Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Informaticist]

I've been trying to gain a better understand of what to do in my situation but am having a hard time. Hope someone can provide some advice.

1) Graduated with a degree in Informatics, newly offered. How can I learn whether that qualifies as a computer-engineering type degree for becoming a patent agent? I did take several computer science courses in college as part of the curriculum. If not, then perhaps I should stop this whole project before it starts.

2) Applied to schools for Fall 2009 with a 159 and a 3.0 from Indiana U Bloomington. Sadly, I have been rejected from practically everywhere. I am currently only looking at IU-Indy and UDayton, the only two to accept. IU indy would be in state tuition, but it has no IP type programs. UDayton does have such a program but it would be out of state tuition.

I am interested in IP. Have worked for a software company since 2000. So my options are:

1) Keep working for the same company and defer and figure out something else out
2) Somehow switch to try and gain legal experience in some area, or perhaps patent bar if I even can, and then re-apply to schools next year, perhaps try to retake the lsat
3) Go to one of the two schools, which sadly, are so low ranked I am getting scared that it would not be worth it if I would be jobless and in debt in 3 years. In which case I still don't know which school I should consider.

Confused,
Future 1L

[IPtech75]

University of Dayton is NOT a state school, so the tuition is the same for in-state and out-of-state students.

[dablueman]

1) Graduated with a degree in Informatics, newly offered. How can I learn whether that qualifies as a computer-engineering type degree for becoming a patent agent? I did take several computer science courses in college as part of the curriculum. If not, then perhaps I should stop this whole project before it starts.

I'm pretty sure you'd have to qualify under the Category B requirements since Informatics is not one of the listed degrees for Category A, and the curriculum is essentially a computer science curriculum.

See if you can qualify under Category B on the general requirements bulletin found here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb.pdf

[anon30]

I would be very very careful about going to a low ranked law school if you're not positive that you can sit for the patent bar. 

Also, all computer science degrees are not created the same.  There's a substantial difference in the demand for a BA and a BS degree.  Did you take the two semesters of Calc. based physics?

You also might want to see how Bilski plays out.  If it gets harder to get the CS patents, that's good -- you'll be in demand, but if it becomes impossible, that's bad.  I'm betting on the former or on no substantial change, but I wouldn't bet the cost of three years of law school on it.

You don't want to come out of law school saddled with the debt and find yourself with job prospects that are worse than what you had with an undergrad degree.  In my opinion, a JD from a 3rd or 4th tier university isn't worth it unless you can hit a specialized market with high demand, i.e., computer/electrical patents, Ph.D BioChem patents, MA mechanical patents, or the foreign language markets  -- which means you need to be fluid (not Rosetta stone advanced) in a foreign language besides Spanish.

There's a glut of attorneys at the moment, and the lower tier law schools grossly inflate the statistics of their graduates, so do not count on finding a decent job outside of IP if you can't take and pass the patent bar.

[Spor]

You also might want to see how Bilski plays out.  If it gets harder to get the CS patents, that's good -- you'll be in demand, but if it becomes impossible, that's bad.  I'm betting on the former or on no substantial change, but I wouldn't bet the cost of three years of law school on it.

I'm betting the cost of law school on software patents continuing, and I've expressed my concern about this before.  What will happen to patent attorneys who hold CS degrees?  I've considered trying to break into litigation in an attempt to hedge my bet, but I'm guessing nearly all CS major prosecutors will attempt to do the same.   

[anon30]

I think software patents will continue also.  I doubt the Supreme Court will overturn the 20 or so years that they have allowed patents, despite the opinions of a few vocal open source guys.  For one thing it would completely destroy the patent portfolios of several major companies, throw considerable doubt on the patent portfolios of other corporations, and completely trash the economy even further.  They also don't seem to be laying off examiners in the CS arts.  What I'm hoping is that they'll raise the bar for CS applications and require more detailed claims and a more technical description.  This would solve the problem with trolls and at the same time allow solid computer software patents (and the demand for the CS degree would sky rocket).  One of the problems you have at the moment is that mechanical and electrical engineers that haven't ever written higher level code (compiler design, data structures, etc.) are writing and arguing the computer patents.

