The companies listed Apple, Cisco, Verizon pay wages most of America could only dream of -- especially since they typically require only a 4 year degree. According to GlassDoor:
Apple's entry-level Software Engineer title makes an average base pay of $119,268, plus $34kish in additional incentives.
Cisco's "Software Engineer" title has an average salary of $117,326 with about $20k in additional incentives.
Verizon's "Software Engineer" title has any average salary of $100,098. Only one person reported bonus, at $14k. I'm not sure if, like the above companies, bonuses & stock are all but a given.
Since H1Bs are, by law, required to be paid the same salaries as their American citizen counterparts, if anything, the travesty is that we're giving the nation's best-paying jobs to people from overseas. But having hired numerous engineers, I can say that it'd be difficult to staff a large tech company of any size without relying on a foreign labor pool.
There's certainly abuses of the H1B program, but they're mostly from the big Indian "work for hire" shops like L&T, Infosys, etc. They pay way below industry norms, and thus, paying domestic workers the same wage as your foreign workers isn't that big of a deal.
I've used both Understand C++ and doxygen (with graphviz) to understand the code of those who are no longer available for me to bug. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, so I tend to use both.
Except they're not H1B visas they're talking about, its the PERM stuff. And its funny you should mention learning the truth, because its clear from reading those comments that people don't know the whole truth. The video also takes some things out of context... H1Bs last only 6 years at max... so what do you do if you have an Indian engineer who does really good work for you, has several years of experience for your product, and wouldn't mind living here longer? Why, you get them a green card, of course. But as the video explains, you're only supposed to be able to get them if there are no Americans available for the job. Thus, companies play tricks to keep their best employees.
They're clearly avoiding the intent of the law. But having worked with some good people here on H1Bs, I can understand wanting to keep them on instead of kicking them to the streets in favor of someone possibly less capable (certainly unproven) who certainly isn't intimately familiar with your products.
Is it wrong? Probably. Pure evil? Not even close.
Disclaimer: I work for Qualcomm. I'm not going to pretend I'm happy with everything we do in terms of patents, but its par for the course in this very patent-rich field. But your facts are in some cases wrong. GTE sued us, and the Nokia, Motorola, and Broadcom lawsuits were counter-suits.
As a pilot, I disagree, and so do the accident statistics. I never practice rules, regulations, and protocols, and while I can't say I've never broken one, they're pretty easy to stick to.
The only thing that's tough about emergencies is keeping your wits about you. Everything else had better be drilled into your head before you do your first solo.
On the other hand, I religiously practice landings. Nowhere else in flying is there near the level of concentration or skill required.
From what I understand of patent law and what I read, that isn't really prior art. Patents (in the US, at least) are issued to the first to "reduce to practice". That article seemed far too "hand-wavy" to be contrued as a reduction to practice.
Even if the article did disclose exactly how they did it, if Microsoft came up with a different method it would be patentable. After all, its the mechanism, not the concept, that is patentable.
Furthermore, even if they had a system that worked the same as Microsoft, it probably still wouldn't invalidate the patent because prior art must be "available to the public".
Finally, in the US, unlike most other countries, its not the filing date, but the invention date that counts. If Microsoft can prove they invented the same technology before IBM published the paper, I think they're still eligible for the patent.
I agree that a lot of patents issued today are stupid, but this does not seem like one of them.
Here's the actual FCC prohibition against cell phones on aircraft.
47 CFR Sec. 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
``The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in
suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.''
Using data from: http://www.centurion-engines.com/company/press_030 217_da42.htm
So the Diamond Twinstar, a very light twin engine aircraft with a 100 gallon fuel tank like this guy evidently has could go a little over 4000 miles.
100 g / 3gph -> 33 hrs
33 hrs * 110 ktas -> 3630 nm
3630 nm * 1.15 nm/sm = 4174.5 statute miles
I believe this was farther than what was planned.
Granted, the Twinstar has amazing fuel efficiency, but it seems entirely plausible, then, that he could have made it in an aircraft designed to travel long distances, had it not been for stronger than expected headwinds.
I'm not sure how this got modded up so high and marked as informative, because most of it is wrong.
Trade secrets are and always have been considered part of intellectual property rights. As another poster pointed out, intellectual property by design limits speech. I can't write a book that says, "I read the latest Tom Clancy book. It says <insert Tom Clancy novel here>".
Moving onto trade secret law, I think its a really good thing that if I take my PC in to get repaired and the technician notices my employer's financial info on the hard drive, they could be punished for revealing it.
Finally, Trade Secrets aren't the only laws that trump free speech. Both yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or revealing matters of national security are both enforceable, and for good reason.
As I understand it, the court's ruling only means that they can't use a 1st amendment defense, which I'm inclined to agree with. I would hope they would find, however, that DeCSS has nothing to do with trade secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you smoking?
