"I do not appreciate my dues being used for expressing political opinions, left, right, or other" —James S. Nasby

Touchy Topic

Regardless of my politics, I feel strongly that the Commentary, "Security Expert Slams Bush's Surveillance Program" [News, April] is pure politics and has no place in IEEE Spectrum. No balanced viewpoint was given, nor do I appreciate Spectrum's taking the President of the United States to task on this or any other issue.

One of Spectrum's great assets is its wide-ranging subject matter, such as the fine article on sound pollution in the oceans, "Drowning in Sound," in that same issue. As a long-standing member of the IEEE, I do not appreciate my dues being used for expressing political opinions, left, right, or other.

James S. Nasby

IEEE Member

Skokie, Ill.

I regard Spectrum as a source of good information; it is almost always politically neutral, and its commentaries are generally well reasoned. This changed in April when Spectrum chose to publish the propaganda of an anti-American "expert"—James Bamford—who is suing the U.S. government for carrying out surveillance on terrorists who communicate with individuals within U.S. borders.

It is not difficult to understand Bamford's and his allies' motive: that of attempting to undermine the authority of the government in protecting its citizens. What is difficult to understand is Spectrum's motivation in presenting a biased, one-sided, inaccurate, and incomplete picture as if it were news or legitimate commentary.

John A. Palmer

IEEE Member

Centennial, Colo.

News Editor William Sweet responds: Dealing with politics is nothing new in a magazine that has won awards for its treatment of subjects like the breakup of AT&T, the Challenger disaster, and the FBI's flawed efforts to upgrade its computers. In this sense, our decision to ask an independent, well-regarded specialist to discuss electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens by the U.S. National Security Agency broke no new ground.

For news commentaries, we always select professional journalists with relevant expertise. We called on James Bamford to give us his opinions on the subject because he is the author of two books about the NSA and, as such, is a leading independent expert on the agency. Bamford did join a lawsuit against the NSA because of concerns that he may personally have been wiretapped. But he also defended the NSA when Europeans made extreme and misinformed charges about the agency's international conduct.

Not By Yourself

"Do-It-Yourself Patents" [Resources, April] offers incomplete advice. To draft effective claims, you need to know more than the prior patent art, including—for example—things described in journal articles and product manuals. Drafting your own claims is not a good idea. After you research the prior art and describe your invention in detail in text and drawings, negotiate a fixed price with a patent attorney or an agent. Big companies may not need patents. Little guys need patents to prevent themselves from being eaten by big companies.

Joyce Lauer

Wayland, Mass.

The article fails to recognize that patent practice involves choices and decisions as to the type of application to file, when to file, and where to file, and that a very important aspect of the process is a well-informed prosecution strategy. For example, it can be far more important for a pro se applicant to learn how to avoid the need for an appeal rather than learn how to write one, as the article explains. In short, it's a very bad idea for an inventor who plans to commercialize an invention to write legal patent claim language as a novice, without mentoring from a patent attorney.

Joseph M. Geller

IEEE Member

Whitesboro, N.Y.

The writer is a patent attorney.

The U.S. patent office has an electronic filing system that includes a Microsoft Word template to assist in creating the patent application. There is also software to validate and package the application for electronic submission. Details are at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/efs/index.html.

Steve Rosenberry

Reading, Pa.

Engineer Boost

One reason cited in "Crazy About Competitiveness" [News, April] for U.S. government support of science and engineering is that China produces 350 000 engineers a year, compared with only 70 000 in the United States. On the other hand, statistics regarding the relative number of lawyers, accountants, and other tax-related professionals in the two countries are lopsided in favor of the United States. Thus, my solution for dealing with the relatively low production of engineers is to simplify our tax and tort systems, thereby freeing a substantial amount of brain power, a good portion of which will naturally drift toward engineering.

Arnold Weinberger

IEEE Life Fellow

Scottsdale, Ariz.