Re: An IP gripe

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999, Carl Oppedahl <carl[_at_]oppedahl.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/17/99, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terence P. McElwee <mcelweet[_at_]info.orsp.mu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > I strongly agree with Carol. I too have noticed that Conferences on
> > > "Intellectual Property" tend to be about 80-90% patent law, making it
> > > difficult to find good educational opportunities. I just received my
> > > latest issue of the Marquette University Intellectual Property Law
> > > Journal and noticed for the first time that copyright, trademark and
> > > trade secret are rarely covered.
> > >
> > *********
> >
> > The view from the academic world is a bit different. 90% of the
> > "IP" law professors in this country really do copyright law. 90%
> > of the IP jobs for graduates are in patent law. Most of the articles
> > by professors in the law reviews are similarly directed to copyright.
> > My impression is that students who do IP largely end up taking
> > copyright classes, but working in patent law.
>
> I have followed this thread for a while, hoping I would not have to
> be the one to say "look to see where the money is". Thank you, Mark,
> you saved me from having to do it.
>
> Look in the help wanted advertisements placed by law firms. They
> *never* say "copyright lawyer needed". They *always* say "electrical
> engineer needed, admitted to practice before the USPTO". Or instead
> of "electrical engineer" it says chemical or mechanical engineer or
> biotech PhD.
>
> Or listen to the telephone calls from headhunters. They are invariably
> offering jobs requiring a technical degree and admission before the
> USPTO, and almost never offer trademark or copyright jobs.
>
> For one point of view on this subject, see "What are the job prospects,
> in the non-patent areas of IP law, for lawyers who do not have technical
> backgrounds?" at <http://www.patents.com/opportun.sht#nt>.

Ok, now that I have lurked on this thread for awhile I have to jump in.

Mr. Oppedahl, really, whether you intended it or not, the suggestion that we ought to characterize the value of different types of intellectual property lawyers according to what headhunters are doing, or because EE candidates are hard to come by is a little bit offensive. Furthermore, I respectfully disagree with you. I am a "non-technical" intellectual property attorney -- and in the last few months alone I have been courted by several prospective employers for my skills and experience in the trademark and copyright arenas. I know I am not alone in this. In fact, in my view, the fact that technical candidates are so sought after right now is what makes practitioners without technical degrees, and who do not practice patent law -- even more valuable. The more patent work there is out there, the less time patent lawyers have for trademark and copyright (and other intellectual property) work. It has always been a mystery to me why it is that anyone would suggest that patent lawyers should do copyright and trademark work. I work with patent lawyers all day long who freely admit they cannot keep with the changes in the copyright and trademark laws and depend upon specialists in those areas. That, combined with the emergence of "internet law" and the host of (non-patent) intellectual property issues raised by e-commerce, makes non-technical intellectual property (particularly trademark and copyright) an extremely significant field right now, in many instances, at least as valuable to employers, law firms, and corporations as patent lawyers. I predict that we will see continued and significant growth in non-patent intellectual property as the field embraces the notion that each of the "intellectual property arts" is significant in its own right.

Deborah Peckham
peckham[_at_]tht.com Received on Thu Aug 19 1999 - 12:54:02 GMT