Joel Spolsky wrote an interesting paragraph in his guerrilla guide to interviewing:
People who are Smart but don’t Get Things Done often have PhDs and work in big companies where nobody listens to them because they are completely impractical. They would rather mull over something academic about a problem rather than ship on time. These kind of people can be identified because they love to point out the theoretical similarity between two widely divergent concepts. For example, they will say, “Spreadsheets are really just a special case of programming language,” and then go off for a week and write a thrilling, brilliant whitepaper about the theoretical computational linguistic attributes of a spreadsheet as a programming language. Smart, but not useful. The other way to identify these people is that they have a tendency to show up at your office, coffee mug in hand, and try to start a long conversation about the relative merits of Java introspection vs. COM type libraries, on the day you are trying to ship a beta.
As a Ph.D. student, I find it a bit offensive. To be fair, he does not focus on PhD's but in attitudes, which is good, but the fact that a Ph.D. is a warning of "Being Smart but Don't Getting Things Done" makes me wonder if I should omit my academic side in my resume.
A couple of professors somehow involved with corporations outside Academia have told me to hide it. Specially while dealing with Spanish companies which are not interested in smart and ambitious people.
So this is my (sad) question: Should you omit a PhD in your resume and go to job interviews disguised as a rower?