot someone, and you know that if you don't, you will be fired and a willing co-worker will do the shooting instead, do you think it's right for you to do the shooting? If you think patents are morally wrong, then the difference is solely a matter of degree. Don't taint yourself, your honor, and your self-worth by doing something you think is wrong.
Regardless of your decision today, someday, you will leave your current job. Will you take your self-respect with you?
Note that I, personally, am not convinced that software patents are morally wrong. But I have been in similar situations with other moral dilemmas, and have drawn my line in the sand.
[Of course, these kinds of decisions are relatively easy for people with lots of savings, a spouse who works, and no dependents. People who have kids and who live in dire financial straits have to make somewhat harder decisions, weighing the degree of moral repugnance against the risk to their dependents. Shooting someone is very wrong, even weighed against a job that feeds the kids, while software patents might be more tolerable.]
First, it's great fun. Inventing is cathartic.
Second, patents look great on your resume.
Third, you can keep your job. No big anyway, because now your resume has patents on it.
Fourth, you get a lot of exposure to the intellectual property legal system.
It's time to get over the whole "software patents suck thing:" they already exist, they already affect you, and your failure to patent something doesn't mean someone else won't try to patent it.
In a war, you have to shoot people because they are shooting at you. If you don't kill them, they will kill you. This software patent thing is a war. You enlisted when you took a computer job. So what if you've been in the rear echelon since basic training. Every Marine a rifleman, every coder an inventor.
Hooah
[Error 407: No signature found]
I think most of us work because it provides income to fulfill our needs.
If you think Patents are evil, and you don't like to do evil, but this job is a great job and you don't feel like going back to the job market, then the answer is clear -- Keep the job and accept that a little evil is harmless.
Uncensored Google results requested and delivered by email
why not work with management to find alternative strategies to patenting things you don't believe should be patented?
Individual employees, and even whole companies, who refuse to patent software are doing nothing but screwing themselves. One person's refusal to patent is simply another's opportunity to do so, and thus there's no motivation to change the system. There's no way to reform the patent system other than getting the law itself changed, and, in fact, the best way to do that is to drive the system into the ground. The more stupid, pointless, trivial patents there are out there, the sooner the system grinds itself to a halt.
"Conscientious Objector is for military service. It doesn't sound like it applies." I really don't think he meant it literally. Brush up on the metaphor construction we English-speakers use. Maybe the reference should be explained: he wants to know if he should just tough it out, do the job regardless, but let his objection be known so they don't necessarily inundate him with that kind of work. Much like many people did in the vietnam war era when they were drafted. They had to go, and did, but did so with a noted objection to the war so they wouldn't necessarily be on the front lines. "And stop being lazy and a coward" His objection to patents appears to have nothing to do with the work needed to put into it, but more with the question of whether the patents should be requested or granted. I, conversely, think it's a very pertinent question for Slashdot because, as pointed out by another user, the fields that the people who read this website work in is quite in danger, most recently in danger of exportation to other countries where the words "minimum wage" is a punchline.
1. Part of taking a stand is that you will sacrifice something. If you believe in something, then stand up. "I hate doing this but I'm too lazy to find a job because, you know, job-hunting is HARD!" No answer on a Internet forum is going to help this person.
2. If this person is in a "wage-slavery" condition, what good is it asking this question? The any answer won't change his condition.
3. "because of the effect the current economy is having on very basic freedoms of conscience."
This has nothing to do with freedom of conscience, he can choose to leave at anytime, he just has to work hard to find a new job or to sacrifice something econmically. Its like saying "I want my freedom to stop watching tv, but there are just too many good tv shows on."
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
The system is broken but you didn't break it and there's no reason you should be held responsible for its ill effects. I was going to suggest telling your boss(es) that you are happy to do the work and understand perfectly that it is in your company's interest to apply for this sort of patent under current conditions but that you do not wish to see your own name on the software patent applications. I thought of how ashamed I'd feel to see my own name on something like the IsNot patent or, for different reasons, the RSA patent, but I'm not so sure your situation demands that you should feel obliged to take any such ethical stance and risk losing your job. It's not your fault that the patent system is the way it is today and it's not even your company's fault. You'd not be the first person or company who has decried the state of the patent system itself but found it necessary to make use of it.
