Survey: Why Patent Law

The following survey is designed primarily for patent law professionals and asks why you became a patent law professional rather than staying within your technical area of expertise and working as an engineer, scientist, developer, etc.?

I will post preliminary results tomorrow evening.

95 thoughts on “Survey: Why Patent Law

  1. 92

    I too could not find the survey.

    As for why I joined the profession – marrying the boss’s daughter might have had something to do with it.

  2. 90

    Clearly, there are different types of property,

    Clearly, but his argument was “it has to be clear and convincing because it’s property“, without any regard to what kind of property it was.

    He did mention that patents have been examined, but one could always have one’s dog vetted.

  3. 89

    A dog is property too

    Clearly, there are different types of property, Ce n’est pas ça?

    Or was your chosen type profoundly defective (intellectual closer to real, than personal)?

    Senior Cowboy – lacking the right to exclude does not make an application any less property, just property with different rights (applications can and are assigned). Try again.

  4. 88

    anyone can download a copy once it is published.

    Since when is possessing a copy an attribute of ownership? The application is the right to obtain whatever patent claims it can support, and as the applicant you are the only person in the world who can avail himself of that right.

    Money …. is in a class by itself…

    Okay, then. Why can you prevent the owner of a warehouse full of infringing articles from disposing of them as he sees fit, without clear and convincing evidence? Why can you recover a stolen article in a civil action without clear and convincing evidence?

    Because there’s nothing about taking property that inherently requires clear and convincing evidence. All it requires is due process.

  5. 87

    “That patent application is yours. Nobody else can have it without your permission.”
    Not true…anyone can download a copy once it is published. Making using and selling can go on too, until the property right is established upon issuance.

    Money …. is in a class by itself…sui generis, tertium quid, etc.

  6. 86

    a patent application is not property, at least not in this country.

    Then explain how exactly one goes about assigning one. Or even the right to obtain one.

    Here, we think property has the characteristic that its owner has the right to exclude others from it.

    Yup. That patent application is yours. Nobody else can have it without your permission.

    The point, Max, is that C+C is appropriate because the patent is property, and it is property because it has been examined.

    Okay then, how come you can get money from the infringer without proving infringement by clear and convincing evidence? Doesn’t the infringer also have property rights? Or does he need to get his money examined somehow?

  7. 85

    Ah, Max, I have to disagree with you; a patent application is not property, at least not in this country. Maybe a European definition of property is different.

    Here, we think property has the characteristic that its owner has the right to exclude others from it. A patent application, at most, allows a later demand for royalties if the property right is established by the issuance of a patent, after examination.

    Yes, the property right has been bastardized by the eBay decision (By the way, is Meg Whitman responsible for that? If so, Californians should vote against her.) but I have railed against that elsewhere.

    The point, Max, is that C+C is appropriate because the patent is property, and it is property because it has been examined. The law is set up so that until it has been examined, it is not property.

  8. 84

    On pails, I’m not seeing the “joke” yet. But never mind.

    Hey Max, did you hear that joke they only tell to (group you’re not a member of)? You didn’t?

    I was thinking that, the better the control instance does its work, the less often it needs to be engaged.

    The Federal Circuit has quite clearly demonstrated (at least as regards claim construction) that review with no deference requires that the control instance be engaged in every case.

    At the same time, too much deference makes the control instance powerless to correct errors that might entail civil liability for private parties, even when those parties can show that they probably should not be liable.

    Let’s all try to remember that the whole “I have property, don’t take it away” thing is a due process issue, and not a standard of proof issue.

  9. 83

    I was thinking that, the better the control instance does its work, the less often it needs to be engaged. Take claim construction: if the Federal circuit could do it properly, there would be fewer reversals of claim constructions on arrival at the Federal Circuit, and in consequence, less patent litigation.

    On pails, I’m not seeing the “joke” yet. But never mind.

    Cowboy, my recently filed patent application is my property too. I happen to think that that should not lightly be destroyed either. But does the PTO operate a C+C standard when writing objections and rejections and refusals? I think not. Are you saying it should though?

