Print

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

[billyandted]

I ask this question not to start a flame war, but because several science/engineering friends have asked me about my job as a patent analyst, and expressed interest in jumping ship to go into patent law.  I'm reluctant to recommend it to most of them, though, because although I think patent law is a better fit for me than engineering, I also think it would be more difficult than engineering for most people.  I doubt most people I know have the combination of technical, logical, and writing abilities to really be good at this job.  Specifically, I don't think most engineers/scientists are able to a) effectively describe technical concepts, as in a spec; b) differentiate between sometimes very subtly different prior art references; and particularly c) compose effective logical arguments regarding those concepts, as in an Office Action.  That's not to say that engineering is easy--it isn't--but I do often think that patent law requires a more uncommon skill set than engineering or science does.

What are your thoughts on this?  I don't want to discourage people who are genuinely interested and capable, but I also don't want to encourage people to "bark up the wrong tree." 

[Wiscagent]

... patent law requires a [less common] skill set than engineering or science does.

Sure, because patent law require some ability in law + some ability in engineering or science.  And of course there are outanding lawyers, scientists, and engineers that have rare skills that few patent lawyers or agents can match.

[stuffball]

Yeah, I think that engineering/science is harder than patent law.  I agree that both require different skill sets, but I really think that succeeding as an engineer/scientist is more difficult than doing the same as a patent attorney.

Here's why I think so...

A lot of what we do in law is pretty subjective.  You make the best argument you can, the best way possible... and hope for the best.  At the end of the day, though, all you really have to do is be convincing.  That's a far cry from being an engineer designing, say, a new jet inlet.  The engineer doesn't just have to be convincing, (s)he also has to be right.  If the engineer works in a really high-end technology, or as a researcher, (s)he also has to do something nobody's ever done before.  That's a lot harder than what I do on a daily basis.

[bald & chained]

It can't be that hard - after all, the PTO routinely hires people who couldn't hack it in engineering to examine the arts they don't fully understand.     

[MYK]

The engineer doesn't just have to be convincing, (s)he also has to be right.  If the engineer works in a really high-end technology, or as a researcher, (s)he also has to do something nobody's ever done before.

99% of engineering is crap.

The other 1% gets patented.

[bald & chained]

The engineer doesn't just have to be convincing, (s)he also has to be right.  If the engineer works in a really high-end technology, or as a researcher, (s)he also has to do something nobody's ever done before.

99% of engineering is crap.

The other 1% gets patented.

Maybe in a perfect world where patents are granted only for groundbreaking inventions.  In the real world, many companies try to patent at least 95% of those 99% you mention.

[blakesq]

Yes. 

I ask this question not to start a flame war, but because several science/engineering friends have asked me about my job as a patent analyst, and expressed interest in jumping ship to go into patent law.  I'm reluctant to recommend it to most of them, though, because although I think patent law is a better fit for me than engineering, I also think it would be more difficult than engineering for most people.  I doubt most people I know have the combination of technical, logical, and writing abilities to really be good at this job.  Specifically, I don't think most engineers/scientists are able to a) effectively describe technical concepts, as in a spec; b) differentiate between sometimes very subtly different prior art references; and particularly c) compose effective logical arguments regarding those concepts, as in an Office Action.  That's not to say that engineering is easy--it isn't--but I do often think that patent law requires a more uncommon skill set than engineering or science does.

What are your thoughts on this?  I don't want to discourage people who are genuinely interested and capable, but I also don't want to encourage people to "bark up the wrong tree." 

[DewPat]

I believe the majority of engineers can be easily trained to be patent professionals. 

The problem I see is usually with efficiency.  Some of the brightest folks in the office are shown the door because they can't balance quantity/quality.  Also, many engineers are dismayed at the amount of work and intense focus required on a daily basis.  No chatting at the water cooler, long lunches or three day weekends.

Almost every time I see or hear of an engineer returning to engineering from patent law they simply did not like the lifestyle.  Had nothing to do with competence.  This is from a law firm point of view.

[stuffball]

I believe the majority of engineers can be easily trained to be patent professionals. 

The problem I see is usually with efficiency.  Some of the brightest folks in the office are shown the door because they can't balance quantity/quality.  Also, many engineers are dismayed at the amount of work and intense focus required on a daily basis.  No chatting at the water cooler, long lunches or three day weekends.

Almost every time I see or hear of an engineer returning to engineering from patent law they simply did not like the lifestyle.  Had nothing to do with competence.  This is from a law firm point of view.

Seconded.

