|
|
Thomas G.
Field, Jr.
Contents

The way we live changes continually as we reap the benefits of rapidly
improving technology. Like technology, law also touches virtually every
aspect
of our lives and often interacts with technology. Technology makes
television
possible, but the law increasingly determines such things as the
technical
specifications of a broadcast license, the privacy rights of
"newsworthy"
individuals and the necessary compensation for creators of musical
scores and
screenplays.
Sometimes, as with photocopiers and computers, technology influences
the
practice of law. More often, however, it is the other way around. Also,
in our
complex society, lawyers and technologists must cooperate in addressing
many important questions. Were the shreds of "pot" found in the car
really tobacco?
Did the axle break, causing the car to hit the tree, or did the
axle break because the car hit a tree?
This article discusses the many legally-related job opportunities for
people with technical training, whether they be engineers, physicians
or scientists.
These range from those who need only fairly basic legal knowledge, for
example, to deal with contracts or regulatory processes to those who
become full-fledged attorneys and practice patent and other
intellectual property law.


Law-Related Opportunities for Technologists
without Formal Legal Training
Problems involving both technology and law are common and growing in
number and complexity. It may come as a surprise, but most of these are
handled by
people trained only in technology. Imagine, for example, two engineers
negotiating a construction contract. Having agreed on specifications,
dates and price, they will probably use a contract form drafted much
earlier by an
attorney neither of them even knows. Later, if one firm disputes
whether the
other is meeting its responsibilities, the grievance could be resolved
by an
engineer-arbitrator who, after a "trial," would determine the legal
rights and
responsibilities of the parties and possibly award money or compel
action. Only if the losing party refused to comply with the
arbitrator's decision, would lawyers be needed.
Or, picture two scientists dealing with a regulatory issue, for example
whether a computer's shielding adequately prevents broadcast
interference. One might represent a manufacturer; the other, the
Federal Communications
Commission. Again, attorneys would only be needed if they (or their
supervisors) couldn't resolve matters without going to court.
Thus, many without law degrees do the type of work often done by
attorneys. Whatever law they need is generally learned on the job or at
short seminars and professional meetings. Also, longer Franklin Pierce
Law
Center programs may interest people who wish to know more about law
without having to become a lawyer.


Patent Law as a Special Case
Owners of patents can prevent others from using new technologies for up
to twenty years. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), an agency of
the federal government, grants patents only after close scrutiny. Not
everything new is patentable. It may not be in the public interest to
give an inventor exclusive rights to some technology merely because he
or she was the first one who needed it -- particularly where it was
available to anyone who cared to look. To obtain a patent, an inventor
must first comply with the requirements of the PTO.
Since the 1790's, technically trained people have been helping
inventors obtain patents. To seek patents on behalf of others, one must
have the proper technical credentials and pass an examination offered by the PTO.
Non-lawyers who are qualified to sit for (and pass) that examination
become patent "agents." In an important 1963 case, the U.S. Supreme
Court recognized that patent agents "practice law" and that states are
generally free to regulate such practice. Yet, it forbade states from
interfering with the practice of non-lawyers admitted before the PTO.
Clearly, the most important service patent agents provide is drafting
patent "claims." A patent's value is primarily determined by the scope
and validity of those claims. Patents may cover the equivalent of a
square inch of Arctic tundra or a square mile of Manhattan. If claims
are too narrow, others can practice an invention without entering the
territory reserved for the exclusive use of the patent holder. If they
are too broad, covering what is already known or what is obvious to
anyone skilled in the relevant technology, a court can find them
invalid. Effective claim drafting and patent prosecution requires a
unique combination of good technical understanding, oral and written
communication skills, and basic legal judgment.
However, patent agents are very restricted in what they can do. Unlike
lawyers, agents cannot, for example, file appeals from the PTO to the
courts, negotiate and draft licenses to use patented and unpatented
technology, sue those who breach contracts or use software without
licenses, or advise on ways to protect trade secrets. (Further,
attorneys need no technical credentials to do anything other than
prosecute patents before the PTO. Remarkably, as noted below, those
involved in law and science or technology outside of the patent area,
rarely do.)
In any event, many, if not most, patent agents eventually go to law
school. It may be difficult for agents working without legal
supervision to obtain malpractice insurance. Thus, most work under the
supervision of lawyers. Consequently, agents are apt to resent that
attorneys doing essentially the same thing enjoy higher status and
income.


