IP Law, Non-Science Background

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby rayiner » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:27 pm

foodizgood wrote:This is true, however, you can have a lawyer working with an engineer with this. It doesn't take an engineer or a technical background to decipher that "markov model to predict some degradation factor within a transmission network" = uses a tried and true mathematical method to model that transmissions get exponentially weaker on distance. Or "capacitive touch-screens / how to deconflict spurious inputs" = appreciating the complexity of more than one point of contact on a touch screen.


Thanks for proving my point. A Markov model is a way to predict the parameters of some statistical system when given just the outputs of that system. It has nothing to do with what you're talking about, which is propagation loss. A patent lawyer who made that mistake while writing a patent...

Have a you read any patents? They're complicated.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7171043.html

If I was the engineer explaining that technology to a lawyer, I'd kill myself if I had to explain terms like "states" and "vector" and "coefficients".

foodizgood
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby foodizgood » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:30 pm

rayiner wrote:
foodizgood wrote:This is true, however, you can have a lawyer working with an engineer with this. It doesn't take an engineer or a technical background to decipher that "markov model to predict some degradation factor within a transmission network" = uses a tried and true mathematical method to model that transmissions get exponentially weaker on distance. Or "capacitive touch-screens / how to deconflict spurious inputs" = appreciating the complexity of more than one point of contact on a touch screen.


Thanks for proving my point. A Markov model is a way to predict the parameters of some statistical system when given just the outputs of that system. It has nothing to do with what you're talking about, which is propagation loss. A patent lawyer who made that mistake while writing a patent...

Have a you read any patents? They're complicated.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7171043.html

If I was the engineer explaining that technology to a lawyer, I'd kill myself if I had to explain terms like "states" and "vector" and "coefficients".


ok. you win =)

although i don't think the reading required to clarify that would be a daunting task to any lawyer, and if i were writing a patent or interpreting a patent, i certainly wouldn't leave any of that to assumption. I'm not an EE background, but if I could get work on that patent, I would take it and ensure the quality of my work by doing some extra research. People do a little extra legwork for the job. Just like in industry, you don't expect to have learned everything you needed coming out of school....
Last edited by foodizgood on Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby rayiner » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 pm

snotrocket's assertion that you need a PhD + publications or an MS + publications + work seems completely contrary to any information I've seen on the subject, and all the advice I've seen on the intelproplaw forum.

User avatar
dresq
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:05 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby dresq » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:40 pm

sanpiero wrote:... do I, as a finance grad, have any shot at IP law?

In summary, the answer to your question is:
Yes, but you will not be able to prosecute patents without some additional technical training.

/thread

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby rayiner » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:47 pm

foodizgood wrote:although i don't think the reading required to clarify that would be a daunting task to any lawyer, and if i were writing a patent or interpreting a patent, i certainly wouldn't leave any of that to assumption. I'm not an EE background, but if I could get work on that patent, I would take it and ensure the quality of my work by doing some extra research. People do a little extra legwork for the job. Just like in industry, you don't expect to have learned everything you needed coming out of school....


I agree that you don't need to know everything out of the gate, but you need to be able to learn quickly. As a CS major, you already know what states and state transitions, are, what vectors and matrices are. You've almost certainly taken a probability class and you're used to modeling physical systems in mathematical terms. Just by reading the wikipedia page for "markov model", you can easily figure out what you need to know. Someone who doesn't have this background will take far, far, longer to come up to speed.

simmersiz
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:35 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby simmersiz » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:24 pm

rayiner wrote:snotrocket's assertion that you need a PhD + publications or an MS + publications + work seems completely contrary to any information I've seen on the subject, and all the advice I've seen on the intelproplaw forum.


Yeah, I haven't heard that either. I do know for certain areas in IP grad work is important, but I don't think you need it for all of them. To the OP: you won't be able to do IP work with patents without an appropriate bachelors. I don't know if you could do stuff with copyrights, etc. but it seems like you should probably go another route.

User avatar
dresq
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:05 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby dresq » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:57 pm

dresq wrote:
sanpiero wrote:... do I, as a finance grad, have any shot at IP law?

In summary, the answer to your question is:
Yes, but you will not be able to prosecute patents without some additional technical training.

/thread

Again, to reiterate the correct answer, you can do anything but prosecute patents. During an IP presentation by Chris Sprigman at the UVA ASD last weekend someone asked the exact same question, and that was the gist of his response. Do not listen to the idiots saying otherwise, because they do not know what they are talking about.

User avatar
CE2JD
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby CE2JD » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:15 pm

While it is true that there are perhaps 10x more non-technical IP jobs than technical ones, there are about 100x more lawyers trying to compete for the "non-technical" IP jobs than lawyers who are qualified for the "technical" IP jobs.