  10. 82

    Once the patent has issued, it is a piece of property, (right, intellectual property attorneys?) and should not be destoyed unless it clearly and convincingly should be destroyed.

    That’s … profoundly defective reasoning.

    A dog is property too, and I bet you could get a larger one destroyed based on circumstantial evidence and an emotional jury. Or, more properly, proof on a balance of probabilities.

  11. 81

    Max, the control instance should be consulted before the mistake is made. In the case of the USPTO, the examiner can consult with other examiners or the SPE if he/she thinks its a close case and get that second pair of eyes before making an allowance.

    Once the patent has issued, it is a piece of property, (right, intellectual property attorneys?) and should not be destoyed unless it clearly and convincingly should be destroyed.

  12. 80

    as for pails – itza an inside joke and aimed at those who know. Feel free to chuckle at it thou.

  13. 79

    Maxie,

    Oh I grasp you rpoint – it just be the wrong point.

    Ever hear the adage: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”?

    Let’s go with the medical doc analogy for a second. In your view, we need to make sure that we have plenty o the top experts ready for opining on when the first level docs screw up and cause serious damage. And with your view, since you place the emphasis on the second level, the first level necessarily suffers and you thus guarantee the need for all those second level docs (that be kinda look government jobs in a socialist state – but Ima mixing metaphors, or something like that).

    Anyways, if you throw your view and look at my observation – that be making sure your first leve docs know what the f they be doing and they be doing the job right in the first place, alluva sudden, ya just don’t need all that many secondary specialists.

    Not sure why this seems a difficult concept for ya to learn.

  14. 78

    Dude–actually, we’ve gotten a couple of close-to-allowance OAs recently where only minor issues remain. The claims are much narrower than we thought we should get, and we’ve gotten to this stage before in a number of cases only to have brand new rejections in the next OA, but on the surface it seems like progress. Probably just a blip, though.

  15. 76

    Readers, ping has not grasped my point. As he is apparently our most acute observer, other readers may have missed it too. So, I’ll try again.

    My point was that the control instance should be wiser and more experienced than the “front line”. So, when patent validity is in dispute, post-issue, one would hope for such a control instance.

    Suppose a client thinks her patent attorney has made a mistake. She appeals to the “complaint handling instance” of the law firm to which her patent attorney belongs. Would that instance be somebody who has prosecuted more patent cases than “her” attorney, or will she be fobbed off with a smooth talker with manifestly less relevant patent experience?

    Or suppose one of your family members has come out of the operating theatre damaged beyond repair. Who gets to opine, on whether the surgeon made a mistake? Somebody competent to crystallise an authoritative opinion, one would hope, and not somebody out of his depth with the technical background.

    I’m only suggesting that public confidence in a patent system (any patent system) depends on the credibility of the “complaint handling instance”. In Europe, there are pressure groups who want rid of patents altogether. a surprisingly large number of voters are open to their persuasion. What a tragedy it would be, if these misguided pressure groups succeed. And they will succeed, if we are not vigilant to guard the integrity of the system we are all so proud of.

  16. 75

    Readers I’m curious. How does it come to pass that a comment includes an amusing expression like “pails in comparison”?

    Is it the action of spell-check technology, is it voice recognition dictation technology, or is the only explanation that the writer deliberately wrote it that way.

    ping, you must know the answer to my question. But will you answer? I wonder.

  17. 74

    Maxie,

    You are letting you rbias color your rationality (so what else is new?)

    But only in the US…” Iza keep telling you, in the words of my idol – this is not a bug, this is a feature.

    post-issue mechanism is put in place to review patentability (102, 103, 112) it needs to do it more expertly than the PTO.

    Wow – at least in the US, the adage of do it right the first time actually means something to most people. What kind of sense is it that if you have the capability of doing something right (the more expertly), why the F don’t ya do it the first time?

    That’s like saying, all patents are created equal, and if you want to be more equal (wink wink) ya need to go through these extra (post issue) steps. Ya might as well be a bit more honest about it and simply create a registration and Gold-Plated (actual) patent system. Cepts are leaders chose not to do that.

