Would You Quit Over Patents? 155
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?"
"Conscientious Objector status" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Conscientious Objector status" (Score:3, Insightful)
A useful suggestion (Score:2)
Whether you keep your current job or not is your call. Only you can do the necessary soul-searching to decide whether or not staying on board is something you want to do.
That said, if you do decide to quit, make sure that you read the employment contract of your next employer carefully. Quite frequently, employment contracts include clauses that give your employer first dibs on anything you invent, at the office or not, on the clock or not. You will need to negotiate that item out.
Re:"Conscientious Objector status" (Score:2)
If you quit, you don't get severance pay. Fired, on the other hand...
Another option (Score:5, Funny)
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).
Honestly... (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW - Does it bother you that by being for patent reform that you are on the same side as Microsoft?
Heh heh... Have fun sleeping. Damned if you do....
Refuse (Score:2, Interesting)
Frankly, though, I don't know if my job search would include companies that engage in such practices.
Re:Refuse (Score:2)
Rarely do real situations come without some ambiguity or conflicting motives.
In the overall job market graph, you really don't want to burn any of the in-edges that were your old gigs, or the out-edges of your network that land you the next node, after the current node goes TU*
How much brighter the world will be, when the black hole that is software patents is plugged.
*Tits Up
Re:Refuse (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Refuse (Score:3, Funny)
Ugh.. I think I'm on corporate overload today.
Re:Refuse (Score:2)
If only that were true... and made sense.
Re:Refuse (Score:2)
Fine with me. I just patented a method and process for "quiting". And method or process for "quiting a job" And method or process for "being fired from a job" And method or process for "quiting a job over the internet"
And this one, which applies to everyone here:
method or process for "being fired from a job because you surfed slashdot too much".
Site licensing, anyone?
Be a mole against the patent system! (Score:2)
Re:Refuse (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [bricklin.com].
Re:Refuse (Score:2)
How am I supposed to know what are the interests of my shareholders? If they are anything like general population, most of them download music from Kazaa, so presumably they don't like IP laws. If not, they can sell the stock or vote during shareholder's meeting. All I have to do is be honest by mentioning risks of lawsuits in my prospectus.
What he said (Score:2)
Development, whether in software or hardware, is a front-loaded process. You spend a
Re:What he said (Score:2)
This even more effectively forces you out of the market for your own product.
"You spend a lot of time and money and effort on it before you have anything at all."
Whatever we can accomplish on our own pales in comparison with t
Re:Refuse (Score:2)
Not really. They can also publish to ensure prior art.
"If the company doesn't get patents, it is acting against the interests of its shareholders"
Not necessarily. Patents are not a defense against patent trolls, and the litigation costs may not necessarily make them profitable. In fact, a vast majority of the patents in the system never, ever, make their holders a dime. That makes most of them a pure loss.
Avoiding pure losses isnt acting against t
Re:Refuse (Score:2)
Well... You're healthy? You have a wife, and I'm guessing you love each other. That's one hell of a thing to be optimistic about. If you end up starving... well, you'll be starving with someone you love
> the government is neutered by the deficit
Well, if the government can't do anything, they can't take away your rights... Wait, that doesn't take any money, obviously... I don't know w
Why ask us (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why ask us (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Could help him change his mind
2) Helps raise awareness about software patents.
I mean, seriously. The point of ask slashdot isn't to have half a million people help one person solve his tiny little problem. It's to help raise awareness about issues,
Oh not again (Score:4, Insightful)
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>
Parent isn't flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Grandparent is Flamebait (Score:2)
In addition the guy's point is obvious, and no doubt has been stated by a non-flaming poster somewhere else, so it will hamper the conversation zero to mod this guy down and mod the non-flaming alternative up.
Re:Oh not again (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think the direct approach is always best, take some time to sit down with your bosses(off the clock) and discuss your views; maybe you'll find that
Re:Oh not again (Score:2)
I have to agree with the GP in spirit (although the form he put it in could have been less harsh). This is hardly a request for advice, as there is not enough info about PatentThis' situation for anyone to give one. At most, he wants to hear about similar cases (yeah, good luck sorting through
Re:Oh not again (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Oh not again (Score:2)
What do you value? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What do you value? (Score:1)
Of course you have to consider the fact that (s)he may be in a very tight job market when quitting could litteraly mean having no place to live, or not being able to support a family.
