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).
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.
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.
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.
... 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.]
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]
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.
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...
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.