Re: An IP gripe

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> One reason I'm not a patent lawyer is that my CS degree predates the
> PTO's recognition of CS as a technical degree,[1] and I'm unwilling
> to go back to school for a third to get a degree I don't care about
> or to study subjects that don't interest me, just to qualify to take
> a test. The OED gave zero weight to my 12-year career in the computer
> industry, including my position as Senior Computer Architect at a
> major mainframe computer company.
>
> ...
>
> [1] The PTO's recognition of the CS degree is still rather limited.
> A CS degree from many universities well-known for their outstanding
> technical programs do not qualify. Last time I checked,
> Carnegie-Mellon, MIT and CalTech did not qualify.

     I share this complaint. I am very interested in being admitted to the patent bar. I teach the stuff and feel that you always can do a better job as an insider than an outsider. Unfortunately, my computer science degree from Duke and twenty-some years of experience programming computers does not qualify me to have the technical knowledge to draft a computer software patent. If I had graduated from the local branch of rinky-dink college with a degree in fabric technology, I would be allowed into the bar (or at least the exam). I suspect that the highly restrictive admission of computer science graduates is designed to protect the current patent bar from an influx of computer-trained patent lawyers and agents.

     A question for the list: Could litigation be brought against the PTO to force them to recognize computer science degrees on the same basis as they recognize other degrees? If such litigation were brought, what theory?

--
Ralph D. Clifford
Associate Professor
Southern New England School of Law
<rclifford[_at_]snesl.edu>