Morals and values are great and when don't conflict with survival, or reasonable living conditions, are okay to stand up for.
To the submitter, if you have a problem with the work and can afford to, I suggest quitting. If you can't afford to, I suggest starting to job hunt immediately. Feeding yourself and your family should
Re:What do you value? (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that once I hit 40 in a couple of years it'll all be better, right? Right? Please, please say that's right!!!
Re:What do you value? (Score:2)
move on... (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't (Score:3, Interesting)
Quit. Absolutely. (Score:5, Funny)
Hits too close to home (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [eff.org]; 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.
It's required for doing business ... (Score:2, Informative)
scale your outrage based on expected impact (Score:4, Insightful)
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here's a thought.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here's a thought.... (Score:2)
That'll be tough. Anyone working in a field in which IP is actually used MUST be well-versed on patents. Some employers may make a conscious decision to walk blindly through the patent minefield to reduce l
No. (Score:2)
If i were in your position, I would prepare Plan B (Score:1, Insightful)
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
my advice (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:my advice (Score:2)
I would suggest instead to find a new job first knowing your job has nothing to do with filing patents. You might even want to ask the question if this is part of your job responsibilities in the interview (or not
yes (Score:1)
lots of things (Score:2)
You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:3, Interesting)
Software is covered under copyright and has no legitimate place in the world of patents. Patents only serve the purpose of blocking the competition from developing competing products that function in a similar way. This hinders progress.
There is
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:4, Interesting)
In our case, the implementation of the software isn't that hard once you have the algorithm. Most of our R&D is making that algorithm. That's the hard work we need protected, not the implementaiton.
It's worth noting that this is exactly what patents (all patents, not just software patents) are *supposed* to do. They grant a limited monopoly to someone as a reward for the effort spent inventing something. In exchange, the details of the invention are published so that everyone gets to use it after the patent expires. This is very good in principle. It rewards invention, and benefits the public.
As a counterexample, if we didn't have patents, after spending a LOT of time and money researching something, there are several other companies out there that would outright copy what we are doing. We're doing all this R&D so we can do what we do way better than anyone has before us. Aside from altruistic intent, why would we do this if everyone was just going to copy us after we roll out the first prototypes? And in the long run, our patents benefit the public even more - when the patents expire, EVERYONE gets to implement what we do, instead of just a few companies that managed to reverse engineer what we're doing.
I contend that this isn't the black and white issue you make it out to be. Patents can do good. I can say that without them, we would not be doing the work we do. We're doing stuff that really never has been done before, and nobody would be doing it if there wasn't profit to be had.
We just need to fix the implementation of the patents. The time we get them for is crazy in this industry. The flippant way they're granted makes the world a patent minefield.
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
No, you need to do a better job of protecting your algorithms. Subverting the patent process (which is not supposed to protect algorithms) to achieve that end will get you a mix of profits and derision.
Let's look at Google's PageRank algorithm. Like you, they spend a fair amount of R&D on the algorith
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
You propose that everyone just keeps everything secret. One of the really good things about patents is they require publishing your work. If I spend
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
Yes, that is what the public gets in exchange for granting patent protections. By default everything is public domain. In the case of software this benefit does not exist and that is one of the fundemental reasons patents should not apply to software (aside from the blantant fact that mathmatics should never be patentable). Software can be disassembled and therefore there is no need to give the author anything in exchange for
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
It is true that copyrights and patents do not work the same way. They are also never supposed to apply to the same work. Software falls under the domain of copyright as it should. Patents are NOT intended to cover algorithms. Mathmatical algorithms are NOT supposed to be patentable at all! The problem is that software companies want the virtual monopolies you
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
However: Algorithms != abstract mathematics.
Therefore, software != algorithms.