  18. 73

    saddest story of all

    Um, no.

    Sure any type of error can be bad – but to summarily state that the giving error, when not fully deserved, is always worse than the not giving error, when fully deserved, is a gross mis-reading of the assumptions of US patent law. At least in the US, the as-written presumption favors the applicant.

    It’s a policy argument(s) without the support of law that pails in comparison to an equally ardent policy argument(s) that happens to have the support of law.

  19. 72

    To Not Every, who writes:

    “Good thing we have a law that states that all US patents are presumed to be valid. Now if only Congress with pass a law that says all women must find me incredibly sexy.”

    With “incredible” (not believable), you hit on a good word there. A presumption of validity is an essential and fundamental part of a properly operating patent system. In every examining jurisdiction I can think of, duly issued patents are valid till somebody proves that to be not the case.

    But only in the USA are they (with the C+C standard) “incredibly” valid. You might not be “incredibly” sexy but you are surely sexy to some extent.

    Seems to me that whatever post-issue mechanism is put in place to review patentability (102, 103, 112) it needs to do it more expertly than the PTO. Otherwise, how will PTO mistakes (wrongly issued claims) get corrected properly? Other jurisdictions have such a mechanism. Does the USA?

  20. 70

    “noteverycaseisallowable”

    But some cases are more not allowable than others :)

    “Because the saddest story of all is the variation of your story where you get sick or quit and another Examiner picks up the case and allows it between dips into his cheetoh bag, making a mockery of the entire patent system in the process.”

    I loled. So true.

  21. 68

    “…Because the saddest story of all is the variation of your story where you get sick or quit and another Examiner picks up the case and allows it between dips into his cheetoh bag, making a mockery of the entire patent system in the process.”

    Just because it was allowed doesn’t mean it was a good allowance. Sad side effect of the production system is that things often get allowed that are allowable over 102, but really could have been validly rejected over 103, yet were allowed anyway because the examiner ran out of time to do a proper examination.

    Good thing we have a law that states that all US patents are presumed to be valid. Now if only Congress with pass a law that says all women must find me incredibly sexy.

  22. 67

    Attorney comes in for the second interview. I tell the attorney that none of the proposed amendments have support in the application as originally filed and he spends the entire hour trying to find support before apologizing for wasting my time since the attorney couldn’t find support either in the very short disclosure and he left.

    A sad story but I’m sure that many of us prosectors can relate, having basically run over the same ground with the client who simply refuses to face reality. Or should I say “legal reality.” Because the saddest story of all is the variation of your story where you get sick or quit and another Examiner picks up the case and allows it between dips into his cheetoh bag, making a mockery of the entire patent system in the process.

  23. 66

    “I also just had two interviewes denied yesterday in different AUs, both Examiners saying “go to appeal” / “I don’t see anything allowable in your app.” If this is how the Examiner really feels, fine. But I’m getting a feeling that there’s some “I just don’t want to allow this app” attitude returning. ”

    Let me tell you about a case currently in my docket. I’m the third or fourth examiner who has had the case and I inherited it because the previous examiners left the office or was out on sick leave. In every single round prior to me getting it, the case has been rejected using the same reference. I get the case and again reject the claims using the same reference. Finally, one of the attorneys call for an interview–none was held previously.

    First interview, the attorney want to discuss proposed amendments. I show him how the claims as amended were still unpatentable over the same reference and luckily the attorney had a background in the art so he agreed with me (off the record) that my position was reasonable. Attorney goes back and I later get a call from the same attorney requesting another interview to discuss more proposed amendments.

    Attorney comes in for the second interview. I tell the attorney that none of the proposed amendments have support in the application as originally filed and he spends the entire hour trying to find support before apologizing for wasting my time since the attorney couldn’t find support either in the very short disclosure and he left.

    A few weeks later, I get another call only from a different attorney from the same law firm requesting yet another interview, which I deny this time since several hours of my time had been eaten already from the prior interviews themselves and the time I took to prepare for the interviews. They formally submit claim amendments, which once again were rejected over the same reference and which were also rejected as lacking written support in the disclosure as originally filed.

