« Leaving (for) Las Vegas | Main | Small Companies Understand Patents - Mostly »
May 20, 2005
Observations from a Tradeshow
I just returned from the National Hardware Show in Las Vegas. This show suffered years of steady decline in Chicago before moving to Las Vegas last year. This year, the show seemed to double in size even though many of the big players stayed away this year.
In walking the floor, I had occasion to talk to several different people about their patent attorneys and what they liked or did not like about them. Two themes came up repeatedly.
From the businessmen who were running the companies, the first theme was that the clients hated getting billed for every little conversation and communication. After being quoted a certain fee for preparing a trademark application, the person was astounded that the final bill was 50% higher, due to charges for phone calls, letters, etc. One person said that they were afraid to call the attorney because they feared the monthly bill. These people felt fleeced, did not trust their attorneys, and were actively looking for someone else. I don't know how their attorneys ever expected more work from the clients. When I explained fixed fee billing, their eyes lit up.
When I talked to the inventors themselves, the second theme came up. Here, the inventors were frustrated with their patent attorney’s technical ignorance. Several different people expressed frustration in having to explain even basic technical concepts. Some were surprised to know that a technical degree was required for practicing patent law, because they didn’t think their patent attorney was remotely technically competent.
This got me thinking about why people choose the careers they do, and especially a career like patent law. I worked with many engineers who had no earthly business doing anything technical, but chose the field because engineers were paid more. Many who felt incompetent doing technical work quickly moved to management, sales, or another function that complemented their skills better.
The people I know in law school tend to fall into two very broad categories. In the minority are people who had a conviction years ago that they wanted to practice law, well before applying to law school. The vast majority, however, seem to be people who could not get a job with their undergraduate degree and are choosing law as the only option left to salvage their career. This group does eventually get excited about being lawyers, but they don’t seem to have the passion that the first group has.
In my mind, being a competent patent attorney requires much more than knowledge of patent law and business strategies. It requires an inventive mind and an extremely broad technical experience and competence. If the patent attorney is merely a scribe, who writes down the inventor’s description nearly verbatim, drafts some claims, and files a patent application, he adds very little value. When the patent drafter looks at the idea, stretches and expands the idea, and forces the inventor to see his invention in a new, broader, and more expansive way, he can add a considerable amount of value.
Unfortunately, technical competence is much harder to develop after law school. In fact, one attorney told me, tongue in cheek, that he lost all of his considerable technical competence because of law school. Not only is it important to question your attorney’s legal competence, but his technical competence as well.
Posted by krajec at May 20, 2005 08:55 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.krajec.com/mt/mt-tb.pl/151
Comments
Well Said!
Posted by: Melody at May 20, 2005 11:56 AM