|
Your school probably has some sort of OCI process, too. If you just want to work in a firm, that's a nice, boring option.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Lawdog69 posted:Killed my exams (3.85) but have spent basically my whole winter break chilling. Should I be applying for summer internships or something? How do people even find these things. I applied to every USAO in a city I wouldn't mind living in. I didn't look for postings or anything, I just called every office for the contact person and got them all in really early. My grades were bad and I still got a fistful of offers, and the place I eventually went didn't even interview me (some did). Note guy: I cite as I go, but it's pretty instinctive at this point. I hate having to go back later and find poo poo. I also tend to burn through one topic (or one source) at a time, fitting chunks into my outline. Outlines are important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Well he's a 1L like me, so the permanent job search isn't until later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Got rejected out of management consulting. Law school it is!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
My Evidence grade is trolling me and still not out yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
WaveLength posted:Got rejected out of management consulting. Law school it is! Maybe two wrongs will make a right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
How else can I prove to everyone how goddamn smart and prestigious a person I am
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:My Evidence grade is trolling me and still not out yet. We have none of our grades, and probably won't until Monday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Walamor posted:We have none of our grades, and probably won't until Monday. Ours don't come out until the 21st. I do like that they release all of them at the same time though instead of letting each professor's out as they finish them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Artic Puma posted:Ours don't come out until the 21st. I do like that they release all of them at the same time though instead of letting each professor's out as they finish them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
WaveLength posted:How else can I prove to everyone how goddamn smart and prestigious a person I am I just feel sorry for people who go to law school.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Artic Puma posted:Ours don't come out until the 21st. I do like that they release all of them at the same time though instead of letting each professor's out as they finish them. I won't have grades til March. I'm still in exams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:Step 1: Thesis. This is actually probably the hardest part for me - finding *something* interesting to say. Whether you care about preemption or not makes this more or less difficult. This is all solid advice. The catch for me is that I'm writing an "empirical" note based on a butt load of data I've gathered. The data is interesting but it essentially shows that nobody listens to the Supreme Court on a particular patent law topic (instead, they listen to the Federal Circuit). That's all great, but what exactly am I trying to prove? I want to show this data, but the Notes Manual says you have to offer a prescription, and I'm not sure exactly what that is at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:This is all solid advice. The catch for me is that I'm writing an "empirical" note based on a butt load of data I've gathered. The data is interesting but it essentially shows that nobody listens to the Supreme Court on a particular patent law topic (instead, they listen to the Federal Circuit). That's all great, but what exactly am I trying to prove? I want to show this data, but the Notes Manual says you have to offer a prescription, and I'm not sure exactly what that is at this point. Abolish patens. Serious answer, just analyze the the two courts' opinions and recommend that Congress adopt whichever is best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:This is all solid advice. The catch for me is that I'm writing an "empirical" note based on a butt load of data I've gathered. The data is interesting but it essentially shows that nobody listens to the Supreme Court on a particular patent law topic (instead, they listen to the Federal Circuit). That's all great, but what exactly am I trying to prove? I want to show this data, but the Notes Manual says you have to offer a prescription, and I'm not sure exactly what that is at this point. Your prescription is "practitioners who want to win their cases should probably follow the theoretically non-controlling precedent in this line of cases." Or you can just add it to the growing body of "fed cir ignores scotus" papers out there. There's a lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:This is all solid advice. The catch for me is that I'm writing an "empirical" note based on a butt load of data I've gathered. The data is interesting but it essentially shows that nobody listens to the Supreme Court on a particular patent law topic (instead, they listen to the Federal Circuit). That's all great, but what exactly am I trying to prove? I want to show this data, but the Notes Manual says you have to offer a prescription, and I'm not sure exactly what that is at this point. You are trying to prove that the Supreme Court needs to smack down the Federal Circuit much more regularly. You can point to the recent cases where they've started laying smackdowns and argue those were effective and should be expanded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You are trying to prove that the Supreme Court needs to smack down the Federal Circuit much more regularly. You can point to the recent cases where they've started laying smackdowns and argue those were effective and should be expanded. No don't.  Colorblind Pilot, which topic are you writing on? Patent eligibility?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:No don't. The Federal Circuit is The Worst Circuit, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:No don't. Yeah. I'm basically showing that the PTO doesn't care at all when the Supreme Court rules on patent eligibility, but they listen pretty carefully to the Federal Circuit. evilweasel posted:The Federal Circuit is The Worst Circuit, sorry. Don't apologize; it is. The whole specialized appellate court idea was stupid. They should have left it the way it was with regional circuits ruling on patent matters but given the PTO real rule-making authority like every other administrative agency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You are trying to prove that the Supreme Court needs to smack down the Federal Circuit much more regularly. You can point to the recent cases where they've started laying smackdowns and argue those were effective and should be expanded. edit: ^^^ looks like you're already on top of this. When I was in law school I wrote a note analyzing subject matter eligibility as it relates to software patents, and arguing that In re Bilski should be overturned, noting that the Federal Circuit had ignored the Supreme Court's holdings. It's deeply frustrating as a patent prosecutor that examiners keep citing In re Bilski as if it were still law. On the other hand, you can just use magic words (e.g., insert "one or more processors configured to" into the claims) to get around it, so it's not really important from a practical standpoint. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