The companies listed Apple, Cisco, Verizon pay wages most of America could only dream of -- especially since they typically require only a 4 year degree. According to GlassDoor:
Apple's entry-level Software Engineer title makes an average base pay of $119,268, plus $34kish in additional incentives.
Cisco's "Software Engineer" title has an average salary of $117,326 with about $20k in additional incentives.
Verizon's "Software Engineer" title has any average salary of $100,098. Only one person reported bonus, at $14k. I'm not sure if, like the above companies, bonuses & stock are all but a given.
Since H1Bs are, by law, required to be paid the same salaries as their American citizen counterparts, if anything, the travesty is that we're giving the nation's best-paying jobs to people from overseas. But having hired numerous engineers, I can say that it'd be difficult to staff a large tech company of any size without relying on a foreign labor pool.
There's certainly abuses of the H1B program, but they're mostly from the big Indian "work for hire" shops like L&T, Infosys, etc. They pay way below industry norms, and thus, paying domestic workers the same wage as your foreign workers isn't that big of a deal.
I've used both Understand C++ and doxygen (with graphviz) to understand the code of those who are no longer available for me to bug. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, so I tend to use both.
Except they're not H1B visas they're talking about, its the PERM stuff. And its funny you should mention learning the truth, because its clear from reading those comments that people don't know the whole truth. The video also takes some things out of context... H1Bs last only 6 years at max... so what do you do if you have an Indian engineer who does really good work for you, has several years of experience for your product, and wouldn't mind living here longer? Why, you get them a green card, of course. But as the video explains, you're only supposed to be able to get them if there are no Americans available for the job. Thus, companies play tricks to keep their best employees. They're clearly avoiding the intent of the law. But having worked with some good people here on H1Bs, I can understand wanting to keep them on instead of kicking them to the streets in favor of someone possibly less capable (certainly unproven) who certainly isn't intimately familiar with your products. Is it wrong? Probably. Pure evil? Not even close.
Disclaimer: I work for Qualcomm. I'm not going to pretend I'm happy with everything we do in terms of patents, but its par for the course in this very patent-rich field. But your facts are in some cases wrong. GTE sued us, and the Nokia, Motorola, and Broadcom lawsuits were counter-suits.
As a pilot, I disagree, and so do the accident statistics. I never practice rules, regulations, and protocols, and while I can't say I've never broken one, they're pretty easy to stick to.
The only thing that's tough about emergencies is keeping your wits about you. Everything else had better be drilled into your head before you do your first solo.
On the other hand, I religiously practice landings. Nowhere else in flying is there near the level of concentration or skill required.
From what I understand of patent law and what I read, that isn't really prior art. Patents (in the US, at least) are issued to the first to "reduce to practice". That article seemed far too "hand-wavy" to be contrued as a reduction to practice. Even if the article did disclose exactly how they did it, if Microsoft came up with a different method it would be patentable. After all, its the mechanism, not the concept, that is patentable. Furthermore, even if they had a system that worked the same as Microsoft, it probably still wouldn't invalidate the patent because prior art must be "available to the public". Finally, in the US, unlike most other countries, its not the filing date, but the invention date that counts. If Microsoft can prove they invented the same technology before IBM published the paper, I think they're still eligible for the patent. I agree that a lot of patents issued today are stupid, but this does not seem like one of them.
Here's the actual FCC prohibition against cell phones on aircraft.
47 CFR Sec. 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
``The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.''
Using data from: http://www.centurion-engines.com/company/press_030 217_da42.htm
So the Diamond Twinstar, a very light twin engine aircraft with a 100 gallon fuel tank like this guy evidently has could go a little over 4000 miles.
100 g / 3gph -> 33 hrs
33 hrs * 110 ktas -> 3630 nm
3630 nm * 1.15 nm/sm = 4174.5 statute miles
I believe this was farther than what was planned.
Granted, the Twinstar has amazing fuel efficiency, but it seems entirely plausible, then, that he could have made it in an aircraft designed to travel long distances, had it not been for stronger than expected headwinds.
I'm not sure how this got modded up so high and marked as informative, because most of it is wrong.
Trade secrets are and always have been considered part of intellectual property rights. As another poster pointed out, intellectual property by design limits speech. I can't write a book that says, "I read the latest Tom Clancy book. It says <insert Tom Clancy novel here>".
Moving onto trade secret law, I think its a really good thing that if I take my PC in to get repaired and the technician notices my employer's financial info on the hard drive, they could be punished for revealing it.
Finally, Trade Secrets aren't the only laws that trump free speech. Both yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or revealing matters of national security are both enforceable, and for good reason.
As I understand it, the court's ruling only means that they can't use a 1st amendment defense, which I'm inclined to agree with. I would hope they would find, however, that DeCSS has nothing to do with trade secrets.
Nolo.com -- trade secrets