[stuffball]

The engineer doesn't just have to be convincing, (s)he also has to be right.  If the engineer works in a really high-end technology, or as a researcher, (s)he also has to do something nobody's ever done before.

99% of engineering is crap.

The other 1% gets patented.

99% of the 1 % is crap

[TaiwanIP]

The engineer doesn't just have to be convincing, (s)he also has to be right.  If the engineer works in a really high-end technology, or as a researcher, (s)he also has to do something nobody's ever done before.

99% of engineering is crap.

The other 1% gets patented.

99% of the 1 % is crap

10% of that 99% could probably be worked on and improved to be not so crappy anymore.

[smgsmc]

A yes/no answer is too simplistic because of the wide range of activities of "engineering" and "patent law".  They do require different skill sets (as well as common skill sets).  All that said, a PhD quantum physicist can pickup patent law a lot easier than a patent attorney (with a BS) can pickup quantum physics.

[BobRoberts]

Focusing more on whether it would be difficult for an Engineer to become a Patent Attorney (or Agent)...
It really depends on the person.   If I can generalize, let's say that there are two types of engineers.

1) the Type that can make it through the Engineering classes, but their hearts aren't completly in it- i.e., they have sufficient math and science knowledge/skills to survive in engineering, but lack the true 'geekiness' to be a successful engineer.  Lack that desire to really want to know/determine how things truly work.  They aren't the ones that disected VCR's, DVD players, transistor radios at a young age, or wired their sisters doll house for (DC) electricity at the age of 8, and they probably didn't own an erector set, or one of those Radio Shack experimental lab sets (and wore it out from over use).  They are more rounded to both science and language-arts, and are not thrown off where 2+2 does not equal 4.

2)  The type that are geek-to-the-max, that really want to know how things work and aren't afraid (and don't need to be asked) to do further study to learn more.  They live and breath engineering, but usually lack somewhat on the language arts side.  They built every circuit in the Radio Shack Electronic kit, along with others that they altered or devised themselves, and related to the movie "Revenge of the Nerds."  And you did it because you enjoyed the journey and challenge of the build, and not necessarly the successful result.  Their world crashes if there is even a suggestion that 2+2 equals something other than 4.

Regarding the Former, you would probably like patent law (prosecution), especially if you enjoy arguing, and using/manipuating words to serve your own purposes.  The flux of the law, constantly changing, doesn't really bother you.

If the latter, you relish the journey of learning the new technology and really getting under it, but less so getting it down on paper.  But the constant 2+2 no longer equals 4 turbulence of the law, where a single case can turn your understanding of a legal concept upside down, really bugs/disturbs you.

Either can usually survive in either Engineering or patents- the big question becomes whether you want to just 'survive' in your current engineering or patent field. 

I'm glad I could completly avoid answering the question, and shed absolutely no light on the situation whatsoever- Best of Luck!

[MYK]

Bob brings up some useful points, though.  In engineering, you get to drill down in a few areas.  Usually you just punch holes in dirt.  Sometimes you hit magma, thus vaporizing your drill bit and creating a new volcano.  In patent prosecution, you just sit around hoping you'll get to write about new volcanoes while trying not to get dragged into describing too many dirt-filled pits.

[ChiefJRoberts]

I ask this question not to start a flame war, but because several science/engineering friends have asked me about my job as a patent analyst, and expressed interest in jumping ship to go into patent law.  I'm reluctant to recommend it to most of them, though, because although I think patent law is a better fit for me than engineering, I also think it would be more difficult than engineering for most people.  I doubt most people I know have the combination of technical, logical, and writing abilities to really be good at this job.  Specifically, I don't think most engineers/scientists are able to a) effectively describe technical concepts, as in a spec; b) differentiate between sometimes very subtly different prior art references; and particularly c) compose effective logical arguments regarding those concepts, as in an Office Action.  That's not to say that engineering is easy--it isn't--but I do often think that patent law requires a more uncommon skill set than engineering or science does.

What are your thoughts on this?  I don't want to discourage people who are genuinely interested and capable, but I also don't want to encourage people to "bark up the wrong tree." 

it depends on what kind of patent job you are talking about. engineers "supposedly" cannot write that well, so they may find a job as a patent litigator where they would have to write motions, interrogatories, jury instructions, etc. on a constant basis difficult. also, you have to write a lot as a patent prosecutor/agent- patent applications, responses to office actions, etc.  If you like to write and you can do it well, patent law can be easier. If you can't, then you may find a job as an engineer easier.