If feels like big companies have figured out how to DOS the USPTO to the point where the PTO is so overwhelmed with all of the incoming submissions that they have no choice but to grant the patents.
Abstract: A method and computer program product include defining, by a user, a time template including a plurality of predefined time intervals for scheduling meetings. The time template is applied across a collaborative system.
IBM pays a bonus for and often promotes engineers based on the number of patents they file. The natural result is a very large number of patents, often of dubious value, that may never be implemented.
Having said that, I bet my colleagues at work would agree to pool in money and license this patent if our boss agreed to abide by it :D
Maybe off topic on the ridiculousness of this patent, the headline after "IBM patent for" should be taken seriously.
The standard for me used to be one hour long meetings.
About this time last year I read a chapter in a management book (name escapes me, and it would probably be great Prior Art) that suggested never scheduling meetings longer than 30 minutes. So I set some rules for myself based on the meeting type.
Brainstorming meetings/topical discussions: 30 minutes, max. Never recurring. I start the meeting on time with a simple statement: "I value the time you've given me here, so I want to get this going. If we tear apart <topic> we can probably be done in twenty." I get consistent, on-time attendance (from people who do not report to me) and consistent participation (on conference calls people are taking from in front of an internet connected PC).
Status Meetings: I rarely schedule these, but when I have to, they're set to 15 minutes and very structured. My daily status meeting lasts between five and seven minutes.
I have a totally unscientific theory as to why I insist on shorter meetings work (based solely on how I behave):
1) I don't have an hour to kill in a conference call being hosted by someone other than my boss or in my reporting chain. So I work during those meetings. I do have twenty minutes assuming that the problem attempting to be solved hasn't already been solved by the organizer and my attendance is simply ceremonial.
2) Half hour meetings may mean having to have two instead of one, but that may also be a benefit in that it gives people time to think more deeply about the problem at hand and be prepared for the next meeting.
3) Status meetings suck, especially if they are simply a formality or legal requirement. I see them for what they are (a necessary evil) and try not to waste anyone's valuable time. When I host them, they have a strict agenda and are very short.
When I participate in "manager status meetings" (sometimes called "What did you work on this week?"), I come prepared with a list and put it through a filter: "Is this item something that anyone on this call will find useful or care about". My responses are short and to the point. I regularly receive follow-up questions targeted at a specific bullet point. Maybe that's bad, but I'd rather provide a little less than is necessary and have someone ask me for specific information that's important to them, than provide so much information that everyone's eyes glaze over and they stop paying attention.
8 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 28.9 ms ] threadIf feels like big companies have figured out how to DOS the USPTO to the point where the PTO is so overwhelmed with all of the incoming submissions that they have no choice but to grant the patents.
Translation: recurring meetings feature
Having said that, I bet my colleagues at work would agree to pool in money and license this patent if our boss agreed to abide by it :D
The standard for me used to be one hour long meetings.
About this time last year I read a chapter in a management book (name escapes me, and it would probably be great Prior Art) that suggested never scheduling meetings longer than 30 minutes. So I set some rules for myself based on the meeting type.
Brainstorming meetings/topical discussions: 30 minutes, max. Never recurring. I start the meeting on time with a simple statement: "I value the time you've given me here, so I want to get this going. If we tear apart <topic> we can probably be done in twenty." I get consistent, on-time attendance (from people who do not report to me) and consistent participation (on conference calls people are taking from in front of an internet connected PC).
Status Meetings: I rarely schedule these, but when I have to, they're set to 15 minutes and very structured. My daily status meeting lasts between five and seven minutes.
I have a totally unscientific theory as to why I insist on shorter meetings work (based solely on how I behave):
1) I don't have an hour to kill in a conference call being hosted by someone other than my boss or in my reporting chain. So I work during those meetings. I do have twenty minutes assuming that the problem attempting to be solved hasn't already been solved by the organizer and my attendance is simply ceremonial.
2) Half hour meetings may mean having to have two instead of one, but that may also be a benefit in that it gives people time to think more deeply about the problem at hand and be prepared for the next meeting.
3) Status meetings suck, especially if they are simply a formality or legal requirement. I see them for what they are (a necessary evil) and try not to waste anyone's valuable time. When I host them, they have a strict agenda and are very short.
When I participate in "manager status meetings" (sometimes called "What did you work on this week?"), I come prepared with a list and put it through a filter: "Is this item something that anyone on this call will find useful or care about". My responses are short and to the point. I regularly receive follow-up questions targeted at a specific bullet point. Maybe that's bad, but I'd rather provide a little less than is necessary and have someone ask me for specific information that's important to them, than provide so much information that everyone's eyes glaze over and they stop paying attention.