You should definitely consider not just the short-term effect of switching jobs, but how it will change your situation a few years down the track.
If you're anything like the vast majority of people, skills just fall out of your brain if you don't get a chance to practice them regularly. On the other hand, the more challenging position sounds like an opportunity to hone your skills and acquire new ones.
The upshot of this is that in five years' time, you'll probably have a sharper set of skills if you go for the more challenging job than if you stick with what you've got. Most likely you'll also have a more interesting resumé and be more employable; even if you're not planning to switch jobs again soon, it'll affect your value to the company and your negotiating power. It'll also make a difference to your enthusiasm about your work, which will feed back into everything else.
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.
Very, very true. That's actually one of the reasons I've stuck around this long.
About a year ago I almost had a discussion with my manager about the evils of the patent system. When I say "almost", we talked about it in relation to someone else's views (which were similar to mine), and only indirectly in relation to my own views. My manager basically gave the line that they need a defensive patent portfolio to prevent other people claiming the same thing later, and to barter for other companies' patents, and that they have no intention of being aggressive about it.
Which is great. Except that it's a very large company, and often, especially with IP issues, the left hand is kept in the dark about what the right hand is doing. (No more clues, damn it!) So they could have all kinds of nefarious plans and they'd never tell us lowly developers about it.
Even if I believe them about that, there's a chasm of difference between building up some patents to protect ourselves from evil, and actively pushing people to patent as much stuff as possible and using it as a performance measure. Big difference.
So, I dunno, it's hard to tell. Either way, it is a big emphasis in the company.
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.
I also work in an environment where writing patents is strongly encouraged and have a bearing on performance evaluations. Unfortunately, the company I work for doesn't care about the quality of the patents, just the quantity that they get accepted. I remember being in one meeting where one of the senior architects on the team was suggesting that we patent a part of the code where we transmit a string of numbers (e.g., "128") in their numeric form rather than their string form (e.g.,for "128" transmit 1 byte: 10000000, instead of of 3 bytes: "1", "2", "8"). This was to be a patent on a compression. I'm not joking. This was actually being proposed. Never got written (thank god), but it's pretty demoralizing.
Ugh. Nothing that I've seen done so far is quite on par with that - most of what we do is novel in at least some sense. Although definitely not to the extent that a normal (i.e. Not A Lawyer) type would intuitively call it "novel".
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.
...with the obvious difference that a good research paper invites people to reproduce your work, whereas a patent legally stops them from doing so. Therein lies the problem. Of course, most patents filed these days are so narrow that they mean nothing anyway, but I'd rather be somewhere where my performance isn't judged by how much I perpetuate that system.
That's pretty much what I figured. I regret submitting the "Conscientious Objector" line now - it's distracted too many people from the point.
You're right. It is essentially a binary decision between staying and doing patent work, or leaving. And while I'm there and being paid I intend to do what's in the company's interest. Although I'm intrigued by wrook's comment...
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.
This is hardly a request for advice, as there is not enough info about PatentThis' situation for anyone to give one.
There are two reasons I didn't go into too much detail. One, the editors are unlikely to publish my life story. Two, for reasons that I hope are obvious, I'm trying to keep a modicum of anonymity, at least for now. People in my office read Slashdot. Surprise.
At most, he wants to hear about similar cases (yeah, good luck sorting through/. posts for people who actually faced your situation, dude!) but guess what, that's not too helpful.
Oddly enough, the most helpful posts so far were from people in similar situations. That's part of what I was after. I'm also interested in the general consensus (if there is such a thing) of how much weight the Slashdot crowd puts on these issues - it's a forum where people can wag their fist at Microsoft with no ill consequences, but what I want to know is, would you still do it if your job was on the line? Do you (not "you" specifically, but "you" in the broad sense) oppose patents (or whatever) in principle, or are you willing to make serious changes to your life to back it up? 'Cause at the moment, I don't know, either for myself or anyone else around here (except maybe RMS and PJ). I don't care if you can't solve my specific problem (and you're totally right, you can't), tell me where your threshold is. I'm interested.
Additionally, although I do know my own values, they're not black and white. They fluctuate. The value that I place on my professional integrity and desire to see the industry progress in the right direction (in this case, away from patents) is affected by how I perceive the seriousness of the issue. And that is affected by how other people perceive it. Not because I want to bleat at the same pitch as the rest of the sheep, but because, oddly enough, people do occasionally make convincing arguments. I want to hear some of them. And maybe other people do too.
I would refuse to work on the patents, and if that led to quittery/fireditude, then so be it.
Frankly, though, I don't know if my job search would include companies that engage in such practices.
/naive idealist
Idealist indeed.
