6 ms·

>“You don’t have any accomplishments,” the lawyer told him. “You don’t have a patent, or even a product.” That scolding spurred Sanjay to make a list of what he

>“You don’t have any accomplishments,” the lawyer told him. “You don’t have a patent, or even a product.” That scolding spurred Sanjay to make a list of what he needed to do to achieve his goal of staying permanently. He improved the technology his AI-based firm was developing, expanded its customer base, and filed for a U.S. patent, which was awarded earlier this year. In May those efforts paid off, allowing him to move from an O-1A to a EB-1 visa, which grants him permanent residency. Question from non-USA-an here. I wonder if this will lead people to spam the patent office with low quality inventions hoping something will stick and help them secure a EB-1 visa.

satya71 3y ago
Not any more than other patent applicants. Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. 1. Large companies pay a bonus for every patent applied and bigger one for approval. 2. Patent lawyers are paid for filed patents. 3. Patent office makes money on each patent. They view the review process as a cost center and optimize it for fast approval.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y ago
  > Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Hasn't it always been the case? There's a ton of old patents for shit which can't work as described.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Outsourcing real approval to the courts, what could possibly go wrong?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Would be fine if courts were sufficiently funded such that adjudication happened within weeks.
- bumby 3y ago
  >Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Not just "incentivized to ignore quality", they aren't duty-bound to consider quality at all. The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. The three main relevant parts of the US Code are: 35 USC Sec. 101: is it patentable? (i.e., it must be a process, machine, process, or manufactured good. It can't be something like an idea or song) 35 USC Sec. 102: is it novel? (i.e., no one single prior existing item teaches all the limitations of the patent claims) 35 USC Sec. 103: is it non-obvious? (i.e., you can't combine a couple of different patents to arrive at your patent) There's a few other important sections (like 112 that ensures you're giving enough detail), but none of them look at "quality". In other words, you can patent a worthless invention as long as it passes those wickets. Edit: Somewhat surprisingly to some, they don't necessarily evaluate infringement either. So you could, in theory, have a novel patent that you can't use to make something because it infringes on an existing patent.
  - pc86 3y ago
    They're barely qualified to address novelty and get it wrong often, so I can't even imagine the types of things that would have been denied had they tried to evaluate the quality as well.
  - samstave 3y ago
    >>The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. As it should be. The USPTO is in no place to evaluate a patent's quality, unless youre a USPTO clerk whos first name starts with Albert and your last name ends in -Stein. --- But in seriousness, novelty is the important factor in a patent, not quality. As utility patents/improvement patents are a thing.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I would disagree and claim the patent office is "incentivized to ignore quality". The clerks are expected to do a certain amount of work per week and granting a patent counts as more work than denying a patent.
    - abduhl 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- meragrin_ 3y ago
  How do you define "fast approval"?
  - samstave 3y ago
    yes
- samstave 3y ago
  >1. Large companies pay a bonus for every patent applied and bigger one for approval. When at lockheed we had what I referred to as the "Croatian Coalition" a bunch of Croatian engineers that were all over all the patents we were filing (RFID for weapons) -- they were all so proud of all their patents (as they should be) - but they were really aggressive on filing for not just the satisfaction (getting a patent must be a great feeling, I am not yet personally on any even though I have influenced several) But they like the bonuses and internal recognition that came with them. Also, spamming the patent office would be hard unless you have deep pockets/are a patent attorney or have Big Corp funding your efforts (and rewarding them) I am sure there are cheap ways to file, but for the average person, not so much.
- swagempire 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The lawyer's job is not to judge the quality of a patent -- in the same way a defense lawyer is not there to judge the innocence of their client. The patent lawyer is just there to file the patent and help their client get past the approval process. It is the PATENT OFFICE who's job it is to judge quality. Have several patents, btw.
- meltyness 3y ago
  replicability is unenforceable
- KMag 3y ago
  0. Large companies much prefer to settle patent disputes with "Okay, you might have a case for patents A, B, C. We have a case for you infringing on our patents D and E. We like your patents F and G. What do you like from our portfolio? Okay, and we'll throw in these 300 random patents to show we're willing to reduce our ability to drown your lawyers in paperwork. How about you throw in 200 random patents to bring down the size of your paperwork arsenal? Do we have a deal?" Edit: so at some point in the patent portfolio cross-licensing negotiation, there's a pure numbers game, so for large corporations there is some value in patents nobody is ever going to implement. At least that's my recollection from 15 years ago about why Google paid me as sole inventor of a patent. (I was working on indexing, and thought "Oh no, if someone does X, then indexing becomes incredibly harder, basically DRM for the web. Webspam could hide more easily. Oh, but if we patent X, that might make my life easier in the future." The patent lawyer zeroed in too much on my mention of CAPTCHA as a possible use case, so I'm not sure if Google could really use my patent to prevent its use as DRM/Webspam hiding. At some point, I decided pushing back against the lawyer to make the patent more broadly applicable might not be good for society. I didn't feel strongly enough to turn down my patent bonus, just strongly enough to stop pushing edits back to the lawyer.)