What would happen to CS attorneys if they do disallow computer software?

Assuming the economy has improved; they can get a job programming computers and open a solo practice on the side doing copyrights, computer law, etc.  Or they can migrate to another practice area or possibly find work doing other types of patents.  The lawyers with BA's in history or poli. sci. seem to be able to find some type of work. 

If the economy worsens, there won't be any patent jobs unless you have an MS in EE and graduated from a top 10 law school, so who cares what degree you have.  Now you can solo, do freelance programming, and apply to legal and technical jobs. Solo practitioners doing run of the mill stuff (debt collection, creditor's rights, foreclosures, DWI, family law, etc) can function quite well in a poor economy.  It's the bigger organizations and corporate work that has the problems.  Plus, you won't have to pay off your loans if the economy completely tanks.

Computer people will always be in demand so at least you'll have that going for you no matter what happens.  That is assuming that unemployment hasn't doubled in three months like it has been.

Oh yeah, about the patent system being "broken."  People have been saying this for the past 10 or so years.  They also say it about practically every other area of law.  Bankruptcy is broken because of X, criminal is broken because of Y, immigration is broken because of Z, etc.  Are there some problems with patent law, yes.  Does it work reasonably well, yes.   

[LivingItUp]

I am interested in IP. Have worked for a software company since 2000.

Assuming you worked in software design (and not say PR/marketing/sales) then you will be way ahead of your future colleagues regarding your software patent prosecution skills.

In my opinion as an examiner who works with patent attorneys who prosecute software applications....

Generally, to some degree, prosecution of applications are hindered because the attorneys don't broadly understand fundamental software concepts. A broad understanding can be helpful, because software patent applications commonly cross several software technical areas (e.g., memory management, database theory, etc). It sounds like you are way ahead on this aspect of the job.

You can see if you like the work now. Software patent application claim language is mostly written in a functionally descriptive style that tells the reader what the invention does, but not how to implement it. This is akin to writing an algorithm in pseudocode. So, if you like writing psedocode, then you would probably like software patent prosecution. Try it out and see.

good luck to ya

[bald & chained]

Generally, to some degree, prosecution of applications are hindered because the attorneys don't broadly understand fundamental software concepts

Actually, the prosecution of applications is hindered because often neither the examiners nor the attorneys understand these concepts. If at least one side has no clue, then prosecution continues for a long time... If, however, both sides understand the art, then they can come to an agreement pretty quickly and the case is usually allowed faster. 

[Patent_Type]

Don't go to a school because it has an "IP program".  In many senses, a law degree is worth about the cost of the paper it is printed on.  What law school will not teach you, and what will set you apart, is practical experience.

If you are seriously interested in IP, you should investigate Examiner jobs at the USPTO.  Unless Bilski kills off all the CS art units, they will still be hiring because there is a fast-spinning revolving door there.  I strongly suggest this.  You can always apply to one of the evening programs at nearby DC schools while you are working (and gaining EXPERIENCE!) as an examiner during the day.

PT

[LivingItUp]

Generally, to some degree, prosecution of applications are hindered because the attorneys don't broadly understand fundamental software concepts

Actually, the prosecution of applications is hindered because often neither the examiners nor the attorneys understand these concepts. If at least one side has no clue, then prosecution continues for a long time... If, however, both sides understand the art, then they can come to an agreement pretty quickly and the case is usually allowed faster. 

I concur with Tech Spec.

That is another reason to be a software patent attorney. I would estimate that 95% of the examiners have no real world experience actually working with the software theory they learned in college. I have no facts, but I would guess this leads to bad rejections, and bad allowances. Overall, I would think this would make your job (as a patent attorney) easier because you can "out gun" the examiners in your arguments.

