. Forum

[Llewellyn]

.

[PSLaplace]

It'll involve only patent litigation (since a technical degree is required for patent prosecution), but it'll still be more relevant to patent law generally than, say, Wills & Trusts.

[Llewellyn]

.

[270910]

Those credentials are meaningless for effectively teaching patent law. The legal doctrines hardly require scientific credentials, it's the grunt work that might.

[eth3n]

Those credentials are meaningless for effectively teaching patent law. The legal doctrines hardly require scientific credentials, it's the grunt work that might.

This, unless this prof is doing this for fun in his spare time, I don't think you have to worry about his ability to teach the class.

[wiseowl]

i voted no, but i hate to tell you the dirty little secret of law school: MANY of your professors have never practiced law and never will.

[PSLaplace]

It'll involve only patent litigation (since a technical degree is required for patent prosecution), but it'll still be more relevant to patent law generally than, say, Wills & Trusts.

the meaning of this post is incomprehensible to me

Short answer: yes.

Though I do wonder how you "know" you want to do patent law given how evidently little you know about it.

[Black-Blue]

Assuming that, 1. You want to do patent law, 2. Your school's patent law is taught by someone who lacks a technical degree, nor is that person certified or able to be certified to practice before the USPTO, nor is that person's main area of research generally intellectual property or a specific area of intellectual property

would you take the class

I don't see how technical knowledge is necessary to teach Patent law. Patent law is mostly theory on promoting a specific aspect of business and commercial efficiency. Patent law in academia is different from the grunt work that patent prosecution attorneys do.

Similarly, it's not necessary to have been a criminal or police officer to be a criminal law professor.

[Llewellyn]

.

[PSLaplace]

patent law, either as a class or as a body of law, doesn't 'only involve' litigation, you dumbass.

I see I have not made my inferences clear enough for your third-grade reading comprehension skills. Patent law, broadly speaking, involves two practice areas: patent prosecution and patent litigation. Someone without a technical degree is incapable of doing patent prosecution. Therefore, a patent law class taught by a professor incapable of doing patent prosecution will necessarily involve only patent litigation. Dumbass.

[09042014]

patent law, either as a class or as a body of law, doesn't 'only involve' litigation, you dumbass.

I see I have not made my inferences clear enough for your third-grade reading comprehension skills. Patent law, broadly speaking, involves two practice areas: patent prosecution and patent litigation. Someone without a technical degree is incapable of doing patent prosecution. Therefore, a patent law class taught by a professor incapable of doing patent prosecution will necessarily involve only patent litigation. Dumbass.

While I agree OP is being a huge douche, I really don't believe this true. Just because he can't prosecute patents doesn't mean he can't teach it. Those who can't do teach...

[Llewellyn]

.

[prezidentv8]

.

I'm only here because I enjoy your screen name and avatar. That is all.

[Black-Blue]

Assuming that, 1. You want to do patent law, 2. Your school's patent law is taught by someone who lacks a technical degree, nor is that person certified or able to be certified to practice before the USPTO, nor is that person's main area of research generally intellectual property or a specific area of intellectual property

would you take the class

I don't see how technical knowledge is necessary to teach Patent law. Patent law is mostly theory on promoting a specific aspect of business and commercial efficiency. Patent law in academia is different from the grunt work that patent prosecution attorneys do.

Similarly, it's not necessary to have been a criminal or police officer to be a criminal law professor.

I don't see the justification behind picking and choosing the portions of my post to respond to, in a manner that completely negates the main body of your own argument.

I wrote a comment from which you should be able to infer that I would've voted "yes" in your poll. Dumbass.

I didn't negate the "main body" of my own argument. The argument is that a technical degree isn't require to teach patent law because it is not directly relevant to patent law. Dumbass.

[Llewellyn]

.

[PSLaplace]

You are so fucking wrong, it's hilarious how much of an idiot you are.

The part where you explain why I am wrong is...what a surprise...missing.

