Print

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

[dablueman]

Multiply by 12/13 (approx. .923).  Three months is thirteen weeks, not twelve.  All those two or three leftover days at the end of the month add up (save for February, of course, except once every four years, but not every hundred, except every four hundred -- but in any case not this year or next).

You crazy people and your crazy facts. Yep, the $/hour would be less.

Now, I am very interested to find out what potential conflicts of interest you are referencing.  And yes, I am asking agents/attorneys to be available for some weekends.  Anyone who wants to work, needs money, or believes in a cause doesn't mind sacrificing for such.

If someone that is currently employed at a firm were to consider this then they would have to put your company through the firm's conflict of interest screening practices, or if whatever you're proposing involves doing work for others then they too would have to go through the firm's conflict of interest screening practices.

Also, there was never any mention of an examiner being employed to review the agents/attorney's work product.

You missed the point of that comment too. When you submit the application or responses to office actions who do you think is on the other side? That would be the examiners, working for the government, that review the agent/attorney work product. It was paradoxical to me that the attorney who prepared the work could be paid less than the examiner that would end up examining that work assuming the same years of experience.

[Patentlawguru06]

Attorney
$7,500
12-17 hours per week for 3 months
144-204 hours total
$36.76 - $52.08 per hour

Agent
$5,000
8-10 hours per week for 3 months
96-120 hours total
$41.67 - $52.08 per hour

Multiply by 12/13 (approx. .923).  Three months is thirteen weeks, not twelve.  All those two or three leftover days at the end of the month add up (save for February, of course, except once every four years, but not every hundred, except every four hundred -- but in any case not this year or next).

MYK,

You are correct, and initially I said 3 mths to imply 12 weeks which is the length of time I'm really looking for.  I just figured I'd leave it at 3 months to save a little wiggle room with the schedule.

Dablueman,

I do understand your point about conflicts of interest.  Although I doubt there would be any for the limited scope of what I'm proposing, those always have to be kept in mind by attorneys/agents.  You are also correct in the fact that a patent examiner may potentially be paid more to review the application than what a person is paid to draft it, but that is all relative because patent examiners pay are based on their GS level, educational background, time with the USPTO, number of patent "counts" they put out per week, etc. Keep in mind that potential employees may not even be drafting patents as most of their general duties, it is just a requirement that they have the experience to do so.  So comparing their pay to patent examiners pay is an irrelevant factor in determining pay rates on this end; but I'm willing to negotiate with a person based upon other factors.  Thanks for you input.

Braxton

[klaviernista]

OK guys, cut Braxton a break.  As best I can tell, he is one of the few folks in the country that is actually offering a real, honest to goodness job.  As to what he is offering to pay, well, it is the employer's perogative to determine compensation.  I'm sure he will receive at least some interest from prospective employees.  After all, "a" paycheck is almost always better than "no" paycheck at all.

[vman11]

OK guys, cut Braxton a break.  As best I can tell, he is one of the few folks in the country that is actually offering a real, honest to goodness job.  As to what he is offering to pay, well, it is the employer's prerogative to determine compensation.

I've been reading this stuff from the sidelines and I have to to agree with this. There are apparently a lot of folks hurting out there and a good number of unemployed attorneys; this may help them put bread on the table. So, let's not knock a guy down for trying to create employment, this guy / gal Braxton could possibly be a small entrepreneurial kinda employer (without a lot of money) looking to start something.

On the other hand, by Braxton's own analogy he/ she seems to be posting an equivalent of a part time cashier's job at Target wherein only patent attorneys, agents & examiners need apply. In other words, some knowledge of patent law seems needed, the type (prosecution, litigation, IP analystics etc.) seems immaterial because neither does it factor into the apparent compensation brackets nor the skill requirement.

Which is all fine. What confuses me then, why would you need somebody with a bunch of experience? One could hire a bunch of unemployed recent grads looking for  something to do and looking to make a mark (also add to their resume). Just sayin' ........

For example, if I am paying the patent attorney the same rate to sweep floors as I am paying the patent agent to draft patents, will the patent attorney be upset, probably not. You are highlighting the differences in experience and insinuating that that alone will justify a higher pay rate.  And I agree that under other circumstances it does, but it does not necessarily make this the rule.  For example, if a seasoned attorney accepted a part-time job at Target as a cashier to make some extra cash for the holidays, should he expect to receive attorney pay?  Of course not. 

[Patentlawguru06]

OK guys, cut Braxton a break.  As best I can tell, he is one of the few folks in the country that is actually offering a real, honest to goodness job.  As to what he is offering to pay, well, it is the employer's prerogative to determine compensation.

I've been reading this stuff from the sidelines and I have to to agree with this. There are apparently a lot of folks hurting out there and a good number of unemployed attorneys; this may help them put bread on the table. So, let's not knock a guy down for trying to create employment, this guy / gal Braxton could possibly be a small entrepreneurial kinda employer (without a lot of money) looking to start something.

On the other hand, by Braxton's own analogy he/ she seems to be posting an equivalent of a part time cashier's job at Target wherein only patent attorneys, agents & examiners need apply. In other words, some knowledge of patent law seems needed, the type (prosecution, litigation, IP analystics etc.) seems immaterial because neither does it factor into the apparent compensation brackets nor the skill requirement.

