petersja@debussy.cs.colostate.edu (james peterson) (07/27/90)
I have come across a piece of news which may be of interest to the net. A former CS student here at Colorado State, now at the University of Denver School of Law, is preparing to take the exam to become a patent attorney. Evidently, the US Patent Office will only permit lawyers who have "technical" degrees to take the exam to become a patent attorney. Here's the odd part: the General Requirements for Admission to the Examination not only does not have computer science on the list of approved "technical degrees" but explicitly *excludes* CS as a "technical discipline:" "...only computer science courses which are computer engineering in nature, i.e., courses directed to design and analysis of computer circuitry as opposed to mathematics and/or computer software, will be accepted." I find this to be curious. Is it not the case that software can be patented? If software can be patented, why exclude computer scientists from the ranks of patent attorneys? Anyone who can shed any light on this issue, or who is as astonished as I am, is invited to respond by e-mail or follow-up. -- james lee peterson petersja@handel.cs.colostate.edu dept. of computer science colorado state university "Some ignorance is invincible." ft. collins, colorado 80523
ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) (07/28/90)
In article <8201@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> petersja@debussy.cs.colostate.edu (james peterson) writes: >I find this to be curious. Is it not the case that software can be patented? >If software can be patented, why exclude computer scientists from the ranks >of patent attorneys? Because if the patent office had anyone who knew about software, or had any patent attorneys practicing before them who knew about software, they might actually have to THINK about the whole idea of patenting software. BTW, you've hit one of my pet peeves here. Patenting a subject matter without allowing those who are knowledgeable in it to have a say about what gets patented is something that really pisses me off. I am in the same position. The US Patent office wants people who have physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering, etc. degrees. They begrudgingly accepted biology as an undergraduate subject that can qualify you for patent attorney status. Perhaps if we push them hard enough, CS will also be an "acceptable" discipline. Mikki Barry Pissed Off Law Student
gillett@ceomax..dec.com (Christopher Gillett) (07/28/90)
In article <8201@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> petersja@debussy.cs.colostate.edu (james peterson) writes: > > "...only computer science courses which are computer engineering > in nature, i.e., courses directed to design and analysis of > computer circuitry as opposed to mathematics and/or computer > software, will be accepted." > >I find this to be curious. Is it not the case that software can be patented? >If software can be patented, why exclude computer scientists from the ranks >of patent attorneys? Wow! That is pretty surprising. It's interesting that this subject comes up now. There was a raging religious war going on over in comp.arch about the "scientific-ness" (or lack thereof) of a CS degree. While it's probably best not to rekindle that discussion (I'm still smoking from all the "drop dead" flames that everyone in .edu-land mailed me :-) ), let me try to offer one rationale for their requirements. Of course, I have nothing to do with the U.S. Patent Office, so these are just my opinions. The one thing that the "CS War" discussions made evident was that Computer Science is a fairly strange beast. In the final analysis, it seems to me that the field is not completely science, nor completely art, nor completely practical discipline. There are elements of science, art, and engineering (assuming that you buy into the idea that there are significant differences between scientists and engineers, and that you can be one or both of these) in the field. The Patent Office deals with new technology in both hardware and software as directly relates to presumably marketable products (Big Leap of Faith: One does not patent something unless one believes that it, or something based on it, can be sold to someone). If this is correct, then it makes sense to have people with more hands-on, practical, engineering-based backgrounds, as opposed to someone with a background in the theoretical. I'm not trying to say anything bad here about either engineers or scientists, and I also recognize that many engineers are scientists, and vice verse. However, it *is* possible to do work in computer science without having much knowledge about engineering, in the same sense as it is possible to work as an engineer without knowing much about the science. Unfortunately, it seems to me that CS schools tend to have their emphasis on either the engineering, the art, or the science, but not all three. My twisted reasoning, then, says that it's fair to judge a person not on the degree, but on the substance (i.e. the type of emphasis in coursework...not flame about quality of degree indended) behind the degree. Again, let's *not* rekindle the flame wars about Computer Science. This is just one point of view. Make Sense? Or not? FWIW, /Chris >james lee peterson petersja@handel.cs.colostate.edu k --- Christopher Gillett gillett@ceomax.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation {decwrl,decpa}!ceomax.dec.com!gillett Hudson, Taxachusetts (508) 568-7172
petersja@debussy.cs.colostate.edu (james peterson) (07/30/90)
In article <26B08636.1C5A@intercon.com> ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) writes: > >I am in the same position. The US Patent office wants people who have >physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering, etc. degrees. They >begrudgingly accepted biology as an undergraduate subject that can >qualify you for patent attorney status. Perhaps if we push them hard >enough, CS will also be an "acceptable" discipline. > Now you are talking. Here's the question: who do we "push" and who does the "pushing?" -- james lee peterson petersja@handel.cs.colostate.edu dept. of computer science colorado state university "Some ignorance is invincible." ft. collins, colorado 80523