To a large extent, given the values of US universities, that's mostly inevitable.

What are such values? In a university, the profs are expected to be doing 'research', not just teaching what's already on the shelves of the libraries or in commercial products. In computer science, the 'research' is supposed to be finding the 'fundamentals' of computing, e.g., the question P versus NP.

So, there can be some first courses in computer science that concentrate on teaching a programming language, maybe Java, and then some later courses in algorithms, data structures, compilers, database, etc., but, still, turning out people ready to 'hit the ground running' in a serious programming team is not really the goal.

Now, there are community colleges, but there is a 'quality' problem: First, the better students tend to go to universities. Second, where is a community college going to get someone who is a right up to date software team leader to teach and, also, do a really good job teaching with preparing the course materials and giving individual attention to the students?

Net, at least in the US, it's long been the case in computing that mostly or even entirely have to be self-taught. Heck, I've taught computing to undergraduates at Georgetown and to graduate students at Ohio State but I essentially never took a course in computing and, instead, was self-taught and before such teaching had a good career going in industry.

Self-taught's largely where it's at. Sorry 'bout that!

Solution? If you can think of a topic that needs some good teaching, then get smart on the topic, write a book, sell it in some form, maybe Kindle, develop some lectures and put them on YouTube, have a blog, etc.

As to his profit, I'm not sure how much he made off of each book, but the book is used across the world. The only reason I think any instructor would use his book is because it's a niche subject matter; the mechanics and theory of hydronic heating systems.

If Dr. Hydronics ever reads this--you're probally a nice guy, but you made a relatively simple subject complex. Funnel your sentences. Use numbers. Don't use unnessary words. KIS(keep it simple).

2. I draft all my own patents(only 1), and found the process difficult, but doable. I also filed my own trademark.

3. I did have an issue with the filing fees. I contacted the offices involved and complained about the fees. I felt the fees might prevent many young inventors fron protecting their invention, or trademark.

4. They told me their was some programs for low income individuals, but I couldn't kind anything. The fees for filing a patent should be based on what a person makes?

The patent office must get funding from somewhere. If the fees don't at least mostly cover their staffing and research needs then huge companies that file a lot become a huge financial burden on the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is then paying for a business advantage for these companies.

Obviously this sucks for the small inventor. I'm not sure how you get around it. The first X a year are free? But then the patents are always filed in individual names and then assigned to the company anyway, so I'm not sure that works.

And there's long been a separate (reduced) fee schedule for "small entities". And it's long been recognized those are still fairly high for situations like the lone-inventor, and such situations make up such a small slice of the USPTO's total revenue, that they certainly could be tweaked to be more accommodating without much net impact.

And because all that was well-known: The AIA included giving the USPTO some fee-setting authority. And one of their first proposals was to further reduce some small-entity fees and to create a new micro-entity status with commensurately-lower fees.

So it's not only a problem that would be fairly easy to address, without much adverse impact, it's actually already being addressed. (Though not really in-effect until later this year).

[1] Much ink has been spilt over the fact that the USPTO brings in more than it takes from the federal balance sheet, yet their budget has been left so low that they're chronically short on resources and thus backlogged.

Anyway, the USPTO has had 50% lowered fees for "small entities" for some time now. The patent office will soon add a new "micro entity" classification (paying 75% of fees) that might help individuals without a lot of money. The total filing cost as a micro entity will be just over 300 bucks. That's pretty reasonable considering the work involved in examining a patent application.

Corporations and LLC's would not get the discount.

I don't think their would be a rush of individual inventors overloading the department with frivilious, Nolo Press enabled patent requests.

Plus, if that became reality; they could drop the program.

If anyone reads this, avoid any patent service that advertises on t.v.. Research your patient before you hire a attorney, or DIY.

My main gripe was with the Tradmark fees. I don't remember the fee, but even if it was $300.00--that's still too high--especially for a www.mywebsite567.whatever?

I personally think the larger the company, the higher the fee. Didn't Apple try to patent rounded edges?

Anyway--I appreciate micro entity reduced fee info.

If you have a problem with your domain name, and try to go up against Corporate Lawyers--you're in for a loosing, expensive battle.

That $7.00 times millions equalls a lot of money, but they won't, actively, defend your rights with competent lawyers.

The whole name game has irritated anyone involved with website design, at least in my world.

In the end, the poor and middle class webmasters need to stick together, and fight Corporate Abuse of Power.