    There’s some sort of lesson in that story somewhere, though now that I’ve told it, I’m not quite sure what that lesson is, but if an examiner suggests to you that you should appeal, then you should seriously consider either appealing (or at least filing a pre-appeal) if you disagree with the examiner’s rejections or seriously consider abandonment. Working on appeals typically take a lot of time, so I don’t think it’s something most examiners would recommend lightly. You’ve probably reached and impasse in which case perhaps a SPE or primary’s input or input from the Board is proper. Then there’s always the chance you have nothing allowable. Despite popular belief, it happens. Shouldn’t this also be something that you should be considering rather than wasting more of the client’s time and money?

  24. 65

    ping,

    Thanks for setting me straight.

    I liked your example lots better (where everybody’s one-time doing-the-doing and one hundred thousand times doing-the-suing).

  25. 64

    “Nazgul terrorists”

    Lol, and you just got through nerd reaming IANAE. Don’t even pretend you can middle earth pingerdoodle.

  26. 62

    “I’ve seen some rejections lately that reminded me of the 2008-style six-reference frankenstein rejections, coupled with a failure to respond to my arguments.”

    We did resume hiring I think.

  27. 61

    5. Why did you become a patent law professional rather than staying within your technical area of expertise and working as an engineer, scientist, developer, etc.?

    I became a patent attorney for the chicks. Chicks dig patent attorneys.

  28. 57

    “Do you think a EE foundation will give a person the skills needed to be a competent computer scientist dealing cutting edge algorithms?”

    It will in so far as 101 is concerned. But just chill man I was jk.

  29. 55

    “That’s the major for those who drop out of comp sci.”

    “Which is a major for those that drop out of EE. Don’t worry about it man, it’s all part of the great circle. Wait, I meant totem pole.”

    Totem pole of what exactly? Do you think a EE foundation will give a person the skills needed to be a competent computer scientist dealing cutting edge algorithms? That is not the case. This, however, depends on the school a person goes to.

    I was a CE major and switched to CS due to my desire to focus more on the CS courses as opposed to EE. This totem pole is BS.

    The first person was correct with his tought process. Information systems is not equivalent to CS nor is CS about “programming”. Any monkey can learn how to program. The problem is that CS is not equivalent at all schools. Hence the USPTO needs to scrutinize a person’s academic coursework.

  30. 54

    Paul Cole, “The Most Powerful Idea in the World” sounds like a winner, all right.

    And I wish I could take the Supreme Court as a joke, like Saturday Night Live. Unfortunately, they have a monopoly and so we can’t change the channel.

  31. 53

    Has anyone else noticed a slight pullback among Examiners in allownig stuff? I’ve seen some rejections lately that reminded me of the 2008-style six-reference frankenstein rejections, coupled with a failure to respond to my arguments.

    I also just had two interviewes denied yesterday in different AUs, both Examiners saying “go to appeal” / “I don’t see anything allowable in your app.” If this is how the Examiner really feels, fine. But I’m getting a feeling that there’s some “I just don’t want to allow this app” attitude returning.

  32. 52

    IANAE – please leave the Hobbits alone if you cannot tell LOTR joke appropriately (that is, the Nazgul were men, not hobbits, that fell to the lure of Sauron, and any documented ties, as such would plainly and quickly reveal that the Hobbit folk, in any actual instances, were dire enemies of the Nazgul terrorists).

    The Hobbits had no desire to advance their law unto other territories and were by and larger peaceful folk content to small thievery and smoking their weed.

  33. 51

    If I were an examiner, I would check “Non-Registered Patent Law Professional.

    Nah Dennis, I think it more telling (and more accurate) that the examiner chose to focus on the non-professional option.

    Where is the answer concerning how one enjoys spending six dollars to make sure a three dollar cake is sliced fairly? No litigators chiming in?

    Posted by: IANAA | Aug 24, 2010 at 08:49 AM

    IANAA – no friggin kiddin you aint no Attorney. in attempting to take a swipe both directly at my idol IANAE and the lawyer profession, you only show the ignorance of a 6, since lawyers be more than litigators and your example plainly svcks.