The Rewards of Being a Patent Lawyer
Patent law usually involves more than drafting and prosecuting claims
--
although it usually requires the capacity to evaluate their scope and
validity.
One lawyer, after practicing for 23 years in a private firm, explained
the
satisfaction of his profession:
I enjoy patent law because, almost by definition, I
am working at the forefront of technology. I am fortunate in that my
present clientele includes corporations and individuals with whom my
engineering background is directly in point. My education in technology
continues every day. Whereas before I learned the theory behind
pertinent technology in academic surroundings, now I learn it from
clients.
I have become increasingly aware of and involved in the business
affairs of my clients. I especially enjoy licensing activity. Each
license situation is unique and has its own technological and economic
dynamics. In licensing, I can be innovative and creative to the benefit
of my client. There is more of a people-aspect to licensing, with a
different set of problems and a different measure of satisfaction for a
successful result.
Engineers, physicians and scientists can do well in law school and be
successful in any legal area that interests them. As a
pilot-lawyer should have some edge in aviation law, a background in
chemical engineering should be useful in something like environmental
law. Yet, as mentioned above, other than for patent prosecution,
nothing other than a law degree is required to practice in any area of
law. In fact, lawyers filling environmental or other non-patent
positions that involve technical issues are unlikely to have formal
technical training. Hiring attorneys who lack such training rarely cede
any advantage to those do and are often (sometimes very) put off by,
e.g., engineer-lawyers incapable of recognizing that technical issues
may be only marginally relevant in disputes over the use of technology.
So, the key consideration in finding a job in most law-technology areas
is not whether you have a technical background but whether you
have the skills and attitude hiring lawyers are looking for.
That aside, lawyers with technical training are scarce. Each year,
about 40,000 law students graduate, but the total number of active
patent attorneys, most of whom are technically trained, is perhaps
20,000. Patent law is a field with considerable demand. This translates
into comparatively high salaries for those with good legal training and
technical training relevant to important areas of technological
growth. (Assuming the PTO would allow someone with a degree in buggy
whip engineering, for example, to sit for the patent exam, passage
would hardly generate a slew of lucrative job offers!) A 2003 survey of
members of the American Intellectual Property Law Association found associates under the age of 30 to be making $95,000 to $144,000 (25th to 75th percentile) and senior lawyers, $600,000 or more (75th percentile, ages
55 to 60). Earlier, U.S. News and World Report sketched an
equally rosy picture, with beginning salaries of $70,000 to $90,000 and
highs of $225,000 to $425,000.
Thus, many technically trained lawyers do intellectual property work
because it is interesting, because they tend not to enjoy special
advantages in other areas with both technical and legal components, and
because potential earnings are very attractive.


