|
I'm still trying to get off my rear end and apply to a Federal Circuit clerkship (as long as I can go as a GS-13)
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Ersatz posted:I was recently told (by the USPTO) that qualification at GS-11 requires either one year of specialized experience or a Ph.D., and that a J.D. alone will only qualify a candidate for GS-9. This is accurate, except I think you need above a 3.0 for your JD to get GS-9, otherwise GS-7. Then again, I'm a GS-12 after two and a half years, so it's not like promotion comes slowly when working at the fed.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Between IBR and the speed with which examiners are promoted, I'm really not concerned with the level at which I'm hired; I'm just trying to get in. Unfortunately, the last opening was at GS-11. We're supposed to be opening up hiring back to the "general public" in October. I think we're hiring patent professionals now, though, and I think we might consider you currently if you've passed the patent bar even if you don't have work experience. Find a SPE's phone number in an art unit that matches your undergrad. If you PM me, I might be able to help put you in contact with someone on Tuesday.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:I appreciate it. Unfortunately though, based on what HR has told me, the new deal is that they have to approve a candidate before that candidate can sit down and talk to a SPE, so it's completely out of the SPE's hands if there isn't a current announcement. The bureaucratization of the hiring process has led to some absurd results. One of my friends from my former firm had three years of experience as an examiner, applied under the GS-11 announcement, and was rejected because they took so long in processing his application that he "missed" HR's arbitrary deadline for rehires. quote:Hiring: The USPTO is looking to hire 1000 additional patent examiners over the next two years. The bulk of these examiners would preferably be experienced IP professionals but could be part of a “nationwide workforce.” With the absence of funding, the PTO has hired only nine (9) examiners during FY2010 and 127 examiners have left their positions.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
How do you punctuate a quote within a quote? The original text says: He said, "She said, 'Hi, my name is Susan.'" Do you do this: "He said, 'She said, 'Hi, my name is Susan.''" ? edit: '''He said, ''She said, 'Hi, my name is Susan.''''''
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
How the gently caress is a K9 search not a search anyway? Which justice is the genius that thought up that rule? e: Not, "it's a reasonable search" but "it isn't a search to begin with." Really.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
TyChan posted:What kind of practice would just let an intern write a SJ motion? I've written an appellate brief to the Federal Circuit as a 3L intern.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
http://ia360703.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.290110/gov.uscourts.nyed.290110.26.1.pdf hey kids, want to learn slang for sex terms? this is better than the dictionary! edit: background
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:Add me to the list of people who managed to get non-legal work after law school. I could have gotten the exact same position, with the exact same pay, and would now have BETTER opportunities for advancement if I had taken a year to get a Masters in Accounting instead of taking 3 years to get a law degree. Same; with a Masters, I would be doing better at my job than if I had my JD. The JD might open some doors in two years when I make GS-14, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 07:41
|
|
|
TheAttackSlug posted:So after week one of being a fancy pants rule 13 prosecutor, I see that I get kicked out of the building at about 4:30 every day and herded down an alley into a bar. A what prosecutor?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Hey "The Warp" - holy loving poo poo that thing
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:So you're sitting at GS-12 right now? I can only imagine how nice that would be right now. Until January, then GS-13. Also our agency's payscale is like 10k over the DC area payscale. edit: non-compete up to GS-14 also. possibly best job in the entire federal government. read and weep edit2: I'm going to hit the statutory salary cap soon though thanks to overtime 
WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 16:49 on May 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
plester1 posted:when is the goddamned hiring freeze gonna be lifted I haven't been to work since Wednesday.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
Does being a patent examiner count as patent prosecution experience for law firms? I can never remember.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:I'd hit it she's also dumb
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
