🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <19970116213800.QAA08438@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>    jjohns5306@aol.com (JJohns5306) wrote:
> 
> >I'm a currently a first year law student
> >with a chemical engineering
> >degree. I'm interested in patent law. What
> >does a patent lawyer do on a
> >daily basis,


A good question.  The law business in general is flooded with attorneys, 
and as a result, many entering the profession will never earn enough to 
justify their huge law school loans.

For years, we patent attorneys were pretty smug about this, as the glut 
had not hit our business (there are some significant barriers to entry). 
 However, Nature abhors a vacuum, and unemployed defense contractors and 
older engineers who didn't make the jump to management have been flocking 
to night schools.  Non-patent attorneys with Engineering backgrounds are 
re-discovering their technical roots.

In short, the glory days of the 1980's are over.

It is not hard to quantify this trend - we all come with registration 
numbers.  Mine, (34,546) is from 1990.  Newly minted attorneys are over 
the 40,000 range.  So, we have been adding about 1,000 attorneys a year 
to the practice for the last ten years, probably a 50% increase in the 
total number of attorneys.

Compounding this problem, is another trend I see coming - a leveling off 
or actual decrease in filings and litigation.  The creation of the Fed. 
Cir. resulted in an explosion of patent litigation and patent filings, 
and some think that the pro-IP forces have gone too far.  The _Markman_ 
and _Hilton-Davis_ decisions may rein in the scope of patent protection 
significantly.

As a result, patents may be viewed as less valuable (the doctrine of 
Equivalents was a powerful tool!) and filings may drop off (or at least 
level off, or the rate of increase may decline).  Moreover, litigation 
may decrease as well.  Without a powerful Doctrine of Equivalents, many 
plaintiffs may be more reluctent to go to trial (on literal infrigement 
only? No way!).

For those of you who say "it can't happen" - talk to a PI attorney.  The 
boom in big-money settlements and jury awards has tapered off.  With so 
many cheap attorneys around, companies prefer to litigate than settle.  
And juries, fed with luirid stories about million-dollar cups of coffee, 
are taking a jaundiced eye to plaintiff's claims of pain and suffering.

I've already seen a definite price trend _downward_ in the prosecution 
field.  In the 1980's we used to charge $10,000 and up for filing a 
patent application.  Many large companies are putting price caps on 
patent work, and seem to have no trouble finding competent attorneys 
willing to work for those prices.  As a direct result, a number of large, 
bloated (inefficiently run) law firms (especially those who leased space 
during the peak of the 1980's) are shedding partners, merging, or 
generally going broke (I can name at least six, off hand).  Parnership 
tracks, once as short as four years, are extending upward to the general 
practice of 8 to 10 years (or more).

So... If you decide you _like_ this buisiness (strike that, _love_ this 
business) then go for it.  Otherwise, don't bother.  There are already 
too many in the filed 'just for the money', and frankly, the money ain't 
there.


Carl added:
> 
>      What does Professor Thomas G. Field, Jr. of the Franklin Pierce
> Law Center say about careers in IP law in his excellent brochure
> Mining the Information Age?

<Gag!> <Choke!>  Pleeeeeease!  I'm eating lunch here.

Regards,

--Bob.

-- 
Robert Platt Bell & Associates, P.C.
Patent, Trademark, & Copyright Matters
917 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA  22314
Ph. (703) 683-8822
FAX (703) 683-8823
RobertBell@BELLPAT.COM