The Golden, Global Age
of Intellectual Property Law
Intellectual property law includes perfecting, protecting and
transferring patents, copyrights, trade secrets and trademarks. These
components are discussed more extensively at this website -- in both very basic
and considerably more
detailed treatments.
Intellectual property rights are critical to continued investments in
research and development, and, hence, the competitiveness of U.S.
industry in domestic and world markets. As in the situation, for
example, of those who invest in real estate development, or oil and gas
exploration, if companies that discover new technology and bring it to
market, often at great expense, could not profit from their efforts,
they would soon be out of business. Thus, intellectual property rights
are among the key tools of entrepreneurs and, in varying degrees,
furnish an important foundation for the formation and growth of all
companies.
This is said to be the information age. US News and World Report
has
likened ideas in the information age to iron ore and oil in the
industrial age
-- essential raw materials. Because ideas cannot be literally fenced in
or
locked up, they must be protected by patents, trade secrets, trademarks
or
copyrights -- the main forms of intellectual property.
Until recently, it was unclear that the fruits of biotechnology could
be
patented or that software could be protected by copyright. Even now,
doubt
remains about the extent to which software can be patented. Indeed, it
has not been long since patents were generally regarded as the tools of
"monopolists."
As discussed in more detail in another article
at this site, only within the past dozen years has encouraging
technological innovation come to be regarded by both judges and members
of Congress as important to preserving the U.S. standard of living in
the face of imbalances of international trade - and intellectual
property has been seen as offering needed encouragement. For example,
to secure uniform and reasonable recognition of patent rights, Congress
recently gave one court exclusive jurisdiction over all U.S. patents.
More recently, to reduce the risk of illegal copying, it provided that
software cannot be rented.
Intellectual property has become important not only here, but also in
most other countries that increasingly recognize its role in improving
the general standards of living. To encourage international harmony on
intellectual property and trade, the U.S. has recently changed our
patent and copyright laws in fundamental ways.


Becoming a Lawyer
Full-time law school takes three years and culminates in the Juris
Doctor. A
J.D. from a school accredited by the American Bar Association qualifies
a
person to take the bar exam in any state.
As mentioned above, college graduates need not pursue any particular
line of
study to be accepted into law school. At Franklin Pierce Law Center,
for
example, over a third of our students have degrees in engineering or
science, and many have extensive experience or advanced degrees,
including M.D.s and Ph.D.s -- the last being particularly helpful for
biotechnology patent careers.
LSATs and Grades. In law school admissions, an acceptable
score on the Law School Admissions
Test (LSAT) and good grades are important. Also, grades are usually
evaluated
in light of the difficulty of particular courses and the undergraduate
schools'
grading practices. For example, at least some admissions committees
recognize that high grades are particularly difficult to get in
engineering.
Specialty programs. Admissions personnel at schools
without specialized programs emphasize that patent or environmental
lawyers must have a sound grasp of legal fundamentals. This is true,
but it ignores several very important points.
- Core legal curricula throughout the U.S. are very similar.
Subjects such as legal research and writing, civil and criminal
procedure, contracts, property and constitutional law are usually
required.
- Of the 80 to 90 credit hours typically obtained in pursuit
of the JD, a third or more will be elective. Few schools require many
courses beyond the first year.
- Law school electives, of necessity, also cover
fundamentals, but from differing perspectives. This could explain why a
study of two graduating classes at a state law school found that
enrollment in "fundamentals" courses did not correlate nearly as
strongly with bar passage as one might expect. One course actually had
a negative correlation!
Pay particular attention to schools with a good selection of electives
in your area of special interest, but it is unwise to pay much
attention to rankings (see my comment about
IP program rankings). The alternative is to have to select many
courses having little or no personal appeal.
Money. When comparing the costs of programs, be sure to
consider the cost of living -- as well as income lost while in school
and because of slow advancement. In light of such factors, tuition
differentials may seem less significant, or disappear altogether. A new
FPLC graduate wrote:
A senior partner... told me that my... work product was indicative of a
third to fourth year associate, even though I have only been here 8
weeks. He then stated that my performance, thus far, reflected very
favorably upon the quality of the IP education available at FPLC.
.... Please continue the good work.....
Mike Crosby '97
Thanks to Jon Cavicchi, FPLC's Intellectual Property Librarian, for
finding some of the articles used here! Anyone interested in
intellectual property should visit Jon's extensive Intellectual
Property Mall.


If you have questions, email
Tom Field.

Patent salaries updated Dec. 22, 2004
URL: http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/cart.htm
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 603.228.1541
© 2002-2007 Franklin Pierce Law Center. All rights reserved.
|