|
deathdrive83 posted:Hey look, even less of a need for new lawyers: Yeah, if you happen to pull a panel with the judge that came up with the test for nominative fair use, you might be able to win on a nominative fair use defense! Pro se for everyone!
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
scribe jones posted:sfw version Don't laugh: she, unlike lawyers, has a job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Death to all law professorsquote:I also disagree with Wurtzel’s view that government needs to adopt various policies to reduce the number of lawyers (which of course is the main real function of bar exams): Best reply yet: quote:High salaries of lawyers? Are you kidding? The giant law firms that pay the high salaries (actually partnership profits, for the most part, not salaries) don’t offer “very basic legal services” and the lawyers who offer “very basic legal services” don’t make high salaries. Also a good reply: quote:Law school was a complete waste of time and money, and it did very little to prepare me for the actual practice of law. I learned more about the practice of law in the two months that I spent studying for the bar exam than I did in three years of law school. So I propose this: replace law school with an apprenticeship/residency program and make the bar exam tougher w/ an open research and writing component to weed out more potentially-incompetent lawyers. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Woah, a wikipedia citation in a brief in a nine figure patent case. Why not? It's great evidence in my view of the person of ordinary skill in the art at a given time; if the teaching is so common as to be on Wikipedia, it's in fact below the ordinary skill to something like lay unskilled in the art. e: I use Wikipedia as 102(b) references all the time: it's published, the end!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Because anyone can change it. Who cares? That's not the standard for whether something is prior art: it's merely "person wrote a thing." If person wrote a thing over one year before filing, 102(b) bar, the end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
gvibes posted:e: Specifically, it was in claim construction briefing, and one side basically said "term X means Y," the other side responded, "Well, Y is an example of an X, but R, S, and T are also Xes (look at wikipedia!), so the proposed construction is too narrow." I'd use that 24/7 in claim construction, although it's established law that the PTO does claim construction differently.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
There were only two relationships I know of that survived law school: my now-wife and I, and my 1L's roommate and his now-wife.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
i put in a request for information under 37 CFR 1.166 and they sent me weed so we had to classify it but then it got smoked so we removed the classification hth (ps: I work on the patent side not the trademark side don't blame me; I don't know anything about what goes on on the trademark side) e: 1.166 is more applicable to this dumb joke
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
The filesharing we're all pretty much talking about isn't criminal, hth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
I'm scraping by on a combined $170k a year, heh. white problems
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 13:07
|
|
|
175 buddies what's up
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
VA dues time, and I decided to let my active membership lapse, as it's not worth it to me right now to pay for CLE. Hope it's not that difficult to go back to active if/when I ever want to practice. I spoke to the Bar people and they said I'd just owe the CLE from this year plus the year I go back to active.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:I'm inactive in two jurisdictions now, more because I didn't want to pay active membership fees than because of any CLE stuff. It's such a stupid sunk cost, because I'm not planning to practice in either of the two, but "you never know", and I wouldn't want to pay/take the bar again. The big thing is that I, class of '07, have used my bar license twice in the intervening years: both times to represent my wife for fix-it tickets because I could take time off of work to go to court to sign the consent dismissal and she couldn't.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 16:55
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Kozinski is more form than substance It's not wit or flourishes alone; he happens to also be a really good jurist in general.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 17:36
|
|
But regardless, this is too important a case for Kozinski to employ any of his trademark wit or flourishes - if he writes the opinion (instead of another of the twenty-odd judges on the Ninth), I'm betting that he keeps it staid.
|
I didn't highlight, underline, or any of that poo poo. I also didn't really even open my books.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:I know. That's how my university is. Computer Science dept is applied math, compiler logic, assembly, that sort of thing. The information science department is either practical stuff (aka getting poo poo done) or helping get poo poo done with help from other disciplines (cognitive psych, neuroscience, human factors, are three classes I've taken/will take by graduation.) Funny story: When I first started at the patent office, they had me examining applications for operating system kernels, particularly the part that deals with scheduling processes to run in a multiprocessing system. It was way above my head. It took me a couple of months to figure out why they put me there: my transcript from my CS degree listed a course called "Operating Systems." Little did the patent office know that the course was really "Windows has windows, Linux has a command line."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Why would you want to study US law abroad? I don't think many firms would bother with getting H1-B visas for foreigners. Maybe they'll outsource legal consultation to India and hire just enough local lawyers to make court appearances. For "legal consultation" read "transactional work" and you've just killed off every biglaw associate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
7StoryFall posted:This is anecdotal but I was told by an IP partner at a large firm (near the top of the Amlaw 100) that working as an examiner isn't the way to get into a large firm, if that's your goal. He told me that it "wouldn't be a good career move." That said, it was a single lawyer at a single firm. YMMV. Patents are weird in that you don't need to work at a large firm to rake in huge bucks thanks to all the pros-only firms with big clients, but you're going to be doing prosecution until you retire. edit: and you're not getting a job there anyway. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Aug 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
quote:That Guy Who Never Shows Up But Gets A's I literally lost my best law school friend after my 3L year over this but w/r/t the bar exam
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 17:42
|
|
|
