Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Seeks Patent On Brain-Based Development

Posted by timothy on from the patent-on-defying-parody dept.

theodp writes "With its just-published patent application for Developing Software Components Based on Brain Lateralization, Microsoft provides yet another example of just how broken the patent system is. Microsoft argues that its 'invention' of having a Program Manager act as an arbitrator/communicator between a group of right-brained software users and left-brained software developers mimics 'the way that the brain communicates between its two distinct hemispheres.' One of the 'inventors' is Ray Ozzie's Technical Strategist. If granted, the patent could be used to exclude others from making, using, or selling the 'invention' for 17 years."

3 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. The patent office - retarding development? by TRAyres · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Essentially what this does is retard the development of obvious software for 17 years.

    I wonder if I can get a patent on a 'for' loop and then declare all software that uses it to be violating my patent?

    Fucking ridiculous.

    Only in America.

    1. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by iknowcss · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This is not a troll. Please realize that as you are reading my post.

      It is clear the system is broken, but of all the comments I've ever read on slashdot (as infrequently as that may be) what is the solution? I mean you can't just throw out the thing all together. Having no patenting system would make the whole market far too volatile. If you could start over and rebuild the whole thing, what would you do?

      My first thoughts where along the lines of something like:
      • Company 1 comes up with idea and puts a "patent hold" on it. No one else can find out about it.
      • Company 2 comes up with the same / similar idea and puts its own "patent hold" on it. Again, no one finds out.
      • Company 1 finishes its product and takes it to market. Company 2 is informed.
      • Companies 1 and 2 are given patents on the idea. No more companies may put a "hold" on the patent.
      • Company 1 and 2 battle it out, creating competition, but with some market stability.
      This way, no one company can sit on it. If they want to do something about what they've come up with, they can't just sit on it. They actually have to act on it, and to minimize their competition, they need to develop it as quickly as possible, effectively incentivising progress.
      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
  2. Let them patent it, and enforce the patent by melted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The concept of program manager is the single most fucked up aspect of Microsoft culture, IMO. Basically, the assumption is that developers can not, on a fundamental level:

    1. Talk to each other directly
    2. Understand what the customer needs
    3. Deliver software on time

    Anyone with any brain at all sees immediately that all three assumptions are pure bovine excrement, but there's a large layer of well entrenched PM's at Microsoft, up to about 30% of each product team. 95% of these folks do absolutely nothing but (mis)communicate, hold meetings, "manage releases" (whatever the heck that means) and manage up. The remaining 5% are worth their weight in rare earth metals, but they're a tiny minority and they would be better used in a position of authority, like a Project Manager. Program manger has no reports and no authority over either development or test. Oftentimes they have no specialized education and no area expertise. They are randomly assigned to "areas" and told to "spec them out". Most of them even have to design UI, despite not having any usability or UI design experience (I'm sure that explains a lot). So they throw together a primitive spec, and the developer (who is typically an area expert) then spends a lot of time trying to politely explain how big a pile of flaming poo their spec is and why certain things need to be done differently to be even possible.

    The worst part is, PM role is typically considered something of a fast track to management. So you end up with a lot of people who have not a slightest idea what they're talking about making strategic decisions.

    So I say, let them have it. The rest of the world will just assume that their developers and testers have a brain. Seems to be a pretty safe assumption to make, most of the time.