stratocophic wrote:Wouldn't that be firm-specific? If there are a limited number of patent projects at a hypothetical firm, why not let associates do those while filling in the gaps with the rest of the IP work available or vice versa? Assuming that having expertise in one field precludes the ability to produce well or even competently in another may reach beyond the limits of the usefulness of specialization.Leeroy Jenkins wrote:icydash wrote:Right, but we weren't talking about litigation, we were talking about why IP firms tend to hire people with hard science backgrounds over those without. And the answer is that people with hard science backgrounds can do all kinds of IP, where as those without hard science backgrounds can not. Why would a firm have to pay two people (one to do patents, and one to do trademarks and copyrights) when they can just pay one?
On the contrary, why would a firm hire one person to do everything poorly instead of hiring two people to do two different things well? Most law firms that aren't 10-person sweatshops can afford to, and will profit by, specializing their attorneys.
Look, we can debate the normative question of how IP firms should run their railroads. But it doesn't matter, and you won't ever be right about the way the world works by arguing how it should work.
The people who know what they are talking about (I am not one of them) say - on this thread and elsewhere - that it is extraordinarily rare to break into IP work of any kind without technical credentials.