Translation: non-technical IP jobs = LESS job security, LOWER pay, and LOWER mobility than technical IP jobs.

patentlaw
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:29 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby patentlaw » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:56 pm

mllerustad wrote:
swheat wrote:I am pretty sure that you have to have a science degree to practice patent law. I think I read somewhere that you can't sit for the patent bar without a science degree. I'll look for sources.


For the Michigan patent bar you don't have to. (Have a friend at GMU who took that route.) You'll need to study your advanced math, though--it's pretty hard.


There is no "Michigan" patent bar. There's one patent bar and it has the same requirements no matter where you take it.

Leeroy Jenkins
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:59 pm

snotrocket wrote:
Lxw wrote:
snotrocket wrote:False. Without a substantial hard science or engineering background (i.e. PhD + relevent published research or maybe M.S. plus substantial and on topic work experience), he will not be working in patent prosecution. Even people who have these things are having problems landing jobs ITE.

You are basically saying that a) nobody has done it in the past, and b) nobody will do it in the future. Both are laughable claims.

False, and comically uninformed. Even in the best of times, people without the required technical background will have zero prospects, although those with the right background will be in high demand. ITE, even the people who have the required qualifications are having a tough time (i.e. OP's prospects, which were zero at the best of times, are now even less than zero).

So the guy without the required technical background goes out and gets the required technical background, thus rendering your entire argument moot, because you assumed that one couldn't change his status, which is exactly what one would do in that situation if they really wanted to be a patent lawyer.

patentlaw
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:29 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby patentlaw » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:02 pm

foodizgood wrote:Besides, even with the technical stuff, I think most of it doesn't require technical understanding, just basic knowledge of concepts. You think the lawyers who got Apple their recent patent on multi-touch interface understand how it works? Or just the ideas of user-experience?


You'd be way off if you didn't think the patent prosecutors understood the technology. I've prosecuted patents for a couple years, there's no way I would draft a patent where I didn't (or couldn't easily) understand the underlying technology. One small screw-up characterizing something could sink the whole thing. Firms would be idiotic to not match up prosecutors carefully with the technology.

awesomepossum
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:49 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby awesomepossum » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:29 pm

I think snotrocket is partially right. I'm also an engineer and have gone to a lot of these IP career thingies.

I've heard that in some areas which are more the sciences (chem or bio for example), you tend to need PhDs. In some of the engineering disciples, especially EE, they tend to be happy with a BS.

simmersiz
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:35 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby simmersiz » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:43 pm

awesomepossum wrote:I think snotrocket is partially right. I'm also an engineer and have gone to a lot of these IP career thingies.

I've heard that in some areas which are more the sciences (chem or bio for example), you tend to need PhDs. In some of the engineering disciples, especially EE, they tend to be happy with a BS.


I had always heard exactly this. I have a BS in EE and plan to do IP.

slashtom
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:57 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby slashtom » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:05 pm

You definitely can get a certificate in Intellectual Property, the problem is Biglaw firms won't hire you.

At least that is what I gathered from looking at Biglaw lists, most 9/10 IP concentrations in big firms have a science undergrad degree. It makes sense, why not?

I'd highly advise you not to do it, if you want to work in big law.

User avatar
whyamidoingthis
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:31 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby whyamidoingthis » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:09 pm

dresq wrote:
dresq wrote:
sanpiero wrote:... do I, as a finance grad, have any shot at IP law?

In summary, the answer to your question is:
Yes, but you will not be able to prosecute patents without some additional technical training.

/thread

Again, to reiterate the correct answer, you can do anything but prosecute patents. During an IP presentation by Chris Sprigman at the UVA ASD last weekend someone asked the exact same question, and that was the gist of his response. Do not listen to the idiots saying otherwise, because they do not know what they are talking about.


To elaborate on the patent prosecution thing (and ONLY patent prosecution), you can't even sit for the US (yes, there is only ONE) Patent Bar without a BA/BS in a science or engineering discipline OR fulfilling an hours requirement of science/engineering classes. The requirements are on the USPTO website. My former BigLaw firm informally required PhD for any molecular bio-related stuff. Anything to do with engineering was more like a BS or MS.

There are many areas/aspects of IP outside patent prosecution. You can go answer infringement complaints working in-house at a social networking site for all anyone cares. No one will require a science background for that. Trademark, copyright, etc--all are open to you in various capacities.

How many times do we have to go over this IP nonsense? Search the boards people, this question has been asked SO many times and I know that because I'm dumb enough to keep answering.

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby rondemarino » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:06 am

snotrocket wrote:
Lxw wrote:
snotrocket wrote:False. Without a substantial hard science or engineering background (i.e. PhD + relevent published research or maybe M.S. plus substantial and on topic work experience), he will not be working in patent prosecution. Even people who have these things are having problems landing jobs ITE.

