Re: An IP gripe

On Thu, Aug 19, 1999, Rod Dixon <rod[_at_]cyberspaces.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Carl Oppedahl <carl[_at_]oppedahl.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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>.
>
> 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.

I generally concur with Rod regarding the importance of trademark and copyright counsel to an emerging Internet company. But, on Carl's side of the point, the State Street Bank decision has created an environment in which it is equally critical for every emerging company -- Internet or not -- to have at least an initial consultation with a patent lawyer to determine whether they have any intellectual property that can and should be protected by means of a patent filing.

Bob

Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn, P.C.
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2390
> Phone: 206-340-9619
> Fax: 206-340-9599
> E-mail: rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> Website: http://www.grahamdunn.com/
Received on Fri Aug 20 1999 - 16:00:20 GMT