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  really, how much do large companies pay per patent? any data points?
  - lgleason 3y ago
    Someone mentioned Lockheed, at GE they had a program that was pushed really hard on software engineers/EE's etc. with a carrot of a bonus for patents accepted and approved.
  - satya71 3y ago
    I've seen about $5k in the past. But I haven't worked at a large company for a while.
    - meragrin_ 3y ago
      Are those lawyer fees or USPTO fees?
- ryandrake 3y ago
  I know this is a little controversial, but I wish our software development culture would discourage patents as taboo, something to not be proud of. Software patents are a truly terrible arms race, and they essentially aren't protecting anyone except the big boys. "Having N patents" should be something that gets frowned on, not something you highlight on your resume. When asked about this myself (during interviews or whatever), I proudly boast that I have zero patents to my name and that I actively avoid being part of the problem by participating. I see it as an opportunity to 1. help steer our culture in whatever tiny way I can and 2. get up on a little soap box about the problem. In the past, I've been asked to help out with patent applications for these so-called "inventions" that I developed, and I always tell my manager "If you want to patent this, I can't stop you, but do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way."
  - bdowling 3y ago
    > "… do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way." If you invented it, then they have to put your name on the application as the inventor. There’s also a declaration that the inventor is supposed to sign as part of the application. If the inventor is dead or otherwise unavailable (e.g., refuses to sign), there’s an alternative form that can be filed.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      I'd be willing to bet lots of companies play fast and loose with the "inventor" names on patents anyway. I've looked up software patents issued to companies I've worked for, and sometimes the "inventors" listed were just eng managers and likely had nothing to do with the actual grunt work of writing the code.
      - alibarber 3y ago
        "the actual grunt work of writing the code" isn't actually patentable in my experience, from Europe (inc. UK). The inventive step is the actual decision of 'we will do this thing in this way', or rather determining the 'method'. In fact, the guidelines we follow are that someone implementing the design based on some instructions, i.e, just working on a ticket, is explicitly not to be included as an inventor - unless they actually decided that's how it should be done. Of course, it's nice to work in a place whereby you get to design and implement the system and become an inventor. In my opinion and experience at least. But I can see some organisations whereby developers are popping off tickets in sprints and implementing them - but that is by definition not an inventive step.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lgleason 3y ago
They just created a giant loophole that will be easy to game. Patents are easy to get and someone will come up with a startup mill that will be nothing but a visa factory.
- abduhl 3y ago
  >> Patents are easy to get How many do you have? Patents are more difficult to obtain than HN gives credit and they cost a non-inconsequential amount of money too.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    > How many do you have? That seems like an odd retort to me. Like I have zero because I find the whole idea ethically dubious. When I was at IBM, they had occasional patent brainstorming meetings. I remember saying to one of the more senior engineers that everything I worked on was straightforward/obvious, and he told me I'd be surprised, which didn't do much to sway my thoughts on the ethics there. Everyone who had been there for a few years had a couple patents. I don't remember any of them now, which I guess is sort of the point: it was all basic stuff that would be very difficult to honestly characterize as an "invention".
    - abduhl 3y ago
      How is it an odd retort? If you haven't obtained a patent then the likelihood that you've actually gone through the patent procurement process with the USPTO is extremely low on this website. It's hackernews, not patentexaminernews or patentagentnews after all. It would be like me saying "designing your own operating system is easy" and having someone respond "how many OSes have you designed?" And by the way, your own story bears out the same: despite working for IBM (a company where attorneys familiar with the patent process are no doubt legion), participating or being aware of these patent brainstorm sessions, and stating that everyone had one after a couple years, you have zero. So what would you know about the patent prosecution process? Certainly not enough to say that it's easy.
      - 3y ago
dougmwne 3y ago
The patent office is always spammed with low quality “inventions”. The US patent system is in pretty desperate need of reform. The conversation with a few extra crappy patents is basically zero.
passwordoops 3y ago
Reply from non-USA who has worked in USA. Many companies already spam the patent office with low-quality/non-existent inventions. One put a quota on us for number of submissions, so that led to at least 200 a year from one firm knowing full well the vast majority would go nowhere. Another would file at least one with every product and delay the evaluation as long as possible to game the system so they could write "patent pending" and attach the veneer of innovation on the marketing material