At the risk of getting the same treatment, mod parent up!
Don't be silly. Protesting patents by quitting your job just makes you look like an idiot. Like them or not, patents are a required business tool and your company would be stupid not to use them. You can't just avoid getting patents, unless you want to be out of business.
The poster didn't say he had been ordered to commit an atrocity, did he? The reason that question is relevant is because the poster is clearly struggling with a role in his/her job that's not a good fit. If life would go on for everyone else if you got hit by a bus tomorrow, with your passing unremarked-upon (except in sadness) by any of your peers, then you don't have a fulfilling job to begin with, patents or no patents.
Chances are, yes, if the poster refuses to file patents, he will be fired or at least moved somewhere else in the company, and someone else will do the dirty work. The poster should consider how he found himself in this fix to begin with. He is a replaceable cog in an indifferent machine. He should work on that problem rather than the symptom-of-the-moment he's asking Slashdot about.
In some/most cases patents server their intended purpose by enabling true innovation to be rewarded. I say this while looking at millions of $$ of equipment in a research lab that is paid for either by licencing past patents borrowing money against the successful commercialisation of current patents (pending). I think it is valid to patent a new invention when no such invention has existed before, can be demonstrated to work (i.e. not just some abstract idea - eg. warp engines) and there is an intention to commercialise.
:)
I absolutely hate business process patents and will not accept contracts from companies who see that as their ultimate goal. This also applies o software process patents. Thankfully business process patents are still not legal in many countries.
The other "bad" patents I avoid are patents for naturally created "things" like genes. I know number of drug companies hold patents on a certain gene. I am happy for them to have a patent for a drug that will treat a disease caused by the gene, but patenting the gene is IMHO unethical and unacceptable because they did not invent it, and really cant commercialise it. This would be different if they invented a gene that can be "injected" to cure a disease. Otherwise it's a bit like patenting a subatomic particle and charging license fees.
And finally I don't agree with parents where two existing things are combined to make a third. Eg. email using a games console, email using a coke can etc etc. As one of my friends says may be Neil Armstrong should have patented walking on a body other than Earth.
the sig
Well, where I used to work back in the 90s, we were encouraged to patent as an act of self-defense, since you never knew when someone would patent something that you thought was obvious, and then the company would end up having to roll over and beg since the patent holder has the upper hand. In fact, we used to have customers that would, upon hearing from our engineers how they could use our technology, would go off and "think about it" and patent that idea. Another reason to not let engineers talk to customers.
And now my current employer got a notice of infringement from someone that pretty much stole our idea, and by coincidence the date on their invention is a couple months before our trademark application date, imagine that! One of my first questions when I started there was if they had patented their technology, but none of the engineers thought it was novel, and actually discouraged our cut-rate lawyer from pursuing it any further. I gave them the doom & gloom(tm) scenario, and omigosh, we're living it.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
If you're working at the same company as me, my condolences. If not, and you're working for a (rare) company that tries to patent things that are truly original and worthwhile, why not write a patent? IMHO, a well-written patent on something that is novel can be in the same league as a peer-reviewed research paper in a scientific journal.
I can tell you what I did.
At one time I was in a similar situation as you. My boss told me that we were expected to generate a certain number of patents a year. Now, I am against software patents mainly because I see software as speech. A patent not only stops me from copying something that someone else has done, but it stops me from expressing the same thought. This makes my job considerably more difficult.
But, sotware patents exist today. Wishing they would go away won't solve the problem. I explained to my management that I was unable to positively contribute to the creation of patents. I explained my reasoning and told them that I didn't expect them to agree with me, but only to respect my wishes. In return I offered to do due dilligence for any patent application that the group produced. In other words I would look for problems in the application and look for prior art. I would do all the "boring" work that nobody else wanted to do.
I explained to them that I would be very motivated in my work and that I would save them money by helping them avoid patent applications that were sure to fail. Additionally, any patent applications that went through would be much stronger.