Conversely, I see the same being true for examiners like myself who can "out gun" attorneys who know very little. I joke with the attorneys when they visit me to prosecute a case. I jokingly ask them, "You make 2x what I make, and you don't know how say 'function calls' work?".

I think even if examiner or attorney has a 4.0 from MIT in comp sci - it does not subsitute for real world experience.

I am not trying to belittle anyone. I am only saying what I see.

[anon30]

What do you guys think the outcome of Bilski will be?  This probably has the most bearing on whether or not Infromacist should or should not go to law school.

[LivingItUp]

What do you guys think the outcome of Bilski will be?  This probably has the most bearing on whether or not Infromacist should or should not go to law school.

In my opinion ...

Software inventions benefit the people of the United States. We want inventors to invent, and benefit our country. We have a system setup to protect those inventions (when warranted) so inventors are encouraged to toil, and take risk for our country.

I don't see how any legal ruling can find itself saying that software inventions are not "real" inventions. That would undermine the prosperity of the country.

[freepatentbar]

You also might want to see how Bilski plays out.  If it gets harder to get the CS patents, that's good -- you'll be in demand, but if it becomes impossible, that's bad.  I'm betting on the former or on no substantial change, but I wouldn't bet the cost of three years of law school on it.

You really see Bilksi changing the market for CS patent attorneys?  I guess you see it as the tip of a very big iceberg.  I'm not sure that's the consensus. 

Either way, going to law school is much better than just staying an agent.  At least you could always flip to licensing or litigation.  Or...do foreign prosecution where Bilski doesn't apply. 

[Informaticist]

Thanks for the helpful replies. To be honest, however, I am not sure if I am now more confident or more confused.

* By out of state I meant it was roughly equivalent to out of state. The tuition is far higher and that adds to the pressure, especially given that I am interested more so in public service or government than private practice at the moment. However, tuition is only a small factor in my decision.

* I should have mentioned I do some programming as well as sales, marketing, documentation. I focus on systems architecture mostly. I am perfectly comfortable discussing db schemas, indexing, functional programming vs object-oriented, algorithm performance, etc.

* I work for a data mining company and focus specifically on natural language processing. Much of this experience is what has led to my current interest in IP.

* I do regularly contribute to open source projects and am a minor open-source advocate (not a stallman nut though)

* I have an equal interest in copyright issues, particularly issues like the recent pirate bay decision

* I spoke with one recent grad who is using the Category B option by going to evening classes while working at a firm and plans to take the bar then.

* I need to stop reading lawshucks.com because it is very scary.

* I agree with the glut statement. I don't want to add to that glut. My perspective is similar in that I have a strong dislike for some of the severe misconceptions lawyers have about technology. It might have started with the amazon one click issue that was big news for a while.

Thanks again for the help.

[LivingItUp]

Thanks for the helpful replies. To be honest, however, I am not sure if I am now more confident or more confused.

You should get on google.com/patents type in say 'software database' and read through some inventions. Pick out some long ones, and look through the effort that went into writing one of those applications. It may blow your mind.

I agree with the glut statement. I don't want to add to that glut. My perspective is similar in that I have a strong dislike for some of the severe misconceptions lawyers have about technology. It might have started with the amazon one click issue that was big news for a while.

I see a lot of software "misconceptions" that claim say the invention uses a 'database'. The word 'database' can merely mean data is stored in a region of memory (e.g., a file system database wherein a file is stored in memory).

Well, nearly every computer program stores data in memory, so claiming a 'database' usually provides very little distinction over any existing prior inventions.

Generally, I think the prosecuting attorney means the conventional relational SQL database. Though, I have never worked on a patent application that provided such detail explanation of the kind of database being claimed. Probably because the person who wrote the patent application lacked a broad understanding of database technology. Even though the patent application is directed towards a software invention.

Popular conceptual words like 'object', 'database', 'form', 'view' can usually have ten different possible meanings within the context of an invention.