- dmoy 3y ago
  > so they could write "patent pending" and attach the veneer of innovation on the marketing material There's another reason too: Having a large number of patents for a given subject matter makes it a veritable arsenal for use against other companies, either offensively or defensively (since a common defense to a lawsuit of patent infringement is a countersuit with your own parent infringement lawsuit). Gotta feed the dancing gorilla
toomuchtodo 3y ago
As a US citizen interested in improving the visa process who regularly interfaces with policymakers, propose an objective rubric that is better and I will get it in front of policymakers. Can't guarantee an outcome, will guarantee the effort. Patent quota is bullshit, but also "I know talent when I see it" (even though I do and how I hire) isn't going to fly. Sorting hats are hard, Goodhart's Law, etc. High level, you are attempting to build a system to encourage the best and brightest to come work (and hopefully make it home) in the US while defending against those who will attempt to find system weakness to exploit. EDIT: I won't pollute the thread with thank yous for replies, but they are appreciated. (thoughts and opinions always my own)
- cogman10 3y ago
  Degree from a recognized school. Verified work history in the field. Those wouldn't be perfect metrics, and they might be easy to fudge. So it then becomes a question of if disqualification of the capable is worse than qualification of the incapable. I personally prefer to let more people in than less. It's not like it's smooth sailing in the US if you can't do skilled work.
  - estebank 3y ago
    Degree and work history are already a significant part of evaluation on L1/L2 and H1B visas. IIRC 3 years of work experience are considered equivalent to 1 year of college education, which allows those who didn't get a degree but have extensive experience to also have an avenue for obtaining a Visa.
    - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
      It’s a ridiculous system to value 12 years of experience in the movie industry as on par with a film degree. The software industry makes it even more absurd since historically the very top talent has often skipped college and become world class in their early 20s.
- xtreme 3y ago
  You don't have to look far, Canada has already implemented a point based system for granting permanent residence to skilled workers. It assigns scores to applicants based on education, skills, employment offer, language speaking ability, etc. I believe it can be a good starting point for a more objective selection criteria than the current system which is more based on luck. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/eligibility/criteria-comprehensive-ranking-system/grid.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hibikir 3y ago
I would be surprised if it didn't, as other parts of the immigration system also warp post graduate education. EB-2 provides a much easier immigration route than EB-3, and EB-1 is easier still: Arguably the only road you can call easy if you come from countries that hit the per-country cap. The most reliable way to EB-2 is post graduate education. For EB-1, as listed here, will be patents and publications after a Ph.D. So now you go look at your typical STEM department at a good US university. As you go into masters and Phds, the percentage of foreign students goes up. This isn't because most international students love academia: It's because the immigration system, as described earlier, just makes the piece of paper they hand you so much more valuable that it'd be for someone that is already a US citizen. And since it's especially valuable for students from visa-capped countries, guess what? Students from those countries are disproportionally going through that route. If we cut the visa limits, and said that a STEM degree and some STEM employment after was a guarantee for a green card in 2 years, I'd expect the number of international students that pick that route to plummet. The disparity between the demand for green cards and the visa limit is so wide, every year the incentive to study longer just increases. If none of those numbers change, I'd expect that the patent route will just be pushed further. So just like the visa caps are a subsidy for post graduate degrees, this rule clarification will be an implicit subsidy for patent attorneys. Then we'll have yet another set of people with a lot to lose if we raise the visa limits, or stop the per-country quotas.
- light_hue_1 3y ago
  > This isn't because most international students love academia: It's because the immigration system, as described earlier, just makes the piece of paper they hand you so much more valuable that it'd be for someone that is already a US citizen. Nonsense. I've been at a typical STEM department at a top us institution for a decade and interacted with thousands of students. I can count the number of students who were in it for a visa. You don't do a 5-6 year PhD simply for a green card. There are easier ways.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > There are easier ways. Such as?.. If you're from a capped country, your options are limited. For EB-2/EB-3 the wait time for Indian nationals is around 12 years.
hiddencost 3y ago
That is what parents are. They're acquired either by huge companies for a defensive portfolio or by retired old men who get scammed by bottom feeding lawyers willing to file anything for their fee.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
geodel 3y ago
> if this will lead people to spam the patent office with low quality inventions hoping something will stick and help them secure a EB-1 visa. Not much really. The reason being it is already happening as incredibly common thing for last few decades or maybe even longer. I have seen many fine researchers at workplace like you mentioned above.
natas 3y ago
[flagged]
onetimeusename 3y ago
[flagged]

