patent law???

Applying to College
21

<br>


<br>

<p>Anyone know what the "specified sciences" are - bio, chem and physics, or have they embraced the newer majors like molecular bio, biochemistry, etc. , I notice coureur listed micro and neuroscience.</p>

22

<p>Cangel -</p>

<p>You can read the acceptable sciences and course here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dc...oed/grb0110.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dc...oed/grb0110.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>They accept a wide range of science bachelor's degrees. Both the microbiology and neuroscience degrees would have been acceptable, although neither of those two individuals chose to become patent lawyers. They went into corporate law.</p>

23

<p>Yep, coureur, what you said in your long post is exactly right. The sad reality of engineering is that the actual undergraduate engineering courses tends to be significantly more difficult than the actual job of itself or the professional testing and licensing exams that engineers do. </p>

<p>Case in point - here's one very simple and easy way to see that the Fundamentals of Engineering (the FE or EIT) exam is easier to pass than getting through actual undergrad engineering coursework. The only requirement that the USPTO makes about using Category C is that you pass the FE exam. It doesn't matter if you just barely pass the exam with the minimum number of points. It doesn't matter how many times you need to take the exam before you pass it. So basically, you can just keep taking the FE exam over and over and over again until you finally pass. And if you just barely pass, that's OK. </p>

<p>Contrast that situation with how engineering coursework is run. If you get an F in an engineering class, it goes on your record. Get enough F's and you're going to be expelled. You don't just get to keep taking an engineering class over and over and over again until you finally pass. Hence, engineering coursework tends to be quite merciless - you only have a quite limited number of attempts to succeed before you're booted. Furthermore, just barely passing your engineering classes with a C-minus isn't going to cut it when it comes to then applying to law school. You must agree that it is very difficult indeed to win admission to any law school with a C-minus GPA. </p>

<p>So honestly what's easier - doing engineering coursework for which you only have a limited number of attempts to pass, and where barely passing is not acceptable for law-school admission, or just taking the FE exam over and over and over again until you finally pass, and where barely passing is perfectly OK? What's easier? I think I've made it as plain as day.</p>

<p>Now it is obviously true that most patent lawyers did in fact complete technical coursework as undergrads. But that's not the point. We weren't talking about what most patent lawyers have historically done, we were talking about what are the available ways to become a patent lawyer. Clearly you must agree that it is simply false that you must have an technical undergrad background. That is simply false. It is not a 'must'. It is a very common way to do it, but it is not a 'must'. </p>

<p>Coureur, you accuse me of doing a disservice to aspiring patent lawyers by steering them down the wrong path. I find that ironic that that's coming from you. I'm afraid to say that I think it is you that is doing a disservice to aspiring patent lawyers by telling people that they have to do things a certain way, when the fact is, they do not. They have a choice, and they should know that they have a choice. Consider your previous quote of: "If he still wants to be a patent lawyer, he's gotta study science". That has now been shown to be categorically false. Would you like to retract that quote of yours? </p>

<p>You also say that a lot of people do in fact study something technical and then successfully get into law school. Yeah, so what? Lots of people drive without wearing their seat belts, and nothing happens to them, so by your logic, it must be OK to drive without wearing a seat belt. Lots of people drive after drinking and don't get into accidents, so by your logic, it must be OK to drink and drive. You also say that your wife did tech undergrad and is now at Stanford Law, but just because it worked for her, does that prove that that's the best way for everybody to go? I knew a guy who smoked 2 packs a day and lived until he was 90, so using your same logic, I guess I just proved that smoking is not dangerous. The point is, just because lots of people do things a certain way and succeed does not prove that that way is the best method to go about doing things. The real question is what is the highest percentage chance of becoming a patent lawyer. Sure, you can go down the traditional route of doing tech undergrad and then going to law school, etc. etc. all the way to patent law. But is that really the highest percentage play? I think that's very unclear.</p>

<p>The point of all this is that the choice of doing a tech-undergrad degree is not "cost-less". There is a cost- namely the cost of lowering your chances of getting into law school in the first place. Yes, I agree that if you can pull it off, you will be a better patent lawyer. But on the downside, you increase your chances of not ever getting into law school. My involvement in this whole thread is to get everybody to recognize this downside. </p>

<p>Ok, now to curmudgeon, when I say tech, I mean both engineering and hard-science. Engineering is harder. But my point is that both tend to be significantly difficult, on average, than non-tech majors. Now it is true that in certain schools, certain non-tech majors may be more difficult than tech-majors. But these are rare exceptions. In general, tech-majors tend to be more difficult than non-tech. And that hurts you when it comes to law-school admission. Sure, you might still get into law school anyway, just like a guy who drives around without a seat belt will still probably get home safely, but the question is, do you want to take that chance? These are decisions with costs. </p>

<p>My sense is that one of the hardest steps to becoming a patent lawyer is getting into law school in the first place, and in particular getting into a decent enough law school such that you have a reasonable shot at getting a position upon graduation that will set up you for patent law. But in order to have a chance at winning the game, you have to first get yourself in the game. </p>