They were happy with this compromise, and I felt that I could live with this role. As it turned out, I found prior art for every single patent idea that the group turned out, so I did a very good job. In addition, because I didn't want to get caught having to sign on as a patent inventor myself, I took great pains to write code that was either non-novel (i.e. the technique was already proven to work), or obvious. This improved my programming ability greatly since I learned what others were doing rather than living in my own little world.
Hope that helps...
The simple choice is which do you want - $ or a peace of mind. How obvious is this anyway? its a matter of your philosophy and principals, not something /. can help you with. Our principals may not be the same. Just cuz it involves something /. is actively involved with it becomes right to whine HERE instead of to your gf or psychologist? Stand up and grow up and learn to make your own decisions
If you want to protest something by quitting go ahead. Just know that unless you are known by at least 10% of the worlds population your protest is not going to work. I for one would happily take over your job.
that will probably happen anyway, whether he intends it or not. You may as well go with the flow on this one. Until patent law changes, his company will be obligated to go through these motions anyway.
BTW - Does it bother you that by being for patent reform that you are on the same side as Microsoft?
Heh heh... Have fun sleeping. Damned if you do....
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
but patents (like guns) are not a priori evil. if they really do bother you so much, why don't you do something about it by becoming a patent examiner with a clue?
Just a quid-pro-quo kind of thought. If not the FSF, maybe the EFF, or Creative Commons. WWRMSD?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
If you have a family, I'd first advise you to be financially responsible.
If you want to do things the ethical way, IANAL, but I'd take the following direction:
Software is mathematics, it can't be patented. Additionally, patents require you to certify, personally, that you believe the invention is novel and patentable.
Your boss cannot force you to certify that and they likely can't fire you for refusing to certify bogus patents. The key is to document that they are linking "low-performance" (their justification for firing you) with unethical coercion.
If you are asked to write a software patent, fire back a written memo indicating that it can't be patented. Each time make the correct legal case that this process cannot be patented any more than addition or subtraction.
If there are complaints that you are not "performing" due to your inability to generate patents, on your own time get yourself a copy of other patents that other "high performers" have generated and disassemble them as equally invalid. Most importantly, communicate this to your boss in writing and save a copy of all of this correspondence.
Bottom line, your boss wil have to tell you to write patents on what you believe to be unpatentable. That's not exactly legal. At some point, the author certifies that they believe something is true. If they fire you for performance, claim wrongful termination. They were asking you to falsely certify something and fired you for not doing it.
As an added bonus contact PubPat (or someone similar, or even the USPTO directly) and provide them with your research and correspondence. Most of the legal system involves plausible deniability. People can deny their intent. When you create a paper trail, you either get fired or respected--but you remove their ability to deny their intent. In your case, you'd have been fired anyway--at least this gives you some ammunition.
Keep in mind, patents are public, so it's unlikely your actions will be covered by an NDA. Don't contact competitors though, that would be malicious. Talking to a lawyer might be good too. Lawyers target a legal win. Make sure to clearly define "winning" in this case is to establish that their patenting practices are the culprit.
Of course, make sure to read your contract. I've seen contracts that allow your employer to apply for patents FOR YOU and that you agree to certify them unconditionally. Beware...
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
I was recently in a situation similar to yours. I was working on a project in which involved a mature and well understood technology. The only difference was perhaps a higher clock frequency but was otherwise the same as prior art. My colleagues on this project had a history of filing for (and getting approved) frivolous patents for the most absurd things that anyone could find in a school textbook published in the past few decades. This was not going to happen again on my watch.
I "published" details of this person's new invention (an obvious solution to a common problem) so it would not be patentable. Within weeks I was off the project and looking for work.
Even if I hadn't been involved in that project, I probably would have left the company anyway. (I wasn't too keen on the businesss of killing people.) I had made my decision and would (probably) do it again. I realize this is an individual choice and respect my coworkers who chose to stay in their jobs and collect their paychecks for their families.
If you really want to take a stand, you'd better be ready to put your money where your mouth is. I've been unemployed ever since I took my stand.