I've got a bunch of money on my hands, and I wonder if I should get into this:quote:The day starts out quiet enough. I wake up and scoop my contacts out of the Clear Care® contact lens solution they’re swimming in. Blinking rapidly to settle my contacts, I focus on some tiny numbers printed on the contact solution box. Patent numbers. I’ve been using the solution for years and wonder how old the patents must be. I do a quick Google search and discover that the patents have expired. Strange that expired patents would be printed on the box… My 3 year old interrupts my thoughts as she walks up to me still rubbing her eyes, complaining that her Goodnites® Sleep Shorts are soggy. Knowing that absorbent products containing hydrogels with ability to swell against pressure don’t change themselves, I quickly get her some dry pants. Doing so, I check the box and sure enough, more expired patent numbers. Next I head to the kitchen to look at my “to-do” list for the day. As I look over my list, I check my blood sugar with my nifty Accu-Chek® device. On it I find more expired patent numbers. I’ve never noticed patent numbers before, but suddenly the world seems populated with products stamped with the indicia of expired monopoly rights. Seriously, this is like a free money machine, and I live right next to EDVA so I can get to court really easily!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 14:18
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Absolutely don't go if you don't want to be a lawyer. This isn't a play-time fall-back daddy-wants-me-to-go-to-grad-school general education school. It's a very specific school that (while it doesn't actually teach you any skills) purports to teach you a specific set of skills that are only applicable to a specific set of jobs. A J.D. is 100% useless in any job that isn't a lawyer job, and will in fact make it almost impossible to find a real job because every non-lawyer employer on the planet somehow thinks that having a J.D. makes you overqualified for something. Ask every person in this thread who is frantically applying to Starbucks if their J.D. is an asset to non-lawyer jobs. Your friend should apply to be a patent examiner. That's what I did with my JD. And patent examining is one job where a JD is not necessary but is definitely a plus.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
alternatively you could study so hard your 1L year that you can play Eve Online all summer instead of studying for the bar
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 14:01
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I think we've scored another patent appeal. Number 4 for me. Scored as in? Also, I keep meaning to set up a side business doing qui tam false marking cases because that's gotta be the easiest money in the world until they put the clamp down on that. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Jun 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 06:41
|
|
|
scribe jones posted:easier than prop 65 bounty hunting in california? that's where the big money is, none of this piddly $250-a-pop nonsense. $250-per-article, more like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
One week until $2500 bonus! Then another $2500 bonus next month! Then a $5000 bonus in two months! God bless my union.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
OptimistPrime posted:Nice. Hey, do you know anything about Examiner hiring through the "experienced attorneys" initiative? It's been a long-rear end time since my interview and my status is still "referred to selecting official" so I'm assuming I got dinged for whatever reason, but it is the Federal Government and up until the interview they were good about keeping me updated. no
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 16:07
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:I suppose the goonfleet.com lynch mob can look like a court if you squint real hard. Back when I was a director, I threatened to report another lawyer director to the bar for hiring a real-life hacker to hack another corp's forums.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
I am a originalist Thomas fanboy too maybe I, too, am remedial  also I've seen somegirl's tits and one of my first posts was making fun of ferretball for his retarded "superdog thinks you're gay" macro that he used to post as a riposte all the loving time
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 04:54
|
|
|
I'm also singlehandedly responsible for the no homegrown rule
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
Petey posted:Man I didn't realize my former business partner was the dregs of humanity. By singlehandedly, I mean we used to have a bunch of camwhores in DPPH until I derailed belindashort's thread by making fun of her fanboys thereby causing a bunch of drama and then Lowtax decided to ban all homegrown. I am truly a hero.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
Adar posted:That was you? Good job goon It's in my rear end, not my cooter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
I took Jewish law but it didn't make me Head Jew.  edit: I meant "it didn't get me a job with the international Jewish conspiracy"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
gently caress gently caress gently caress, Bilski's out; time to see if I still have a job.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 13:06
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:gently caress gently caress gently caress, Bilski's out; time to see if I still have a job. spoiler: yes. now let's see if it makes any sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