<p>Look, the point is that if we really want to help people become patent lawyers, we owe them the full truth, and in particular we ought to tell them that choosing tech undergrad is not a cost-less decision. Anybody who chooses a tech undergrad major because he wants to be a patent lawyer should know that while that major will indeed help him if he does make it to becoming a patent lawyer, he should also know that there is a tradeoff - namely that he runs the risk of lowering his chances of getting into a top law school, or heck any law school for that matter, and in certain cases, may even run the risk of not even graduating from undergrad. That's the tradeoff, and we should recognize that tradeoff.</p>

24

<br>


<br>

<p>Nope, because it is still true. A patent lawyer still has to demonstrate significant knowledge of science, whether by method A,B, or C. And until people are born with innate knowledge of science they are still gonna have to study it to learn it. Somewhere a long the line they are going to be taking some science/engineering classes. I defy you to find even one successful patent attorney who has never taken any science or engineering courses.</p>

<p>And I'm going to continue to advise people to to take the proven route most likely to get them to their goals over some theoretical route that has proven feasible for no one that I have ever met in over 30 years in the business.</p>

25

<p>In regards to satisfying the science requirement of the US Patent Office, sakky writes He can use Category C and pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam run by whatever state he happens to be in, which is certainly not an easy test, but not impossible for a dedicated person. If you're good enough to pass the Bar exam, you should be good enough to pass the FE exam.</p>

<p>My god, have we completely lost track of what we're supposed to be doing on this board? Isn't the intent to give useful and practical advice to HS and college students? To post such vacuous advice does nobody any good, and my sympathy goes out to anybody who decides to follow it.</p>

<p>In the first place, the chance of passing the Fundamentals of Engineering (also known as the Engineering in Training exam) with just self-study is zero!! The pass rate for those who take it is about 50%, and they have engineering degrees! There is just no way in the world someone with a liberal-arts degree is going to teach her/himself math, science, and a sub-discipline of engineering in less than the couple of years it takes engineering students studying full-time to learn that material.</p>

<p>Second, sakky glosses over the requirements for actually even taking the exam. In CA, for example, you can't take the test unless you have * Three years of course work in a Board-approved engineering curriculum OR Three years or more of engineering-related work experience anywhere in the world.*. See <a href="http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/a_eit-lsitapp.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/a_eit-lsitapp.htm&lt;/a> Sakky's hypothetical liberal-arts grad with a law degree will find he can't even take the test!!</p>

<p>To the OP, needhelp06, assuming you're still bothering to follow this thread, here's what you need to know. If you plan to work as a patent attorney in the preparation of patents for filing with the US Patent Office and associated work, you need a degree in engineering or the hard sciences. Considerable coursework in the area also satisfies the requirement, but by that time you might just as well major in a science area. As curmudgeon has pointed out, there is another entire area of the law, litigation, and there are lawyers who consider themselves patent attorneys who do not file patents but instead work on lawsuits bases on infringement and other torts (curmudgeon can give more info here). If this is the area in which you are interested in working, then its still a good idea to get exposure to science and math. And, as always, I'd strongly recommend getting exposure to the career field before you commit yourself to it. Talk to lawyers about their work, even better get a job in a patent law firm (even as a file clerk) just so you can get exposure to what the job is like and what they really do, so you can see if its what you'd enjoy doing.</p>

26

<p>Since you talk about vacuous advice, well, not to call people out, but again, I think the most vacuous advice I've seen on this thread is that somebody must get a technical undergrad degree. This has been shown to be demonstrably false. This is not the only path available. I agree that it is the path most commonly taken. But to say that it is the only one you got is simply false. </p>

<p>You say that this board is about helping out HS seniors plan out a path to becoming a patent lawyer. Well, let me ask you, are you really being helpful when you lie to them by telling them they absolutely must get a technical undergraduate degree? Shouldn't they be given all the information about all the available paths, so that they can make up their own mind about the path they want to take, as opposed to blatantly lying to them that a certain path does not exist, when in fact it does? </p>

<p>Secondly, I never disputed that the EIT exam is difficult, and that the chances that somebody would pass on the first shot probably is very very low, particularly if that person never had formal technical undergraduate degree. But that's not the point. The point is that a person with enough study time and enough dedication should be able to pass the EIT if given enough attempts. Like I said, you can fail the exam 20 times, but if you pass on the 21st attempt, you're golden. </p>

<p>And let's not beat around the bush. The EIT exam really isn't THAT hard. Look, here are some sample questions from the EIT General Exam. I don't know, maybe I went to an unusually good high school, but I think I could have answered most of these questions while I was in high school. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of you could have too. Now about the more subject-specific stuff, again, you just have to get the study guides, available at most bookstores, and just study study study. It's no different from a guy cramming for the MCAT by studying study guide after study guide. Again, I'm not saying that it's easy. But it's really not that hard for a dedicated person. If you really don't believe me, go to your bookstore, go to the study-guide section, find an EIT exam study guide, and thumb through it, and then ask yourself honestly, whether if you just had sufficient time to sit down and study it, that you couldn't understand it. </p>