I quit Cisco because of a patent. I filed it, then realized how stupid it was or me to have done that. I should have gone to open source with it, that would have been an option. The payment of $3000 up front and then another $2000 or $5000 later was too tempting to pass up. Who knows what I did what that money, but then I felt like a dirty whore.
I was bummed that a company I worked for would value a patent they're not even going to use for anything with so much money. I was sickened and quit.
You should work somewhere you feel proud of working. Everyone else says you're a whinner, I say, grow a backbone and stand up for what you believe in. If you can't sleep well at night whho cares if you're driving a better car or whatever. The fact that you're evening considering the questions means something.
Don't look to the community to tell you right and wrong.
Mind you, mine was a software patent. You may be patenting hardware and/or other very legitimate products. Patents aren't all bad.
You're encouraged (by success) to exploit the system. There's no reason why you should lose potential income for having a conscience, while the government rewards everyone else for being greedy. You don't want to stop just yourself from patenting software. You want to stop EVERYONE from patenting software. The system will survive just fine without your participation. You're abstinence just rewards all the other greedy software patenters out there. Someone will just take your place, thus ensuring your personal loss will exceed the public gain. Someone's getting rich whether you like it or not. I'm sure you'd rather it be you than some creep who actually supports software patents and is going to lobby to keep them.
...and maybe then there will be no tomorrow for the patent system. I'm half serious. The more crap patents in the system that get dragged through the courts the more likely there will be pressure to fix the system. The RIM vs NTP case is going to put a lot of pressure on them to fix the system. Personally, I don't think NTP are patent trolls (he developed the tech, got the patents, his company died, and he hung onto the patents and tried to claw his way back when he got the chance). RIM would have done the same thing if given the chance. But the prospect of all the Blackberry's being switched off is focusing attention on the problems with the patent system.
Actually I have thought about that. Seems kinda counterproductive and hypocritical though. I'd rather do something I feel good about than pay penance. WWRMSD? He'd never have come within ten miles of the place to begin with. But I don't like comparing people to idealists. Some people's identity and (in a sense) career is to champion an ideal, and I totally admire that, but there's a critical mass of messiahs that the world can follow at any one time. At least, you'd think there should be.
Whatever you do, think about it on a case by case basis. Sure, a one-click patent is bad, and a patent on a method and apparatus for keeping count of the number of steps in a loop (the i in for(i=a;ib;i++) is bad.
But actually, when you (or I at least) think about it, a patent that covers some very complicated very specific software work, while possibly not very open-source friendly, is a lot less bad. If your company spends a lot of money developing something truly original and very useful, patenting it might make sense, and you might want to reconsider leaving your cool job where you get to do truly innovative software work.
In the same vein, you should also consider why your company patents their software work. The place I work mainly patents stuff for defensive reasons. If we don't patent some of the stuff we invent somebody else might, and might possibly be a litigious bastard and try to sue us over the stuff we've been doing for years. I personally think that type of patenting is ok, and as soon as my company starts using our patents to go after companies that are not obviously copying our work I'd leave.
What I'm saying is that you should consider not just the fact that they're patenting software, but also what type of software they're patenting, why, and what they're doing with the patents.
Thank you.
I should have realised that metaphors are just too -1, Whoosh! for some people. One thing's for sure - I'm not going to get a job as a news site editor.
This kind of reasoning gave the world Afganistan, Iraq and the biggest disaster of all -- George Bush jr.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Patent things with clear prior art. Like a sibling post pointed out, patent absolutly the worst shit you can think of. Better yet, patent things in wide use. Not only will (should) it be looked highly upon, it'll help take down the shitty ass system. Be a mole!
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
Otherwise I would suggest that you take a good look into the mirror and read your comment again.
... to shoot people ... kill them ... this ... is war"
I might be a bit touchy regarding this subject but this is what it sounds to me like:
"it's great fun
Then again, thanks for proving my point that software patents in general tend to be highly aggressive, amoral and actually endanger peoples lives. Shooting and killing, my ass.