To use your analogy, you patent the idea of using an electric heating element to heat bread; this is the method of making toast. You copyright the blueprints for the toaster; this is the implementation of a toaster.
Software is an implementation of an algorithm. Software is copyrightable. Algorithms are patentable. The two protections do not apply to the same work in software, any more than the
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
The patent office granting patents for what amount to ideas instead of actual inventions is why reform is needed.
Patents cover implementations, copyrights cover implementations. Both cover different
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Stop pretending that patents are necessary for your company to make a profit. Most businesses have no patents and get along just fine. Ideas are copied and adapted continuously. That's business.
So what's your objection? Do y
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
Sure, our business worked fine before we started changing the way things get done. But we've invented new ways to do things, and so now we do it better. For some of those things, we rely on patents to be able to keep doing things better than the competiton for a few years.
Profit incentive is what makes high risk
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
Sure, our business worked fine before we started changing the way things get done. But we've invented new ways to do things, and so now we do it better. For some of those things, we rely on patents to be able to keep doing things better than the competiton for a few years.
It's a "nice to have" from the perspective of your company, not a "be able to".
Profit incentive is what makes high risk ventures worthwhile.
No, profit incentive and the average expected return is the reason all businesses, of any
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
I contend that patents are a good thing, and that we just need to drastically reform the system.
I have been involved in a lot of research that would never have been done in a 100% free market like you're describing. These things would have been promptly co
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
Your examples are why not every idea should be patentable, but they're irrelevant for 2 reasons: #1, the current system wouldn't let you do this;
No, you miss my point. I was making the point that what is [not] patentable is completely arbitrary and has no rational basis, just hand waving justifications. Arbitrary law is unjust law and has no ethical basis.
#2, I already agree that some things shouldn't get patents. The dispute is if we should have patents at all.
We're getting into semantics here. W
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
By that standard, most of our laws are unjust.
I happen to agree.
I'm talking about "financial incentives for people to contribute their inventions to the public domain by granting a time-limited monopoly on th
Re:You need to clarify your reasoning. (Score:2)
Patents are a monopoly over an area of technology (or would be if they were done properly!) and exist solely for economic reasons.
Even if you are using the patents as a bargaining chip then you are using them to prevent having to pay another company licensing fees.
If you don't want others to patent your stuff but are opposed to patents you can do "defensive publication" - this creates a well established pie
Just write the patents, man (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Just write the patents, man (Score:2)
Re:Just write the patents, man (Score:2)
First, it's great fun. Inventing is cathartic.
Don't conflate invention with patents. They are completely different.
Second, patents look great on your resume.
Only if want a job at a firm which idolises patent parasites.
Third, you can keep your job. No big anyway, because now your resume has patents on it.
And maybe he can keep his job anyway. Or maybe he can get a job at a company that appreciates true inventiveness rather than the parasitism that most patents promote.
Fourth, you get a lot
Re:Get into drug dealing, man. (Score:2)
It's time to get over the whole "drugs are bad thing": they already exist, they already on the market, they already affect many people and your failure to sell them doesn't mean someone else won't try to do it. It's big money after all.
Re:Just write the patents, man (Score:2)
It's a war, but he's not the soldier killing others. He's not even the person directing the soldiers. He's just a guy working on the trigger mechanism for a gun that will eventually find itself in the hands of soldiers.
I say keep working at it, get some patents under your belt, then see if you can change the system from within once you're high up
Do no evil unless (Score:1)
If you think Patents are evil, and you don't like to do evil, but this job is a great job and you don't feel like going back to the job market, then the answer is clear -- Keep the job and accept that a little evil is harmless.
instead of turning tail and running (Score:1)
Re:instead of turning tail and running (Score:3, Insightful)
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, th
No need to risk your job (Score:2)
Don't be silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't be silly (Score:2)
patents are a required business tool and your company would be stupid not to use them.
They are not a required business tool. The vast majority of businesses have no patents and get along just fine.
You can't just avoid getting patents, unless you want to be out of business.