<p><a href="http://ppi2pass.com/catalog/servlet/MyPpi_fl_indices-FERMsample.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ppi2pass.com/catalog/servlet/MyPpi_fl_indices-FERMsample.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.ppiexamcafe.com/webexam/servlet/ExamCafe%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ppiexamcafe.com/webexam/servlet/ExamCafe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The reality of the EIT exam is that most of the advanced science/engineering coursework really isn't applicable to it. The EIT tests rather basic concepts. Your class on advanced electromagnetic wave theory isn't going to help. You class on Abstract Algebra isn't going to help. The test is on basic concepts - something that a person who has dedication and time can grasp by self-study. It's not THAT hard to understand basic circuits. It's not THAT hard to understand basic thermodynamics. It's not THAT hard to understand basic chemistry. Now, I agree that the EIT exam might be difficult because the pass score is rather high and because you are under a rather severe time constraint. But these are things that can be solved with adequate study time. But again, if you don't believe me, by all means, check out the sample questions using the links I posted above. Go to your bookstore and look at a FE study guide. </p>

<p>I think the real problem is that most engineering graduates who fail the EIT exam are people who have been out in the working world and who, quite frankly, have forgotten all the basic stuff. It's the basic stuff that they learned during the beginning of their undergraduate days. In the last part of your undergrad days, you are doing highly advanced work, and it is no surprise to me in the least that their basics are rusty. </p>

<p>And mikemac, you said it yourself, to take the EIT exam in California, you need to have taken either 3 years of formal coursework, or have done 3 years of engineering-related work experience. I'll say it again " ..have done 3 years of engineering-related work experience". One more time "...have done 3 years of engineering-related work experience". It doesn't even have to be a formal engineering job, it just has to be 3 years of engineering-related work experience. What does that mean? Again, if you're a practicing lawyer who has done engineering-related legal work, there's a decent chance that you might be able to argue that that's good enough to be considered "engineering-related work experience". After all, it is related to engineering. If you're a good practicing lawyer, I'm sure you'll be able to find a good way to argue that you qualify. </p>

<p>To give you an example, I know a guy who studied English at Stanford while in undergrad. But during his years at Stanford, he worked part-time in information-technology - in fact, part of the way he paid for school was that he worked in Stanfords IT department. He was told that his years as an IT guy was sufficient qualification for him to sit the California EIT exam. </p>

<p>Furthermore, that's only a California requirement. Last time I checked, not everybody lived in California. Every state has its own requirements for who can sit the EIT exam. Again, keep in mind, I'm not talking about actually attaining formal EIT status, I'm just talking about taking the exam. To become a formal EIT, not only do you need to pass the EIT Exa, you also often times do need to graduate from an ABET-accredited engineering program, have worked under a Professional Engineer for years, etc. etc. But I'm not talking about that. I'm only talking about taking the EIT exam itself. </p>

<p>So mikemac, what exactly am I 'glossing' over. I think I am the one who is trying to tell the full story, and it is other people who are really doing the 'glossing over'. </p>

<p>Now to coureur, I got your meaning by context. Here is your entire direct quotes:</p>

<p>"...a scientific/technical degree (or some other degree plus a whole bunch of specified science courses) is REQUIRED to practice patent law. You can read the requirements yourself here:
<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dc...oed/grb0110.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dc...oed/grb0110.pdf&lt;/a>. If he still wants to be a patent lawyer, he's gotta study science. "</p>

<p>That is what you wrote, and you know that is a lie Recovery for you is impossible, so don't embarrass yourself by trying. Saying that a scientific/technical degree is required is an absolute bald-faced lie, and you know it. It is not required, as I have demonstrated. Furthermore, when you say "gotta study science", I can only take what you said in the context of your quote. After all, you said "gotta study science" a mere 2 sentences after that "requirement" sentence that has been shown to be false. What else am I supposed to infer from your last sentence, except that you meant to support what you wrote 2 sentences previously. Surely you were not contradicting yourself in your own paragraph? Come on, I'm a fair guy, so I give you this last opportunity to retract your quote. </p>

<p>Finally, I have always agreed that taking formal tech coursework, or even getting a formal tech degree is the most common path to take. But that's not the point. The point is that there are other ways to go about skinning this cat. To tell people that there are no other paths is a lie. To tell people that they are required to get a certain degree is a bald-faced lie. Why do you insist on telling people things that are not true? You can advise that you believe certain paths are better than others, and then the reasons for why you think so. That's perfectly fine. But to come right out and say that the other paths don't exist at all... and then to accuse me of being</p>

27

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>You are getting way too heated on this thread. The people you are arguing with are trying to offer knowledgeable and sensible advice, but you have preferred to reduce the thread to a shouting match. E.g.:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Holding an opinion different from yours does not constitute lying. Since the thread has lost its way I have closed it. I suggest a calmer and more tolerant tone in the future. </p>

<p>Moderator Scipio.</p>