Re: An IP gripe

On 8/18/99, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/17/99, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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 don't know what happens to all the students after they graduate, but
> at UCLA Law School, when I went there, it was fair easier to take a
> copyright course than to take a patent course.
>
> My question is if what Mark says is true, why don't more law schools
> offer patent courses?

The job openings you see for patent lawyers frequently require a second advanced degree in biotech, elec. engineering, or something, and my sense from several years of reporting on patent litigation for Computer Law Reporter is that legal skill is almost useless without a good grasp of the technology. I can read and understand almost any kind of legal decision, but frequently find myself parroting words from patent decisions without having any idea what I'm really talking about, particularly when it comes to the most basic part of the practice -- claim construction. The vast majority of law students come from liberal arts programs (that's why they went to law school), don't have the technical background and don't intend to get it, and thus don't have much use for classes in patent law, claims drafting and PTO procedure.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> Received on Thu Aug 19 1999 - 14:34:01 GMT