Unless you want to avoid giving even more money to lawyer-parasites. Every new patent is annother opportunity for a lawyer to make more money at the expense of the wider community.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with
Re:Don't be silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, businesses like restaurants. Any company that develops anything usually has lots of patents. They are necessary to protect against being sued by your competitors for infringing _their_ patents. Not to mention, if you don't patent something, someone else will patent it and sue you for infringement. Unless you want to spend hundreds of millions of bucks proving prior art, you will have to pay licensing fees. This happens on a d
Re:Don't be silly (Score:2)
Yeah, businesses like restaurants.
No, businesses historically and businesses in many parts of the world. What we've got now is an historical aberration.
Any company that develops anything usually has lots of patents.
They are necessary to protect against being sued by your competitors for infringing _their_ patents.
In other words an arms race where everybody loses except the patent mafia. Great ethical basis that.
Not to mention, if you don't patent something, someone else will patent it and s
Re:Don't be silly (Score:2)
Name one large high-tech company which does not hold any patents.
In other words an arms race where everybody loses except the patent mafia. Great ethical basis that.
Yeah. But guess what, a business has two options: participate in the arms race, or go out of business. Which one do you think they will choose?
Nope, the simple reality of a broken legal system that people are ignoring wholesale
Mickey mouse patents (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
What I did (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
stay, and donate part of your earnings to the FSF? (Score:3)
Take The Middle Ground (Score:2)
If you want to do things the ethical way, IANAL, but I'd take the following direction:
Software is mathematics, it can't be patented. Additionally, patents require you to certify, personally, that you believe the invention is novel and patentable.
Your boss cannot force you to certify that and they likely can't fire you for refusing to certify bogus patents. The key is to document that they are linking "low-performance" (their justific
The system is the problem, not your participation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The system is the problem, not your participati (Score:2)
It's called Integrity. Some people have it. Some people don't.
Some people measure their worth by means other than their current business portfolio, though I understand this concept is becoming increasingly rare.
Don't be a fundamentalist (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Software == Not Patentable (Score:2)
Nope.
Software, all software, is simply a mathematical algorithim. Mathematical algorithms are unpatentable by the USPTOs own rules. Therefore, software is unpatentable.
Be advised however that the USPTO no longer considers non-patentability to be an obstacle to patentability.
a thought (Score:2)
satre says (Score:2)
They are doing what's smart (Score:2, Insightful)
Another take on the article (Score:2)
Rather than talking about working on patents for your company, what about clauses in contract with your company that require "inventors" employed with the company must hand over the rights to their patent to the company their currently employed for, sometimes, even for patents in unrelated fields. I've never patented anything, but I've always wanted to, and that has me thinking about current contracts I have with my full-time permanent employer on whether I could get a signed contract with them allowing m
Sorry.. (Score:2)
Patents are like Chemistry (Score:2)
Software patents to protect yourself can be a good thing. If you have a patent it means that no one else can patent it and use it to sue the socks off of people, think IBM.
Or you can use them as a club. If someone sues you over some patent they hold you may have several patents that you could counter sue them over so again they will not try and sue you.
Finally patents can be a good thing and help a company make money. Hardware patents are a good example.
Their shouldn't be
Not even close (Score:2)
I hate software patents, and I'm against a lot of the IP crap.
But I believe in nothing so strongly as I believe I need to put food on the table for my little boy.
My Own Experience (Score:2)
Here is a radical idea... (Score:2)
Of course this all requires you to recognize that taking unwaiveri
Hyper sensitive moral values. (Score:2)
Be careful with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The question you *really* want to ask yourself. (Score:3, Insightful)
If your boss asks you to shoot someone, and you know that if you don't, you will b
Re:Weak Ask Slashdot question (Score:2)
Re:Weak Ask Slashdot question (Score:2)
2. If this person is in a "wage-slavery" condition, what good is it asking this question? The any answer won't change his condition.
3. "because of the effect the current economy is having on very basic freedoms of conscience."
This has nothing to do w
Re:Weak Ask Slashdot question (Score:2)
It was a good point when he made it, and it holds true today.