The article makes several references to "licensing" and "pricing." These are euphemisms for shakedowns.
Patent trolls shakedown developers with patents that never should have existed in the first place. Why should a developer have to pay ANYTHING to a patent troll? Why should a developer have pay ANYTHING to defend themselves against a patent troll?
The only solution is to eliminate software patents. Entirely.
Hang on. The author went out of her way to say that it wasn't just because there were women in it, and made suggestions as to how it could be acceptable.
Capitalism also means DDT, which kills mosquitoes that are vectors for malaria. However, statist intervention bans DDT and allows mosquito populations to thrive, thus killing large numbers of people in places like Gambia where...wait a minute! Places like Gambia where malaria rates are in free-fall! And why? Because of the use of insecticide treated netting...(kinda makes you wonder what kind of drop in malaria rates could be achieved through DDT, huh?)
So, socialism and enviro-wacko statist intervention gets people killed by malaria through bans on insecticides, which turn out to be the most effective counters to malaria.
My impression is that EA has some great creative talent, but that the business management function is entrusted to people who have honesty and competence issues.
One of the big problems with American business is the focus on academic credentials, particularly with regard to "soft skills" (no skills?) in areas such as management. You will not learn management in a classroom. Furthermore, if you can't grasp the fundamentals of what you are supposedly managing, then you are just in the way.
The path ought to be:
Become an engineer -> Become a high-performing engineer -> Get some business education -> Do management
If you can't handle the engineering phases, why on earth should anybody put you in a decision-making position in an engineer endeavor?
While the practice should not be barred, it is unproductive for universities to offer "management" degrees at the undergraduate level, unless such degrees require the demonstration of significant prior work experience. Graduate management programs should not accept twentysomethings arriving straight from undergraduate programs.
It seems your experience in the business/corporate engineering world is vastly different than mine.
The problem with your path to management is that many engineers have no desire to manage, and anecdotally, those who do, end up being ill-suited for management.
The best managers I've had are not top engineers, rather they're managers that are willing to understand and listen to their top performing engineers.
Google/Microsoft/etc. offer PM positions to students directly out of undergrad. From my experience, the skillset between a top-performing engineer is vastly different from that of a top-performing and well liked PM.
They still hire people from engineering and math backgrounds. People who you know have the competence to understand any technical problem you throw at them, at least at a shallow operational level.
The prerequisite is deep mathematical, rational and process-oriented thinking. You can get that lots of ways, but an MBA alone won't give it to you.
I don't disagree with that. If you run a technical company, managers shoudl demonstrate an ability to think and understand technical problems.
I disagree with the notion that the path through management should be through demonstrating your value as an engineer. If a high performing engineer desires a move into management, I think that should certainly be considered, but I have no evidence that top engineers transition into being top managers.
I would certainly argue that it is easier to find engineering-trained people who can become successful businessfolk, than business-trained people who can competently manage tech companies.
Being a successful engineer is evidence that you understand processes and systems very deeply. What remains is interpersonal skill and basic economics. Being a successful business person is evidence of the complement.
Couple this with the observation that it is easier to find people who picked up economics and interpersonal skills without training than it is to find people with deep untrained technical skill, because interactions with other people and decisions about money occur every day so any motivated somebody with a curious disposition may well have been pondering and improving those skills their whole life.
Remember, it's not that every engineer you find will be better rounded, it's just that those magical omnibus people are more likely to be found among the engineering ranks than the business ranks, especially when engineering jobs give a much more reliable salary out of college so that anyone with engineering skill and business skill is incentivized to study the former in school.
"...don't focus on those with big-business credentials who may be accustomed to having a lot of rules to follow."
This is EXACTLY the kind of rule that a big business uses. It involves no judgement, no thinking, no consideration of the individual situation being addressed.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
Freelancers are a good bet for small companies and also for side-projects. All Hail the Freelancers. But that rule about candidates who worked at a large business is not reasonable.
The article makes several references to "licensing" and "pricing." These are euphemisms for shakedowns.
Patent trolls shakedown developers with patents that never should have existed in the first place. Why should a developer have to pay ANYTHING to a patent troll? Why should a developer have pay ANYTHING to defend themselves against a patent troll?
The only solution is to eliminate software patents. Entirely.