satya71 3y ago

Not any more than other patent applicants. Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. 1. Large companies pay a bonus for every patent applied and bigger one for approval. 2. Patent lawyers are paid for filed patents. 3. Patent office makes money on each patent. They view the review process as a cost center and optimize it for fast approval.

isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y ago
> Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Hasn't it always been the case? There's a ton of old patents for shit which can't work as described.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Outsourcing real approval to the courts, what could possibly go wrong?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Would be fine if courts were sufficiently funded such that adjudication happened within weeks.
bumby 3y ago
>Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Not just "incentivized to ignore quality", they aren't duty-bound to consider quality at all. The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. The three main relevant parts of the US Code are: 35 USC Sec. 101: is it patentable? (i.e., it must be a process, machine, process, or manufactured good. It can't be something like an idea or song) 35 USC Sec. 102: is it novel? (i.e., no one single prior existing item teaches all the limitations of the patent claims) 35 USC Sec. 103: is it non-obvious? (i.e., you can't combine a couple of different patents to arrive at your patent) There's a few other important sections (like 112 that ensures you're giving enough detail), but none of them look at "quality". In other words, you can patent a worthless invention as long as it passes those wickets. Edit: Somewhat surprisingly to some, they don't necessarily evaluate infringement either. So you could, in theory, have a novel patent that you can't use to make something because it infringes on an existing patent.
- pc86 3y ago
  They're barely qualified to address novelty and get it wrong often, so I can't even imagine the types of things that would have been denied had they tried to evaluate the quality as well.
- samstave 3y ago
  >>The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. As it should be. The USPTO is in no place to evaluate a patent's quality, unless youre a USPTO clerk whos first name starts with Albert and your last name ends in -Stein. --- But in seriousness, novelty is the important factor in a patent, not quality. As utility patents/improvement patents are a thing.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I would disagree and claim the patent office is "incentivized to ignore quality". The clerks are expected to do a certain amount of work per week and granting a patent counts as more work than denying a patent.
  - abduhl 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
meragrin_ 3y ago
How do you define "fast approval"?
- samstave 3y ago
  yes
samstave 3y ago
>1. Large companies pay a bonus for every patent applied and bigger one for approval. When at lockheed we had what I referred to as the "Croatian Coalition" a bunch of Croatian engineers that were all over all the patents we were filing (RFID for weapons) -- they were all so proud of all their patents (as they should be) - but they were really aggressive on filing for not just the satisfaction (getting a patent must be a great feeling, I am not yet personally on any even though I have influenced several) But they like the bonuses and internal recognition that came with them. Also, spamming the patent office would be hard unless you have deep pockets/are a patent attorney or have Big Corp funding your efforts (and rewarding them) I am sure there are cheap ways to file, but for the average person, not so much.
swagempire 3y ago
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The lawyer's job is not to judge the quality of a patent -- in the same way a defense lawyer is not there to judge the innocence of their client. The patent lawyer is just there to file the patent and help their client get past the approval process. It is the PATENT OFFICE who's job it is to judge quality. Have several patents, btw.
meltyness 3y ago
replicability is unenforceable
KMag 3y ago
0. Large companies much prefer to settle patent disputes with "Okay, you might have a case for patents A, B, C. We have a case for you infringing on our patents D and E. We like your patents F and G. What do you like from our portfolio? Okay, and we'll throw in these 300 random patents to show we're willing to reduce our ability to drown your lawyers in paperwork. How about you throw in 200 random patents to bring down the size of your paperwork arsenal? Do we have a deal?" Edit: so at some point in the patent portfolio cross-licensing negotiation, there's a pure numbers game, so for large corporations there is some value in patents nobody is ever going to implement. At least that's my recollection from 15 years ago about why Google paid me as sole inventor of a patent. (I was working on indexing, and thought "Oh no, if someone does X, then indexing becomes incredibly harder, basically DRM for the web. Webspam could hide more easily. Oh, but if we patent X, that might make my life easier in the future." The patent lawyer zeroed in too much on my mention of CAPTCHA as a possible use case, so I'm not sure if Google could really use my patent to prevent its use as DRM/Webspam hiding. At some point, I decided pushing back against the lawyer to make the patent more broadly applicable might not be good for society. I didn't feel strongly enough to turn down my patent bonus, just strongly enough to stop pushing edits back to the lawyer.)
yieldcrv 3y ago
really, how much do large companies pay per patent? any data points?
- lgleason 3y ago
  Someone mentioned Lockheed, at GE they had a program that was pushed really hard on software engineers/EE's etc. with a carrot of a bonus for patents accepted and approved.
- satya71 3y ago
  I've seen about $5k in the past. But I haven't worked at a large company for a while.
  - meragrin_ 3y ago
    Are those lawyer fees or USPTO fees?
ryandrake 3y ago
I know this is a little controversial, but I wish our software development culture would discourage patents as taboo, something to not be proud of. Software patents are a truly terrible arms race, and they essentially aren't protecting anyone except the big boys. "Having N patents" should be something that gets frowned on, not something you highlight on your resume. When asked about this myself (during interviews or whatever), I proudly boast that I have zero patents to my name and that I actively avoid being part of the problem by participating. I see it as an opportunity to 1. help steer our culture in whatever tiny way I can and 2. get up on a little soap box about the problem. In the past, I've been asked to help out with patent applications for these so-called "inventions" that I developed, and I always tell my manager "If you want to patent this, I can't stop you, but do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way."
- bdowling 3y ago
  > "… do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way." If you invented it, then they have to put your name on the application as the inventor. There’s also a declaration that the inventor is supposed to sign as part of the application. If the inventor is dead or otherwise unavailable (e.g., refuses to sign), there’s an alternative form that can be filed.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    I'd be willing to bet lots of companies play fast and loose with the "inventor" names on patents anyway. I've looked up software patents issued to companies I've worked for, and sometimes the "inventors" listed were just eng managers and likely had nothing to do with the actual grunt work of writing the code.
    - alibarber 3y ago
      "the actual grunt work of writing the code" isn't actually patentable in my experience, from Europe (inc. UK). The inventive step is the actual decision of 'we will do this thing in this way', or rather determining the 'method'. In fact, the guidelines we follow are that someone implementing the design based on some instructions, i.e, just working on a ticket, is explicitly not to be included as an inventor - unless they actually decided that's how it should be done. Of course, it's nice to work in a place whereby you get to design and implement the system and become an inventor. In my opinion and experience at least. But I can see some organisations whereby developers are popping off tickets in sprints and implementing them - but that is by definition not an inventive step.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lgleason 3y ago