You are basically saying that a) nobody has done it in the past, and b) nobody will do it in the future. Both are laughable claims.

False, and comically uninformed. Even in the best of times, people without the required technical background will have zero prospects, although those with the right background will be in high demand. ITE, even the people who have the required qualifications are having a tough time (i.e. OP's prospects, which were zero at the best of times, are now even less than zero).


Wow. This seems overly pessimistic. I have no knowledge of the market outside SoCal, but no one is firing and more than a few are hiring.

- Technology Specialist w/o Ph.D

User avatar
Mulliganstew
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:41 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby Mulliganstew » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:00 am

I've talked to multiple IP professors and they have all said the only thing you can't do is sit for the patent bar/prosecute patents. There's plenty of work for copyright/trademark lawyers.

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby A'nold » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:48 am

This thread is funny. Isn't the point of going into this kind of field the fact that you have a specialization that is very sought after, even though the work is very boring and killself like? It's like op heard "IP law is where da money's at" and decided that's what he wanted to do.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby rayiner » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:50 am

A'nold wrote:This thread is funny. Isn't the point of going into this kind of field the fact that you have a specialization that is very sought after, even though the work is very boring and killself like? It's like op heard "IP law is where da money's at" and decided that's what he wanted to do.


I don't think the work is very boring at all. You know what's boring? Finance. I had lunch with a couple of finance people the other day, and while they were very nice people, my god they're boring. Blah blah mortgages blah blah interest blah blah blah!

Leeroy Jenkins
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:51 am

rayiner wrote:I don't think the work is very boring at all. You know what's boring? Finance. I had lunch with a couple of finance people the other day, and while they were very nice people, my god they're boring. Blah blah mortgages blah blah interest blah blah blah!

You know what I think is boring? This thread :?

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby rondemarino » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:55 am

A'nold wrote:This thread is funny. Isn't the point of going into this kind of field the fact that you have a specialization that is very sought after, even though the work is very boring and killself like? It's like op heard "IP law is where da money's at" and decided that's what he wanted to do.


There's that, or maybe the schools OP has any shot of getting into happen to have well regarded specialty programs in IP. Its like the kids who go to crappy UGs and brag about going to the #3 school for proctology in the U.S. Its not clear to me why anyone pays attention to specialty rankings, but they exist.

User avatar
CE2JD
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby CE2JD » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:20 am

Mulliganstew wrote:There's plenty of work for copyright/trademark lawyers.


LOLWAT?

User avatar
DavidYurman85
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:55 am

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby DavidYurman85 » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:35 am

My g/f is a patent attorney with an EE degree and she says that most IP groups want to recruit people with a strong technical background, especially in this economy. Even folks with "soft science" backgrounds such as bio or chem are not as versatile. Though, it is possible to do IP litigation w/o an engineering background and this often falls under soft IP, ie: copyright/trademark. It also depends on the firm and their client base. In her case, the firm prefers only to hire those with a hardcore engineering background because they do a lot of patent prosecution--especially when litigation is slow. And to OP, she went to GWU, FWIW.

User avatar
CE2JD
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby CE2JD » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:50 am

Getting a job in IP Litigation is just as competitive as getting a job in any other type of litigation.

Also, from my years of research and work in the tech industry, having talked with many IP attorneys in my previous employer's IP department, I can tell you that copyright / trademark work is almost exclusively done by people with technical degrees in firms that specialize in all types of IP work. I've never even heard of a lawyer that ONLY does copyright work.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the job security and "highly sought after" aspects of IP work can only be attributed to work that requires a hard science background. You won't find anyone with experience in the field that disagrees with me on this point.

User avatar
SabermetricFan
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:02 pm

Re: IP Law, Non-Science Background

Postby SabermetricFan » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:44 am

Great thread, I am in the same boat. I don't have a BS in a science but I plan on working on it while getting my JD during those 3 years or shortly after. I've read patent litigation and I love it. I find it the exact opposite of boring.

My desire to practice IP law and especially patents is because I want to protect people's minds.

My question is how well would a BS in Physics or Engineering Physics help in the patent field? I'm asking specifically about these because after looking at the BS list to sit for the Patent exam, this would be my most enjoyable area to get into. I have always done extremely well in physics courses and the math comes naturally to me. I don't know how different engineering physics would be but I feel at this point that'd be the best science for me to get a degree in instead of starting from complete scratch in EE or ME or whatever. Basically, is the demand for a background in physics average, low or high in the patent litigation field?

Thanks for any feedback.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dcc617, hwwong, PantoroB and 7 guests