Patent Law?

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>Dear Waffle, and others interested in patent law.</p>

<p>If you're looking for advice and useful information, decide for yourselves from whom to take it - a practicing patent attorney (me) or someone who's not in that field (Sakky).</p>

<p>It's true that you don't specifically have to have a technical degree to become a patent attorney. There are several other ways to qualify for the examination.</p>

<p>However, anyone who intentionally takes that path to becoming a patent attorney, and who already isn't lined up with a job in that field or connections that guarantee one (for example, an employer who agrees to give you a job as a patent attorney once you qualify) is simply foolish. He/she will not have the qualifications to compete with other prospective applicants for open positions. They will have scientific and/or engineering degrees, and often advanced ones. </p>

<p>Sakky's friend had better have a job lined up with someone who knows him or have the kind of reputation in the software field so as to be able to get one in competition with people having degrees in that field, or be persuasive as heck, or lucky, to stand a chance for a good position in the open job market for patent attorneys.</p>

<p>So, Waffle, since you're thinking of career planning, if you decide to go into patent law, do it the right way.</p>

22

<p>I have to agree with dadofsam on this one -and not because he is a patent attorney.</p>

23

<p>What is up with the attitude, dadofsam? Did I recommend people to go down the path taken by my friend? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that people should do what he did. Oh, can't do it? Allright then, let's stop playing the straw-man game.</p>

<p>I am merely pointing out that it's possible. I make no recommendation as to whether people should do it or not. I am simply pointing out that it is possible. Nothing more, nothing less. </p>

<p>What I object to is when people go around making sweeping declarations that certain things are not possible, when in fact they are possible. I saw something stated on this thread that was demonstrably false. Should we just let that stand? I think the true purpose of CC is tell people about all their available options. It's one thing to say that you don't recommend a particular path. It's quite another thing to falsely assert that that path doesn't exist at all. </p>

<p>And you also say that my friend better be good enough to be able to beat out people in his field who have proper CS degrees. Well, simply put, he has done exactly that. He has no CS degree, and yet once he interviewed for and got a job offer as a senior software developer at Oracle, beating out many other candidates who had proper CS degrees. He didn't take the job, because he decided he'd rather go to law school. And Oracle was not the only company who was willing to hire him. To this day, he still gets calls from recruiters asking him if he wants to interview for such-and-such a software job. So you ask whether he is good enough to beat out other people with CS degrees? Question asked, question answered. </p>

<p>To digress, the reality is that the computer industry doesn't really care that much about degrees. That's why it's no accident that so many computer tycoons don't have CS or EE degrees, or heck, sometimes don't have any degrees at all. The industry cares about your skills. If you have strong computer skills, you will be hired. If you don't, all the fancy degrees in the world won't help you. As they say in the industry, you either know your kung-fu or you don't. </p>

<p>Getting back to patent law, when he's going to interview for a patent law job, I am sure he is going to point to his extensive resume detailing the quite impressive software background he has in industry, including all the strong work rec's he has, computer applications he has architected, technology he knows, awards he's won, and so forth. I would have to say that a patent law firm who dismisses his strong software work experience on the grounds that he doesn't have a formal CS degree is as stupid as a guy who dismisses Bill Gates because he doesn't have a degree. So if you say that a particular patent law firm is so deliberately myopic as to choose not to see that my friend clearly has forgotten more about software than the majority of freshly minted CS grads know, then that's probably not a good firm to work for anyway. Come on, the guy knows software, and anybody who just spends a moment glancing at his resume can instantly tell.</p>

24

<p>Yeah but if someone is talking about chemE or mechE or something that is way different than comp skills that many can learn as a hobby or on their own. I think you're just arguing about different things. There is no way anyone without a degree in chemE would be hired for a chemE job. They just dont have any technical knowledge (well neither do chemE's with a degree but I digress b/c again, different story). I just hope you guys know you're arguing completely different arguments.</p>

25

<p>The friend must be an exception. I doubt that many English majors are computer experts and are highly sought after by the software industry. Also, it was my understanding that those wishing to sit for the patent exam either needed a technical degree or else had to petition to be allowed to take it. If this is true, it might be kind of risky to depend on a petition process that late in the game.</p>

26

<p>Sakky: the problem isn't that you want to argue what is possible but that you made your post on a thread started by a high school student looking for advice and guidance. Good advice and guidance, it's not. </p>

<p>And, to respond, I never said that your friend won't be able to find a job as a patent attorney. I suggested several ways that he might do so. If he succeeds, fine. He might be that rare individual who can do it in that way.</p>