The reason I didn't get your inference is because your inference could only be reached by someone with elementary school intelligence.

And thus tailored perfectly for you! You're welcome.

[TheBigMediocre]

Don't call me buddy, pal.

[PSLaplace]

Don't call me buddy, pal.

I'm not your pal, friend.

[TheBigMediocre]

Don't call me buddy, pal.

I'm not your pal, friend.

I'm not your friend, guy.

[Llewellyn]

.

[PSLaplace]

You are so fucking wrong, it's hilarious how much of an idiot you are.

The part where you explain why I am wrong is...what a surprise...missing.

I need to explain why you are wrong? You introduced the claim, you should be the one explaining how you are right. As for how you are wrong, the course description clearly states the subject matter of the course is "...legal issues arising in the obtaining and enforcing of patents". Maybe if you had a clue about the course in question, you wouldn't have made hasty conclusions that are totally wrong, proceeded to assume you were right and then criticize someone for not presuming the half-assed assumptions you make to be true. Which brings me to my next point...

Yes, because the course description clearly settles the issue. Since the course description "clearly states" that the course addresses issues arising out of obtaining patents and enforcing them -- which is presumably what you would look for in a patent law course -- why should the professor's background matter? Whether it's taught by a PhD in EE or the local drunk, the course description says exactly what you'll be learning, right?

The reason I didn't get your inference is because your inference could only be reached by someone with elementary school intelligence.

And thus tailored perfectly for you! You're welcome.

Should we break out the champagne now to welcome you to the club, or should we wait? Dumbass.

Why, I rather like champagne -- let's do it now!

[Llewellyn]

.

[PSLaplace]

Yes, because the course description clearly settles the issue. Since the course description "clearly states" that the course addresses issues arising out of obtaining patents and enforcing them -- which is presumably what you would look for in a patent law course -- why should the professor's background matter? Whether it's taught by a PhD in EE or the local drunk, the course description says exactly what you'll be learning, right?

Obviously, though, at the beginning of this thread you decided that you were in a better position to judge the subject matter of a course than I am. You believed this strongly that you made conclusory judgments on the course material without evidence, or even asking for evidence when confusion arose.

Anyway, I never stated a professor's undergraduate or graduate degrees were the sole criteria for deciding whether or not to take a patent law course taught by that person. I don't know why you continue to insist upon this silly line of reasoning that I never advanced. I reread my original post, and fail to see how anyone could imaginably interpret what I wrote to mean just that--to the exclusion of anything else.

And where did I state or imply that you stated a professor's degrees were the "sole criteria" for deciding whether or not to take a patent law course?

Indeed, given your recitation of, and confidence in, the accuracy of the course's description, I am rather puzzled as to why the professor's background is at all relevant.

[TheBigMediocre]

Yes, because the course description clearly settles the issue. Since the course description "clearly states" that the course addresses issues arising out of obtaining patents and enforcing them -- which is presumably what you would look for in a patent law course -- why should the professor's background matter? Whether it's taught by a PhD in EE or the local drunk, the course description says exactly what you'll be learning, right?

Obviously, though, at the beginning of this thread you decided that you were in a better position to judge the subject matter of a course than I am. You believed this strongly that you made conclusory judgments on the course material without evidence, or even asking for evidence when confusion arose.

Anyway, I never stated a professor's undergraduate or graduate degrees were the sole criteria for deciding whether or not to take a patent law course taught by that person. I don't know why you continue to insist upon this silly line of reasoning that I never advanced. I reread my original post, and fail to see how anyone could imaginably interpret what I wrote to mean just that--to the exclusion of anything else.

And where did I state or imply that you stated a professor's degrees were the "sole criteria" for deciding whether or not to take a patent law course? Dumbass.

Indeed, given your recitation of, and confidence in, the accuracy of the course's description, I am rather puzzled as to why the professor's background is at all relevant.

FTFY to keep with the style of the replies.

[Llewellyn]

.