Job Prospects for T30 student w/ 2.5 GPA in IP Forum

[rupert.pupkin]

Do you think you can work a good IP job without a Master's or PhD? think again.

There are 208 people at Finnegan you may consider asking.

[jbjb1]

Master's or PhD degrees aren't absolutely necessary but they are strongly encouraged for patent law. You should do some research on that.

end of discussion, jerk.

According to you, they are required.

IP law requires Master or PhD in engineering or hard science. You can't do it without an upper degree. If you get that and you do well in law school you should be able to find an IP job. Or you could work at the PTO and then move into a law firm to get paid more.

Congratulations on admitting you are wrong while ad hominem'ing it up.

honest mistake. adjusted the language. word to the wise - don't get all nuts when you see that someone may have misspoke.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

honest mistake. adjusted the language. word to the wise - don't get all nuts when you see that someone may have misspoke.

LOL @ racebaiter telling someone not to overreact

[Always Credited]

I don't know about anyone else, but I actually learned a couple things from this thread...somehow.

[jbjb1]

honest mistake. adjusted the language. word to the wise - don't get all nuts when you see that someone may have misspoke.

LOL @ racebaiter telling someone not to overreact

learn to accept an apology. good day.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

honest mistake. adjusted the language. word to the wise - don't get all nuts when you see that someone may have misspoke.

LOL @ racebaiter telling someone not to overreact

learn to accept an apology. good day.

Learn to gracefully admit when you are wrong.

Have a nice life.

[ok2bedifferent]

To break this insane childish behavior that plagues many of these threads, while it may vary from firm to firm, the general consensus is that you don't need an advanced degree if you intend to prosecute in the arts such as EE, ME, Physics, Optics, Semiconductors, Business Methods, Networks, etc. However, prosecution in the realms of Pharmaceuticals, Biomed, etc., you will need a PhD. That's the PTO's policy, as well as many firms'. So you were both half-right.

[270910]

To break this insane childish behavior that plagues many of these threads, while it may vary from firm to firm, the general consensus is that you don't need an advanced degree if you intend to prosecute in the arts such as EE, ME, Physics, Optics, Semiconductors, Business Methods, Networks, etc. However, prosecution in the realms of Pharmaceuticals, Biomed, etc., you will need a PhD. That's the PTO's policy, as well as many firms'. So you were both half-right.

One person said "You don't need a masters or PhD"

One person said "Yes you do"

The answer is "You don't need a masters or a PhD"

One person was objectively wrong.

The other person was objectively right.

HTH.

[engineer]

I've heard numerous accounts as well, so I talked to one of my professors about it. She's a visiting professor, and a patent attorney by trade--BS and MS in biomedical engineering. Anyway, since I'm really interested in patent law, we talked about the utility of advanced degrees; she told me that an advanced degree is encouraged, but it's not necessary to get a PhD. Instead, a masters will suffice, or even a BS if you have research experience/did something more than just take classes.

In the end, I think it's really a matter of how comfortable you are with your subject. You don't need any engineering knowledge (just the appellation) to pass the patent bar, but you have to keep in mind that (at least as a patent attorney) you'll be working with inventors; technical fortitude is encouraged. I think the reason people say that a BS in EE is fine, but a BS or BA in CS is not okay is simply based on the rigor of the two curricula. Someone who does 150 or so credits in EE/ChemE in four years probably has better engineering knowledge than someone who did 128 credits in CS or Biology. This entire paragraph is just my opinion, so feel free to ignore it if you're so inclined.

[wiseowl]

To break this insane childish behavior that plagues many of these threads, while it may vary from firm to firm, the general consensus is that you don't need an advanced degree if you intend to prosecute in the arts such as EE, ME, Physics, Optics, Semiconductors, Business Methods, Networks, etc. However, prosecution in the realms of Pharmaceuticals, Biomed, etc., you will need a PhD. That's the PTO's policy, as well as many firms'. So you were both half-right.

No, it's not.

Here are the requirements to be a patent examiner, if thats what you meant: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/exam.htm#req

And anyone with a BS in bio can take the exam, pass it, and then prosecute patents. Get a job? Not as easy. But not barred in any way.

Folks, if you don't know what you're talking about, step out of the thread. If you're just being contrary for trolling purposes, there are other sites for that.