27

<p>Just one other thing that really wasn't answered: salary</p>

<p>How is the overall outlook on the salary of patent lawyers? I've read that it can be anywhere between 30,000 (for patent agents) to 250,000 and up, and that it mainly depends on whether you're an agent or an attorney, your education, and the size of the firm. Are there any other factors, such as the major? How does firm size affect salary? What's usually the average salary? It's really hard to find patent law info online, probably because it's one of the more obscure fields of law when it comes to thinking about law and common knowledge (when most people think about law, I doubt they'd have patent law come straight to their minds).</p>

<p>I'm still hearing more good things about it, as my grandpa, who's an engineer, said he had two friends who were engineers who hated it, so they ended up becoming successful patent lawyers. A lawyer that I know is just saying good things about law in general, so so far, this all looks good.</p>

28

<p>waffle: If I were you, I wouldn't spend time on that because whatever the salaries are now, they will be different in six years, when you are thinking about law school.</p>

<p>As specialists, patent attorneys tend to make higher salaries than many other attorneys at the same experience level. Patent agents make a great deal more than $ 30,000 per year, but it depends on whether you are in a coporation or a law firm, and the technology that you work in.</p>

29

<p>What are the big differences between working in a corporation, small law firm, large law firm, and private practice?</p>

30

<p>One more question for you dadofsam:</p>

<p>Does your technical major have any implication at all on where you are able to work (like a chemE doing patent law for electronics), availability of work, or salary? Are there certain majors that just do better than others in the field? </p>

<p>Also, since you mention such a drastic change in several years, what do you think about the future of patent law? Would you say that it is improving or getting worse?</p>

31

<p>No I don't think that tech major matters (and in fact chemEs are getting more and more involved with electronics as chemicals start mattering more) but I think it would be a good idea to major what you are interested in. I think general majors would be better and you could do grad in a specialization if interested. I don't think the need for patent lawyers is going to go anywhere. They are highly needed and very useful due to the varying interests (science, logic, english, writing, and everything) and often hard to find. This is what I have discovered on my own research but others more experienced may say different. (I'm very inexperienced right now but trying to learn and help.)</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
I think general majors would be better

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that a pure science would be preferrable to an engineering major? My son is interested in IP and likes math, physics and engineering about equally at this point. </p>

<p>Also, do you think it matters if he hones his writing skills in humanities vs social sciences? Does it matter if it is in a foreign language?</p>

<p>Thanks for any input!</p>

33

<p>General as in ChemE, MechE, as opposed to BioE or AeroE. Nothing specific. I am going to try and hone my skills in the writing area by taking some business and technical writing courses b/c the writing required for law is more technical rather than English-y. There is a huge difference and I didn't realize that before I got to college either. I have very good english skills and can write a 10-page english paper in no time. A lab report of the same length (they are usually much longer) is harder to complete in the same amount of time. Foreign language would just help his overall marketability. I want to do this but with a minor in BioE I don't think it's possible. I'm going to see what I can do in this area.</p>

34

<p>Could you tell me what technical writing courses are? What kind of titles might they have? What departments are they usually in? Thanks again!</p>

35

<p>They are called at U of I Business and Techical Writing and have numbers after them (BTW 250: <a href="http://courses.uiuc.edu/cis/catalog/urbana/2005/Fall/BTW/index.html)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://courses.uiuc.edu/cis/catalog/urbana/2005/Fall/BTW/index.html)&lt;/a>. They would most likely be in the English Dept. (maybe business but most likely not). They teach more of the technical writing (reports) than creative writing or analytical writing. I'm good at the latter ones but I cannot write technical sounding if that makes sense. I'm used to the sprawling, verbose sentences in English and changing up syntax and structure to enliven writing. Technical writing doesn't call for that. But I know that if I apply my already good writing skills to better myself in a different area, that I could master the technical part as well.</p>

36

<p>Look, I said it before, I'll say it again, I am neither recommending for nor recommending against somebody getting a technical undergrad degree if you want to become a patent lawyer. I think it is appropriate to talk about all the options, and point out the strengths and weaknesses of each, and then leave it to the individual to decide what he/she wants to do. </p>

<p>Consider this previous quote in the thread:</p>

<p>
[quote]
...if you want to go into Patent Law, you are required to have an undergrad in science or engineering

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dadofsam, you must agree that this is a false statement. That is why I had to object, because the fact of the matter is, we both know that it is not required. </p>