Linguica posted:Yeah when I was on law review I quickly grew disillusioned when I realized that the citechecking bitch work entirely consisted of "is this in the proper Bluebook format / does the cited article say what the citation says it says?" and nothing about "is the cited article actually correct or verifiable?" A law review article could have nothing but citations to timecube.com and as long as it followed BB 11.1(f)(ii) or whatever it would be completely above board as far as any law review is concerned. I was on ACLR at Georgetown, working on an article about immigrant cultural mores as a mitigating defense using the example of some custom among the southeast-Asian Hmong and using a particular criminal trial in America, except the author never cited anything saying that the defendant in that trial was himself Hmong only that he was Laotian, and I, of course, raised this as a concern to the editorial board and they fixed it so deal with it you baby.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Woot - I just found out that one of my friends has an interview tomorrow at the Patent Office. She has a bachelor's in electrical engineering and a JD, so hopefully it'll work out. i don't even know why they bother interviewing how you are as a person doesn't matter because there's hardly any human interaction, and the only guarantee that you could do this job is if you were good at it before and quit, because people who know patent law aren't necessarily good searchers, and people who know the technical subject matter won't necessarily be able to wrap their head around patent law.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Not sure, but apparently it is a valid path to becoming a supreme court justice Back during one of Bush's court vacancies, I wrote him asking to be a recess appointment to the court, stating that a) court was on recess too so it wasn't like I could do any harm, b) he wouldn't have to renominate me when Senate came back in session but c) it'd look great on my resume. edit: Now I'm Chief Justice Roberts
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
TheBestDeception posted:Thanks. I had seen a case relating to the medical records, too, but that specifically turned on the statutory rates, so not really what I'm looking for. On the other side, there are the non-party subpoenas for ISP's and copyright violators, but that's not something typically sold. The one productive class I took in law school was a class on e-discovery (okay, bullshit buzzwords) taught by a NJ state judge (what the gently caress he was doing as an adjunct in Georgetown, who knows), and based on my vast experience from that class, you're going to have to pay.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
Georgetown has a hella sweet law student gym
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
ps: If you go to Georgetown, you should play rugby with their law school rugby team. It's good poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Linguica posted:GULC HAS MOON BOUNCES??? I WENT TO THE WRONG SCHOOL deal with it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
Linguica posted:The "Hand formula" basically says you're only negligent if the cost burden of preventing that negligence (B) is less than the probability (P) of some bad thing happening negligently, multiplied by the cost of the loss (L) of that bad thing, i.e., B < P*L. For instance, if there's a 10% chance that a person might trip on a crack on the sidewalk outside your store and hurt themselves to the tune of $1000, you're only negligent if fixing the crack would cost less than $100. But it's as subjective as anything else and therefore is perfectly adequate to give as a rationalization to the fact-finder who's going to be performing a subjective analysis anyway on the ultimate question of negligence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Petey posted:I've said this before but one day I will write an article analyzing the use of the first down chain from a legal realist perspective / as a metaphor for legal decision making. this paper, footnote 54 is the only reference I've seen to the idea e: I've got some free time next week, want to joint author a paper with me?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:[timg]http://img.waffleimages.com/7325e2ffc59b159498b6bd21e35ecb3d8e1b9424/answer[1]_Page_1.jpg[/timg] he's got the syphilis
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
GULC shitheads: rugby tomorrow @ 11 am on constitution and 6th be there
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2010 05:53
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:I'm in DC and play rugby, but I just had dead people surgery Tuesday for my third and fourth knee ligament tears and can't walk yet. Otherwise I would totally join you guys. Also I'm done with rugby forever. Be careful Baruch, you're probably pretty soft now from that government job <3 Over the past year, I've separated one shoulder, sprained the other shoulder, sprained my ankle, broke three toes, and I'm still playing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2010 02:46
|
|
|
I just realized I "billed" 2485 hours last year as a patent examiner.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Is that counting all of your hours as "billable" though? Doesn't count non-production hours, so no.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Doesn't count non-production hours, so no. We're also on a production system where I, for instance have about 17 hours to produce an Office Action, and I hit 115%, so I got something like a 2% bonus yay
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:The United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently hiring. It's a solid gig if your engineering friends are willing to relocate (only temporarily, after the first few years examiners can telecommute from anywhere in the United States). They still have to come in once a (bi?)week. I'm still not sure on the details, but I'm starting training on the teleworking on Wednesday.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
I'm also glad to say I just priced myself out of leaving the patent office for the next ten years or so, as I'm making something like $140k this year, and I really doubt that any firm would take me on at anywhere near a matching salary+fed benefits because as far as they're concerned, I wouldn't even know how to machine-translate a Japanese spec. fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff e: I was, to repeat an earlier point, working in the office/on the laptop at home 2500 hours last twelve months, so it's not like the workload is significantly less either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:
The real problem is I'm capped at $153k right now, whereas I would imagine I would eventually make more than that as a prosecutor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:The problem with this thread as a warning mechanism is the occasionally sprinkle of this poo poo right here All my JD got me was 6 months head start on the promotion track; you get hired with a bachelor's one accelerated promotion behind where I started.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:They saw the guy, recognized him from an earlier arrest, and pulled up on him. He realized that they saw him and turned away from them--suspicious--and from the very beginning the girl (who had jumped out first) says it's under his nuts. If that was a guess it's pretty good. I also don't expect the driver to have seen everything since he was driving. They don't have probable cause; they have enough to justify a Terry stop at best, but once you have him at taser-point, that's gotta be beyond Terry. edit: Or, a comment from the link: quote:and the cop could see the drugs in the sock how exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
My dad wants me to talk to a solo practitioner IP attorney in Miami when I go home for Thanksgiving. I don't see what the point is. a) I'm not FL-barred. b) I'd have to move (or, more to the point, my wife would have to find a new job too and she doesn't have a door-opening degree like a JD, just a MS in Chemistry, ho ho ho) c) I just started working from home at my current job and I like showing up to work in my boxers
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2010 04:17
|
|