Which is all fine. What confuses me then, why would you need somebody with a bunch of experience? One could hire a bunch of unemployed recent grads looking for  something to do and looking to make a mark (also add to their resume). Just sayin' ........

Thanks Klaviernista and Vman for the positive feedback.  I'm glad that someone sees what I'm trying to do in the midst of this economy.  Vman, in reply to your comment about my Target example, well that example was an extreme example but nevertheless applicable.

I'm trying not to disclose too much info about what I am proposing, but let me try and put it into perspective for everyone.  Just because an employer may require a potential employee to have several skills, it does not necessarily mean that the employee would be utilizing those skills all of the time, or at all, for that matter.  So while an employee's skill set "may" justify their pay rate, the capacity in which that individual will be working could be different and may have more baring on their pay rate than their skill set. 

So for instance, if someone requires an attorney to have 10 years of legal experience but will be using them as an accountant, then they probably won't be paid like an attorney.  But if there was a legal affair that came up and the attorney could be utilized in the legal matter, then he/she will be paid accordingly. THE AFOREMENTIONED EXAMPLE IS NOT WHAT I'M PROPOSING.  I'm just trying to give you a viable example.

Thanks,

Braxton

[vman11]

Ok, last post on this topic from me ...

So for instance, if someone requires an attorney to have 10 years of legal experience but will be using them as an accountant, then they probably won't be paid like an attorney.  But if there was a legal affair that came up and the attorney could be utilized in the legal matter, then he/she will be paid accordingly.

See, this is where you lose me. Why do you want to hire an attorney / agent with specifically 5 - 8 - 10 years experience for an accountant's job (and not a recent graduate)? In anticipation of a legal work in the future?

I just don't understand what connection legal experience has with accounting and the experience may in fact be detrimental.

An experienced lawyer will probably think through and point out 100 ways you can be sued (ad he/ she may not know how to work around these 100 ways) given your accounting practices and make you more wary.

THE AFOREMENTIONED EXAMPLE IS NOT WHAT I'M PROPOSING.  I'm just trying to give you a viable example.

The only other explanation is, you want legal services of an experienced attorney / agent every so often but can't afford existing rates so want to re-brand the position as an accountant (for example) so that you can have a (more than one) person on staff when you need them and you don't have to pay them the market rate for what they really do. It's a decent strategy from an employer's perspective if you can keep your employee motivated or interested enough so that you don't have an employee in this position quitting every couple of weeks / months (or gets dis-interested enough to not care less about what he / she is doing).

But, then maybe this is not the case at all cos you say ...

But if there was a legal affair that came up and the attorney could be utilized in the legal matter, then he/she will be paid accordingly.

So maybe you intend to abide by some ethics, not always the case with employers, I can assure you.

I've seen people serve in cross functional roles on a few occasions, particularly engineering and IP. Usually, they get some sort of a fancy title which denotes a hybrid responsibility and get paid less than an attorney, more than a regular engineer (depending on the ethics of their employer). Patent engineers / patent analysts etc are some of the titles used. Although in bigger companies these guys may do neither hands on engineering nor hands on legal work. In smaller companies, they tend to do hands on everything.

Over & out ...

[Patentlawguru06]

See, this is where you lose me. Why do you want to hire an attorney / agent with specifically 5 - 8 - 10 years experience for an accountant's job (and not a recent graduate)? In anticipation of a legal work in the future?

I just don't understand what connection legal experience has with accounting and the experience may in fact be detrimental.

The only other explanation is, you want legal services of an experienced attorney / agent every so often but can't afford existing rates so want to re-brand the position as an accountant (for example) so that you can have a (more than one) person on staff when you need them and you don't have to pay them the market rate for what they really do. It's a decent strategy from an employer's perspective if you can keep your employee motivated or interested enough so that you don't have an employee in this position quitting every couple of weeks / months (or gets dis-interested enough to not care less about what he / she is doing).

But, then maybe this is not the case at all cos you say ...

But if there was a legal affair that came up and the attorney could be utilized in the legal matter, then he/she will be paid accordingly.

So maybe you intend to abide by some ethics, not always the case with employers, I can assure you.

I've seen people serve in cross functional roles on a few occasions, particularly engineering and IP. Usually, they get some sort of a fancy title which denotes a hybrid responsibility and get paid less than an attorney, more than a regular engineer (depending on the ethics of their employer). Patent engineers / patent analysts etc are some of the titles used. Although in bigger companies these guys may do neither hands on engineering nor hands on legal work. In smaller companies, they tend to do hands on everything.

Over & out ...

Vman,

Just to point out again, it WILL NOT BE accounting work.  I really wish I could disclose the purpose for the experience requirement without going into too much detail, but it is NOT in anticipation of legal work in the future.  However, it does have a major business impact and I can assure you it will not be detrimental.  As far as ethics, my profession requires it, and I take it very seriously.  I will tell you this, as you mentioned earlier, I am a small entrepreneurial employer; but once everything is in place, it won't be a small business for long. Once again, I appreciate the feedback.

Thanks,

Braxton