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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.]
At the risk of getting the same treatment, mod parent up!
Bullshit! Pump up the patents as much as you possibly can. Patent air!
It's only through rampant absurdity can you get anyone to recognize that something needs to be done. Otherwise it isn't bad enough.
I couldn't agree more. If you have value in the company, and it's work that you otherwise enjoy, then you might find the right environment to make positive change.
I remember back in '98, trying to talk the owner of a company I was working for into using FOSS tools as the foundation for our software apps. He kept asking me, "But... what do we own?" He never really did get it, though we did move all our servers to Linux and pushed a lot of our development work onto Linux boxes. What I really appreciated, though, was that he and the COO gave me a good two hours of their time to make my case, and though they didn't do everything I suggested, we did reach a compromise that improved our efficiency and our work environment.
Likewise, I and two other staff at another company worked with the owners to re-write the standard employment contract to allow for the GPL and FOSS-related 'IP ownership isses'.
The patent situation might prove a little more intransigent, though, because you seem to view it as a showstopper. Nonetheless, if you feel you're in the right position to do something about it, then see if you can change the policy. If you and your employer reach a workable compromise, then fine.
If you find that you cannot stomach the thought that you're contributing to an unethical or immoral situation, then you need to decide how to explain that to management in a way that makes it clear that his company has lost a valuable employee because of its policies. Ideally, you'll do it in such a way that they won't be glad to see the back of you. 8^)
All of this requires of course that you respect the management at that company, that they respect you, and that they're not so huge that they can't reconsider a fundamental policy such as this. I suspect that the latter will probably not be true, but you're the one who needs to judge that.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
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.
That would be funnier if it wasn't true. :(
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.
I don't believe that software patents are a good idea, but if I developed anything patentable at work, I'd feel comfortable having my name put on the patent.
Dan Bricklin, the author of Visicalc, has written a thoughtful piece on his views on software patents.
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