My favorite was the collective backpedaling by the Federal Circuit after the SCROTUM granted cert on KSR, trying to demonstrate that TSM was not a rigid test.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Federal Circuit is The Worst Circuit, sorry. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
gvibes posted:trying to demonstrate that TSM was not a rigid test. I think the Oddone will shine with the passive jungle changes in season 3, but I'm not sure if Dyrus is their longterm solution on top.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
gvibes posted:My favorite was the collective backpedaling by the Federal Circuit after the SCROTUM granted cert on KSR, trying to demonstrate that TSM was not a rigid test. That was the best example of appellate groveling I've ever seen. Suddenly, the Federal Circuit started quoting wayyyy more SCOTUS opinions in their opinions. And Bilksi is unbelievably vague. "The M/T test can't be the only test, but it's a test you can use. It can be a clue. I'm not giving you clues to what other stuff you could use. Deal with it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Omerta posted:And Bilksi is unbelievably vague. "The M/T test can't be the only test, but it's a test you can use. It can be a clue. I'm not giving you clues to what other stuff you could use. Deal with it." "see Benson, Flook, and Diehr for the true path." It's infuriating. That's part of why I'm writing about how nobody listens to the Supreme Court, because it's honestly some of their worst stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:"see Benson, Flook, and Diehr for the true path." It's infuriating. That's part of why I'm writing about how nobody listens to the Supreme Court, because it's honestly some of their worst stuff. See also Golan v. Holder. The Supreme Court doesn't have a great record on IP cases. Thank god SCOTUS doesn't take bankruptcy cases often because holy poo poo do they tend to screw it up when they do. I still have no idea what Stern v. Marshall means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
So, our client's head has just washed up on an island off of the coast, after slaving out a 10 000 word advice on his case. loving criminal law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I think the Oddone will shine with the passive jungle changes in season 3, but I'm not sure if Dyrus is their longterm solution on top. Dyrus can play inconsistently but I think he'll end up doing fine. Especially with M5 disbanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:So, our client's head has just washed up on an island off of the coast, after slaving out a 10 000 word advice on his case. loving criminal law. Did they already pay a retainer though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
Omerta posted:That was the best example of appellate groveling I've ever seen. Suddenly, the Federal Circuit started quoting wayyyy more SCOTUS opinions in their opinions. Bilski was awesome. As an examiner, if I could use Bilski's actual analysis in making a 101 rejection, I could just say "the claims are directed to X which is abstract, 101"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Bilski was awesome. As an examiner, if I could use Bilski's actual analysis in making a 101 rejection, I could just say "the claims are directed to X which is abstract, 101" Sadly that argument doesn't work well in litigation. Worst of all possible worlds - examiners have no clue what is and isn't patentable subject matter, and I still can't easily invalidate things in court on 101.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Sadly that argument doesn't work well in litigation. Worst of all possible worlds - examiners have no clue what is and isn't patentable subject matter, and I still can't easily invalidate things in court on 101. We've just taken to basically not making 101 rejections any more. Couple that with our new 112 6th practice (stuff like "a receiver configured to receive user input" is read as a "means for" limitation), and you throw in "well I have no loving idea what the gently caress I'm supposed to find" because a lot of the time, the disclosed structure is "a computer" and then I'm like "well, computers were known in the prior art" but is that a 101 or a 103 or what, and are we actually supposed to look at the corresponding structure or do I just ignore what the office is saying because it's dumb as hell?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
In other words, I'd like to move to private practice, where at least I don't have to be confused as to what I'm supposed to do, as opposed to being confused as to what someone else is supposed to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
I've got an interview at the state dept of revenue here to be a revenue agent. That's a tax man job, finding people that haven't paid and If I want to be a tax attorney, is this a step in the right direction or a needless diversion from my chosen career?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:Did they already pay a retainer though? Unfortunately not. At least I got the satisfaction of knowing some inside police information before the identity was released. There seems to be a dearth of criminal lawyers in this thread. After doing a year in it, I can completely appreciate why and am glad to be getting out this year. One more plea in mitigation for a rapist... "Oh yeah, he raped 4 women, but, you know, he's young." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:There seems to be a dearth of criminal lawyers in this thread. After doing a year in it, I can completely appreciate why and am glad to be getting out this year. One more plea in mitigation for a rapist... "Oh yeah, he raped 4 women, but, you know, he's young."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
There's actually a fair number of us in the thread. I'm sure small firm practitioners pick up the odd traffic matter, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Unfortunately not. At least I got the satisfaction of knowing some inside police information before the identity was released. I think we have 2 prosecutors, at least 2 pds (incl me), and a couple private defense people too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Figure I might as well crosspost the link in case others have questions: Ask me about being an itinerant contract attorney AKA don't go to law school http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3527155
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Vander posted:I've got an interview at the state dept of revenue here to be a revenue agent. That's a tax man job, finding people that haven't paid and What state? If it's Florida, PM me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 00:09
|
|