They just created a giant loophole that will be easy to game. Patents are easy to get and someone will come up with a startup mill that will be nothing but a visa factory.

abduhl 3y ago
>> Patents are easy to get How many do you have? Patents are more difficult to obtain than HN gives credit and they cost a non-inconsequential amount of money too.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  > How many do you have? That seems like an odd retort to me. Like I have zero because I find the whole idea ethically dubious. When I was at IBM, they had occasional patent brainstorming meetings. I remember saying to one of the more senior engineers that everything I worked on was straightforward/obvious, and he told me I'd be surprised, which didn't do much to sway my thoughts on the ethics there. Everyone who had been there for a few years had a couple patents. I don't remember any of them now, which I guess is sort of the point: it was all basic stuff that would be very difficult to honestly characterize as an "invention".
  - abduhl 3y ago
    How is it an odd retort? If you haven't obtained a patent then the likelihood that you've actually gone through the patent procurement process with the USPTO is extremely low on this website. It's hackernews, not patentexaminernews or patentagentnews after all. It would be like me saying "designing your own operating system is easy" and having someone respond "how many OSes have you designed?" And by the way, your own story bears out the same: despite working for IBM (a company where attorneys familiar with the patent process are no doubt legion), participating or being aware of these patent brainstorm sessions, and stating that everyone had one after a couple years, you have zero. So what would you know about the patent prosecution process? Certainly not enough to say that it's easy.
    - 3y ago

dougmwne 3y ago

The patent office is always spammed with low quality “inventions”. The US patent system is in pretty desperate need of reform. The conversation with a few extra crappy patents is basically zero.