The trick is that, as theraputic as it would be to stand up at my cubicle and shout "I oppose this on moral grounds!", I don't really hold any animosity towards the company and it'd be better for all concerned, if I do decide to leave, to leave on good terms. And with another job already lined up.:)
As for the job search... today, I agree. I feel more strongly about such issues now than I did when I took the job. Plus, I didn't know as much about the company's practices as I do now. And I was eager to take whatever I could to get away from the previous job, which was bad for thoroughly different reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
...so Zonk couldn't dupe it.
Hey, yeah! Bring it on! GreenerGrass Inc. We don't make any money, but by Cthulhu we feel good about what we do.
You should definitely consider not just the short-term effect of switching jobs, but how it will change your situation a few years down the track.
If you're anything like the vast majority of people, skills just fall out of your brain if you don't get a chance to practice them regularly. On the other hand, the more challenging position sounds like an opportunity to hone your skills and acquire new ones.
The upshot of this is that in five years' time, you'll probably have a sharper set of skills if you go for the more challenging job than if you stick with what you've got. Most likely you'll also have a more interesting resumé and be more employable; even if you're not planning to switch jobs again soon, it'll affect your value to the company and your negotiating power. It'll also make a difference to your enthusiasm about your work, which will feed back into everything else.
I'd say go for it.
Yeah, that sounds distinctly familiar. Being financially secure enough to go back to university would make this decision a lot easier for me.
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.
Very, very true. That's actually one of the reasons I've stuck around this long.
About a year ago I almost had a discussion with my manager about the evils of the patent system. When I say "almost", we talked about it in relation to someone else's views (which were similar to mine), and only indirectly in relation to my own views. My manager basically gave the line that they need a defensive patent portfolio to prevent other people claiming the same thing later, and to barter for other companies' patents, and that they have no intention of being aggressive about it.
Which is great. Except that it's a very large company, and often, especially with IP issues, the left hand is kept in the dark about what the right hand is doing. (No more clues, damn it!) So they could have all kinds of nefarious plans and they'd never tell us lowly developers about it.
Even if I believe them about that, there's a chasm of difference between building up some patents to protect ourselves from evil, and actively pushing people to patent as much stuff as possible and using it as a performance measure. Big difference.
So, I dunno, it's hard to tell. Either way, it is a big emphasis in the company.
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.
Ugh. Nothing that I've seen done so far is quite on par with that - most of what we do is novel in at least some sense. Although definitely not to the extent that a normal (i.e. Not A Lawyer) type would intuitively call it "novel".
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.
That's pretty much what I figured. I regret submitting the "Conscientious Objector" line now - it's distracted too many people from the point.
You're right. It is essentially a binary decision between staying and doing patent work, or leaving. And while I'm there and being paid I intend to do what's in the company's interest. Although I'm intrigued by wrook's comment...
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.
This is hardly a request for advice, as there is not enough info about PatentThis' situation for anyone to give one.
/. posts for people who actually faced your situation, dude!) but guess what, that's not too helpful.
There are two reasons I didn't go into too much detail. One, the editors are unlikely to publish my life story. Two, for reasons that I hope are obvious, I'm trying to keep a modicum of anonymity, at least for now. People in my office read Slashdot. Surprise.
At most, he wants to hear about similar cases (yeah, good luck sorting through
Oddly enough, the most helpful posts so far were from people in similar situations. That's part of what I was after. I'm also interested in the general consensus (if there is such a thing) of how much weight the Slashdot crowd puts on these issues - it's a forum where people can wag their fist at Microsoft with no ill consequences, but what I want to know is, would you still do it if your job was on the line? Do you (not "you" specifically, but "you" in the broad sense) oppose patents (or whatever) in principle, or are you willing to make serious changes to your life to back it up? 'Cause at the moment, I don't know, either for myself or anyone else around here (except maybe RMS and PJ). I don't care if you can't solve my specific problem (and you're totally right, you can't), tell me where your threshold is. I'm interested.
Thank you. My sentiments exactly.
Additionally, although I do know my own values, they're not black and white. They fluctuate. The value that I place on my professional integrity and desire to see the industry progress in the right direction (in this case, away from patents) is affected by how I perceive the seriousness of the issue. And that is affected by how other people perceive it. Not because I want to bleat at the same pitch as the rest of the sheep, but because, oddly enough, people do occasionally make convincing arguments. I want to hear some of them. And maybe other people do too.
That would be funnier if it wasn't true. :(
Frankly, though, I don't know if my job search would include companies that engage in such practices.
Idealist indeed.
The trick is that, as theraputic as it would be to stand up at my cubicle and shout "I oppose this on moral grounds!", I don't really hold any animosity towards the company and it'd be better for all concerned, if I do decide to leave, to leave on good terms. And with another job already lined up.
As for the job search... today, I agree. I feel more strongly about such issues now than I did when I took the job. Plus, I didn't know as much about the company's practices as I do now. And I was eager to take whatever I could to get away from the previous job, which was bad for thoroughly different reasons.