You could work on the patents and just not do a very good job. That could give us what we need most - a body of case law where the software patent holder lost. :+>
Well when I was in a similar situation I just didn't put anything forward to be patented. Next year the metrics were changed and nobody asked us to do it again. Our immediate management didn't actually want patents. They just wanted to be seen to be doing what they'd been told that year.
Those who went along with it got the nominal £1 for their trouble and their name associated with a patent that was so vague by the time it had been translated into legalese flavoured pseudocode that it was hard to tell what they were actually claiming to have 'invented'. None of them went on to be millionaires and none of them did noticeably well in the pay round that year, largely because nobody did.
It shouldn't be a make or break issue and there's every chance that you won't even have to explain your opposition to patents. They'll have their hands full with the few people who rush forward to suck up to the boss and patent "a means of processing information by means of using an information processing device in a slightly different way to the last 10,000 junk patents we filed."
Ame
There's no reason why you should lose potential income for having a conscience, while the government rewards everyone else for being greedy.
It's called Integrity. Some people have it. Some people don't.
Some people measure their worth by means other than their current business portfolio, though I understand this concept is becoming increasingly rare.
May the Maths Be with you!
What I'm saying is that you should consider not just the fact that they're patenting software, but also what type of software they're patenting, why, and what they're doing with the patents.
Nope.
Software, all software, is simply a mathematical algorithim. Mathematical algorithms are unpatentable by the USPTOs own rules. Therefore, software is unpatentable.
Be advised however that the USPTO no longer considers non-patentability to be an obstacle to patentability.
May the Maths Be with you!
You've already made the decision. You knew that coming to Slashdot, they'd tell you to put up an objection in a logical, courteous manner and stand up for your principles.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
If they weren't patenting their software I would be more upset. While you may disagree with the software patent system in the US, the fact is it exists, and all of your competitors are patenting their software. So if the company you worked for did not get patents, they would get destroyed. Until the patent system changes, you have to PATENT EVERYTHING to cover your own ass if nothing else. Even if you don't plan on suing for infringement, still get patents!
nothing
There may be a number of reasons your employer is filing these patents:
A. Strategic positioning ala MAD doctrine.
B. It seeks to build a revenue strem via patent-extortion ala SCO/Unisys/Forgent, etc.
C. It is legitimately funding high-risk R&D projects, with the vision that these projects will have a meaningful impact on technological progress.
If A or C, several companies falling under this category have very publicly donated entire portfolios to the OSS community. With enough internal support yours may be convinced to follow a similar path.
As to whether you should quit over this, well, I would not base such a weighty decision on such a singular issue. How long have you been with this org? As a result of your tenure are you in a position to effect positive change in other areas within this org? If you are considered a valuable employee, your management would very likely be willing to respect your objection to patent work and assign you other projects -- provided of course the issue is presented in a diplomatic fashion.
Rather than talking about working on patents for your company, what about clauses in contract with your company that require "inventors" employed with the company must hand over the rights to their patent to the company their currently employed for, sometimes, even for patents in unrelated fields. I've never patented anything, but I've always wanted to, and that has me thinking about current contracts I have with my full-time permanent employer on whether I could get a signed contract with them allowing me to patent something in an unrelated field.
Does anybody have any experience for a situation like this?
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
Unfortunately the patent landscape is such now that if your employer doesn't patent your creations, someone else might. If your product is successful, you end up with something like the Blackberry debacle. Filing shitloads of patents is now a cover-your-ass move. You can't rely on the PTO to sort things out, so you have to patent EVERYTHING of value.
Whether you keep your current job or not is your call. Only you can do the necessary soul-searching to decide whether or not staying on board is something you want to do.
That said, if you do decide to quit, make sure that you read the employment contract of your next employer carefully. Quite frequently, employment contracts include clauses that give your employer first dibs on anything you invent, at the office or not, on the clock or not. You will need to negotiate that item out.
www.wavefront-av.com
When you are hired you have to sign an employment agreement. This will typically contain clauses stating that what you do are works for hire, copyrights will be owned by your employer, you must assign patent rights to your employer, etc. At that time if you are concerned about such things you can strike out the parts about patents. Of course your employer may choose not to hire you in that case. On the other hand, you may be surprised at how many employers will agree to this -- the employment agreements are just boilerplate created by lawyers, and management knows that they're unlikely to make any money on patents anyway. Of course you will have to agree not to take the patents for yourself, your objection is to the patents themselves, not who gets them.