passwordoops 3y ago

Reply from non-USA who has worked in USA. Many companies already spam the patent office with low-quality/non-existent inventions. One put a quota on us for number of submissions, so that led to at least 200 a year from one firm knowing full well the vast majority would go nowhere. Another would file at least one with every product and delay the evaluation as long as possible to game the system so they could write "patent pending" and attach the veneer of innovation on the marketing material

dmoy 3y ago
> so they could write "patent pending" and attach the veneer of innovation on the marketing material There's another reason too: Having a large number of patents for a given subject matter makes it a veritable arsenal for use against other companies, either offensively or defensively (since a common defense to a lawsuit of patent infringement is a countersuit with your own parent infringement lawsuit). Gotta feed the dancing gorilla

toomuchtodo 3y ago

As a US citizen interested in improving the visa process who regularly interfaces with policymakers, propose an objective rubric that is better and I will get it in front of policymakers. Can't guarantee an outcome, will guarantee the effort. Patent quota is bullshit, but also "I know talent when I see it" (even though I do and how I hire) isn't going to fly. Sorting hats are hard, Goodhart's Law, etc. High level, you are attempting to build a system to encourage the best and brightest to come work (and hopefully make it home) in the US while defending against those who will attempt to find system weakness to exploit. EDIT: I won't pollute the thread with thank yous for replies, but they are appreciated. (thoughts and opinions always my own)

cogman10 3y ago
Degree from a recognized school. Verified work history in the field. Those wouldn't be perfect metrics, and they might be easy to fudge. So it then becomes a question of if disqualification of the capable is worse than qualification of the incapable. I personally prefer to let more people in than less. It's not like it's smooth sailing in the US if you can't do skilled work.
- estebank 3y ago
  Degree and work history are already a significant part of evaluation on L1/L2 and H1B visas. IIRC 3 years of work experience are considered equivalent to 1 year of college education, which allows those who didn't get a degree but have extensive experience to also have an avenue for obtaining a Visa.
  - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
    It’s a ridiculous system to value 12 years of experience in the movie industry as on par with a film degree. The software industry makes it even more absurd since historically the very top talent has often skipped college and become world class in their early 20s.
xtreme 3y ago
You don't have to look far, Canada has already implemented a point based system for granting permanent residence to skilled workers. It assigns scores to applicants based on education, skills, employment offer, language speaking ability, etc. I believe it can be a good starting point for a more objective selection criteria than the current system which is more based on luck. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/eligibility/criteria-comprehensive-ranking-system/grid.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hibikir 3y ago

I would be surprised if it didn't, as other parts of the immigration system also warp post graduate education. EB-2 provides a much easier immigration route than EB-3, and EB-1 is easier still: Arguably the only road you can call easy if you come from countries that hit the per-country cap. The most reliable way to EB-2 is post graduate education. For EB-1, as listed here, will be patents and publications after a Ph.D. So now you go look at your typical STEM department at a good US university. As you go into masters and Phds, the percentage of foreign students goes up. This isn't because most international students love academia: It's because the immigration system, as described earlier, just makes the piece of paper they hand you so much more valuable that it'd be for someone that is already a US citizen. And since it's especially valuable for students from visa-capped countries, guess what? Students from those countries are disproportionally going through that route. If we cut the visa limits, and said that a STEM degree and some STEM employment after was a guarantee for a green card in 2 years, I'd expect the number of international students that pick that route to plummet. The disparity between the demand for green cards and the visa limit is so wide, every year the incentive to study longer just increases. If none of those numbers change, I'd expect that the patent route will just be pushed further. So just like the visa caps are a subsidy for post graduate degrees, this rule clarification will be an implicit subsidy for patent attorneys. Then we'll have yet another set of people with a lot to lose if we raise the visa limits, or stop the per-country quotas.

light_hue_1 3y ago
> This isn't because most international students love academia: It's because the immigration system, as described earlier, just makes the piece of paper they hand you so much more valuable that it'd be for someone that is already a US citizen. Nonsense. I've been at a typical STEM department at a top us institution for a decade and interacted with thousands of students. I can count the number of students who were in it for a visa. You don't do a 5-6 year PhD simply for a green card. There are easier ways.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > There are easier ways. Such as?.. If you're from a capped country, your options are limited. For EB-2/EB-3 the wait time for Indian nationals is around 12 years.

hiddencost 3y ago

That is what parents are. They're acquired either by huge companies for a defensive portfolio or by retired old men who get scammed by bottom feeding lawyers willing to file anything for their fee.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

geodel 3y ago

> if this will lead people to spam the patent office with low quality inventions hoping something will stick and help them secure a EB-1 visa. Not much really. The reason being it is already happening as incredibly common thing for last few decades or maybe even longer. I have seen many fine researchers at workplace like you mentioned above.

natas 3y ago

[flagged]

onetimeusename 3y ago

[flagged]