<p>Now consider the following quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah but if someone is talking about chemE or mechE or something that is way different than comp skills that many can learn as a hobby or on their own. I think you're just arguing about different things. There is no way anyone without a degree in chemE would be hired for a chemE job. They just dont have any technical knowledge (well neither do chemE's with a degree but I digress b/c again, different story). I just hope you guys know you're arguing completely different arguments

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you sure about that? I'll give you another example. Take my neighbor. Right after high school, he joined the Army and become a mechanic, and then after the Army, worked as a NASCAR pit crew mechanic. This guy knows more about machinery than anybody I have ever met in my life. He later went to college on the GI Bill and got an undergraduate degree in business-administration, and he now owns and operates his own repair shop. He's not interested in becoming a patent lawyer, but if he was, I doubt that anybody would seriously dispute that he doesn't understand technical matters, despite the fact that he doesn't have a technical undergraduate degree. </p>

<p>Note, once again, I am not recommending that anybody go down this path. I am simply pointing out that you can develop a verifiably impressive background in machinery without necessarily having a formal mechanical engineering degree. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that we should refrain from making sweeping decrees that people must do this, or are required to do that, or so on, unless it is really true that people really do have to do this-and-that. It is one thing to recommend against a certain path. It is quite another thing to deny that a certain path even exists. The fact of the matter is, you can become a patent lawyer without a technical undergrad degree. Do I recommend that you go down that road? No. But I am not going to deny the existence of that road either. </p>

<p>And finally, I can proffer one reason why one might want to not get a technical undergrad degree, even if you want to do patent law, and it is something that dadofsam, ariesathena, and I have discussed at great length on other threads. The fact of the matter is, technical coursework tends to be difficult and harshly graded, and law-school admissions hinge strongly on your GPA. You would think that law-school adcoms would understand that technical coursework is graded more harshly than non-technical coursework, but it doesn't seem to be, as I'm sure areisathena would agree. Basically, law-schools just want to see high grades, and don't really care that certain courses are easier than others. Hence, by studying a technical major as an undergrad, you may end up with a lower GPA than if you had studied something easy and nontechnical. Hence, you might end up in a lower-ranked law school than you would have otherwise, or perhaps not get into any law school at all. Nobody ever became a patent lawyer who couldn't get into law school in the first place.</p>

37

<p>I love sakky...what can I say? :D</p>

38

<p>Well, I will try to respond to several posts at once.</p>

<p>First - I am not any better equipped to predict the future than anyone else. There will be changes in the practice of patent law as there will be in most other professions. Some of that will be due to advancing technology, some to changes in the law, some to changes in business or society. However, technology will remain important so patent lawyers should still remain critical in some industries and areas of technology, especially the newest and most quickly developing ones.</p>

<p>In general, most science or engineering degrees will still be useful in patent law, and I repeat my previous statement that one should major in a science or engineering subject because you like it, and not because you think it might prove advantageous in patent law. There are still many patents obtained on machinery, which means that patent attorneys who majored in mechanical engineering are still sought after. In fact, what happens is that as technology changes, certain specialites wind up practicing in technical fields different than when they entered the field. Mechanical engineers now are looked for by companies manufacturing prosthetics and other medical devices, a rapidly growing industry.</p>

<p>When I began practicing patent law, a lot of chemical engineers were employed by oil companies, and many many patent applications were filed on petroleum refining and processes for making gasoline and various chemicals from petroleum (the petrochemical industry). Now there are very few of these. Does that mean that there is little to do for patent attorneys with degrees in chemical engineering? Not at all, because now they are busily engaged in patent work in technologies such as semiconductors, nanomaterials, biochemical processing, protein production, and others.</p>

<p>lkf725 - physics and engineering would be fine preparation for patent work in those fields, but for the most part mathematics is not, unless that goes along with, say a physics minor. Writing skills can be honed in many ways, but they had better be in English. Analytical skills can also be initially honed in many ways; see other posts on that topic, for example some by Ariesathena.</p>

<p>Finally, one does not have to graduate from a top-ranked law school to become a patent lawyer, although (of course) one must graduate from a law school and pass at least one state bar examination. Lots of excellent patent lawyers (and other types of lawyers) went to less than first-ranked schools. Some did so because they were working while going to law school - went to school in the evening, and Harvard and Yale just don't have evening schools, I'm afraid. Others went to "lower-ranked schools" because the cost is lower, because they needed to live in a certain geographical area or because, like most law school applicants, they were not accepted by the highest-ranked schools. What counts is graduating from a reasonably good law school, preferably with good grades, and passing the necessary bar examination (as well as the Patent Bar). Once you are practicing for a while, the law school usually is not that important, unless you want to join a law school faculty.</p>