loving MOTHERFUCK PIECE OF poo poo SUPREME COURT gently caress YOU EIGHT loving MONTHS OF WAITING FOR A PIECE OF poo poo THAT DOES ABSOLUTELY gently caress NOTHING HELLO WHAT THE gently caress IS AN ABSTRACT IDEA ANYWAY AND HOW WILL I RECOGNIZE ONE IF IT IS CLAIMED BECAUSE THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT KEEPS ON GETTING loving LITIGATED BECAUSE WE CAN'T READ THE loving MINDS OF A BUNCH OF FUCKBRAINS THAT CAN'T AHHhhafhashashfhasf fufafhadiajkl;sd
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
oh just gently caress it, every specific-purpose software is just an algorithm, which is per se abstract, which also clearly only suited for the use for which it is claimed, thereby preempting every other use because there are no other uses gonna just write a five page 101 rejection and staple that to every office action
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
I actually like my job and I like disposing of cases and I hate seeing the same case on my docket over and over. At least before today, I just made sure they recited a computer in the spec and they were pretty much kosher. Now? I have to figure out whether it's claiming abstract ideas, and I don't even know how the gently caress to test for that. At least the Federal Circuit stated the correct test: passing the machine-or-transformation test is an exception to the abstract idea exception to everything under the sun is patentable. But how the gently caress do you know when it's an abstract idea? Every algorithm is per se abstract, and I can cite caselaw for miles and miles! The problem is that Benson and Flook say that implementing a known algorithm isn't statutory subject matter (although whoopty-poo poo, it's 103'd anyway on the "every algorithm is computer-implementable" standard), and Diehr says that implementing a known algorithm is statutory subject matter if it passes the machine-or-transformation test, but there's absolutely nothing about novel and non-obvious algorithms that don't pass the machine-or-transformation test, which is pretty much every business method and software patent. edit: I am also going to start applying the Supreme Court's standard of proof that claims are directed to abstract ideas: just loving say so and cite a book, and don't bother to even loving discuss the claim language. My job just got easier. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
The Federal Circuit did, however, gently caress up. Their ruling was that something is abstract if it fails the machine-or-transformation test, whereas Diehr says that you apply the machine-or-transformation test after finding that something is abstract. How you can tell if something is abstract, I don't know. I would like to see an issued patent with a method claim that fails the machine-or-translation test though. I'm going through google patents quickly to see if I can find anything. Here's the foundation of my 101 rejection starting tomorrow: It does appear, however, that under Bilski and its predecessors, all algorithms are abstract as a matter of law, as they are, standing alone, a series of mathematical operations. Software patents are themselves per se not tied to a machine (or else they'd be hardware patents). So the only question when faced with a software patent is whether it effects a transformation. edit: And use Benson to say that even if they recite a computer in the method claim, the claim has no utility other than operating on the computer, so abstract idea preemption still applies. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
My 1L summer was spent in DC small claims court helping the judge figure out what pro se plaintiffs wanted. Half of them had clear mental diseases, but fortunately they all sued for over whatever the jurisdiction limit was so I referred them to civil court.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
Vexatious litigants own. I had someone in small claims suing uh, Random House over Bill Clinton's autobiography being plagiarized (wtf?!!?!) for well over the small claims limit. Eventually, the judge figured out that he was suing in small claims because he had been barred from suing in civil court (hoping that the defendant would instead request the transfer to civil court). And it was a copyright claim too, which would have been removed to federal court, only he had been barred from filing in every federal district court on the eastern seaboard pretty much. So small claims court puts out a 60 page opinion as to why this guy (a) deserves a fine and (b) should be barred from filing anywhere in the country.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
If it was good enough for Jack McCoy...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
I'm still trying to convince my boss that applying Bilski invalidates all software patents, but he's not biting yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:We were talking in the MUD and she mentioned that she was going to a certain convention. I said "Oh really, my dad is hosting a convention in that city." She was like "....your dad is XXXXXXX?" I thought "oh poo poo." MUDs are where nerds go to lose their virginity
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Had the cops called on my friends and me three times yesterday, managed to not get anyone arrested. The work of a lawyer is never done.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2010 06:55
|
|