Re: An IP gripe

On Wed, 18 Aug 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>.

Carl,

May I politely urge you to update the web page you created, if you are going to refer others to it?

I realize the web page constitutes your opinion, but it reads as a very dated, one sided, commentary. Sure, many Internet companies need patent lawyers, but many do not (there isn't that much innovating going on in Cyberspace). Instead, many of these companies need lawyers who understand copyright, trademark, and a host of other areas of the law currently referred to as cyberlaw, but more appropriately described as whatever an in-house counsel does (for a new technology company). I would encourage law students, whether they are "techies" or not to consider this emerging area of law practice in addition to traditional IP law, if that is suitable to their interest.

-- 


Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden
rod[_at_]cyberspaces.org
http://www.cyberspaces.org/