If you have already signed the employment agreement without making such changes, you have little cause for complaint when you are asked to produce patentable results.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -- Benjamin Franklin
It was a good point when he made it, and it holds true today.
Video Production Support
It all depends on how you use them.
Software patents to protect yourself can be a good thing. If you have a patent it means that no one else can patent it and use it to sue the socks off of people, think IBM.
Or you can use them as a club. If someone sues you over some patent they hold you may have several patents that you could counter sue them over so again they will not try and sue you.
Finally patents can be a good thing and help a company make money. Hardware patents are a good example.
Their shouldn't be any software patents. Software should be copyrighted not patented.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I hate software patents, and I'm against a lot of the IP crap.
But I believe in nothing so strongly as I believe I need to put food on the table for my little boy.
I quit my job with a major software company last year, and patents were part of the reason. I was planning to quit within a year or two anyway, but when my objectives for the year included "Get two patents" over my strenous objections, I knew I would never see another annual review.
I'm sufficiently financially secure that such a decision was easier for me than for many. I can call it "early retirement", or "career change". It's been five months since I quit, and I've had no regrets. From the end of this month, I'm a full-time student working towards a BSc as a hobby.
I was in a similar situation where I work. I raised this concern in a meeting and the lawyer made a valid point. He basically said that if we didn't get the patent, someone else eventually would. I am strongly against software patents, but until the playing field is changed, we have to play ball.
Patents serve a very useful purpose. It is possible to develop something over many years of hard work which is considered impossible by the industry, but that suddenly becomes completely obvious upon publication of your solution. Copyright will protect YOUR solution, but if someone else writes his own software to use the same solution, copyright doesn't help. Trademark doesn't help. Your only possible protection is a patent.
Development, whether in software or hardware, is a front-loaded process. You spend a lot of time and money and effort on it before you have anything at all. The patent system is what protects you from making that investment and having someone else duplicate it; since he doesn't have that investment, his overhead is lower, and he can charge a lower price. This effectively forces you, the inventor, out of the market for your own product.
This is wrong. We all know this is wrong. And the patent system, broken as it is, remains the only thing we have to prevent this.
It still needs to be fixed. I've blogged about this a little: http://www.darklock.com/blog/?p=55
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
Of course this all requires you to recognize that taking unwaivering ideological positions and refusing to listen to anyone with a different position is immature and irrational.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
One of my co-workers contrived a report to the boss about the latest roll-out. Down the left side of the page the letters read 'I fucked your wife at the office party'. Made all the more funny by the fact that he had.
I don't like software patents myself, but just grin and bare it. Step back and think is software patents really So Evil, is it worth loosing by job for a political idea, that is not really hurting anyone. Sometimes companies file patents to protect themselves in the future. Say I made a really cool way of doing something and didn't patent it. Then in 10 years someone else does and then sues me for patent infringement. Secondly it is just computers and software, and all in all they are not that important. Society survived for a long time without them, and even if laws make computing so difficult that all further innovation stops. Society will still continue on without it. There are a lot of things wrong in the world, are you going to stop driving your car or using electricity because it pollutes the air/water supply/grownd. You need to take priorities into account if software patents that wrong. Sure Open Source people don't like patents because they are expensive to process, and hamper development (especially if they are making Open Source copies of Commercial apps), but this is like someone who is a registered democrat quitting their job because they had to do some work with the republican party, even though it had nothing to do with the politics, (say something like installing a webserver)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you put yourself in a bind, you will have fewer options.
Of course it's flamebait! The guy insults the OP multiple times! Does it really need to be pointed out that insults tend to inspire flame-war?
In addition the guy's point is obvious, and no doubt has been stated by a non-flaming poster somewhere else, so it will hamper the conversation zero to mod this guy down and mod the non-flaming alternative up.