    Given your example, if the results are used in merely one additional case, the lawyers effort has reached its breakeven point, tell me Sunshine, what is the return on investment of that 6 bucks if that lawyering can be used for 100,000 instances of $3 cakes? You can bet your Sara Lee that many business would consider that damm good lawyerin.

  34. 49

    Bilbo: why are you discriminating against me?

    Because you threaten America with your observance of Shire-ean law.

    Plus, documented ties to the Nazgul, who are known terrorists.

  35. 43

    American Cowboy: Life is greatly eased by a sense of humour and the ridiculous: we are all more balanced people if we can laugh at ourselves sometimes.

    And if you want a defence of the patent system, you cannot do better than Michael Rosen’s book: “The Most Powerful Idea in the World”

    “Here is what is said on the Amazon website:

    “The most important invention of the Industrial Revolution was invention itself.’ Those words are at the heart of this remarkable book. The Most Powerful Idea in the World is more than a stunning history of the Industrial Revolution and the steam engine at its core. It is an amazing account of how inventors first came to own and profit from their ideas-and how invention itself springs forth from logic and imagination. Rocket. It was the fortuitously-named train that inaugurated steam locomotion in 1829, jump-starting two centuries of mass transportation. As William Rosen reveals, it was the product of centuries of scientific and industrial discovery. From inventor Hero of Alexandria in 60 AD to James Watt, the physicist whose ‘separate condenser’ was central to the development of steam power, to businessman Matthew Boulton, who envisioned whole factories powered with Watt’s engines – all those who made possible the long ride towards the Industrial Revolution are brought to unforgettable life.But crucial to their contributions are other characters whose concepts allowed their inventions to flourish: John Locke, who conceived of what we now know as ‘intellectual property’, and Edward Coke, whose work led to the patent system that, as Abraham Lincoln said, ‘added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius’. Along the way, Rosen takes us deep into the human mind, explaining, for example, how ‘eureka’ moments occur-when the brain is most relaxed.Astonishingly erudite yet completely accessible, this is a superb and inspiring work about the experiments and accomplishments that led to a revolution, the effects of which still power and plague us today.”

    I bought a copy at Dulles Airport on the way back to London, and can testify that this book indeed lives up to its billing. If we ever lack faith in our profession, this is a book that can help restore it.

  36. 42

    Two items:

    1) There’s no survey here.

    2) Please delete all comments related to the proposed New York mosque. This is not the proper forum.

    Thanks.

  37. 41

    “diminishing the resources available to skilful men”

    And that opinion, my friends, is what is damaging the patent system, and in turn, the U.S. economy, the world economy, and political stability globally.

  38. 40

    I suppose one laughs when the joke is “close to home”. To be successful, patent attorneys need a competitive urge, a desire to put one over on the other side. Good one Paul. A great laugh there, with your:

    “the true vocation of any patent attorney: diminishing the resources available to skilful men”

  39. 39

    Paul Cole: I realized that I had found the true vocation of any patent attorney: diminishing the resources available to skilful men.

    Heh. Take that attitude to the eBay threads, where people argue until they’re blue in the face that inventors have as their sole and sincere purpose in life to not practice their own invention and get injunctions against anyone else who tries.

    Paul Cole: That depends whether you are prosecuting or litigating.

    I would say, based on people I’ve met and comments in this blog, that patent prosecution does bring out the worst in people. But unlike litigation, it doesn’t have to if we don’t want it to.

    Paul Cole: On the whole I prefer prosecuting.

    Is it because you hear fewer “Cole’s law” puns?

  40. 37

    Well, I don’t agree with Paul Cole. I think patent attorneys are promoting innovation even in the information processing arts despite what the rust brains on this blog may say.

    But, I am afraid that the legal profession does not bring out the best in people much like war.

  41. 36

    I joined the patent profession as a respectable alternative to doing a PhD. After a year I considered doing a PhD after all, so I investigated. However I would have to pursue a research topic for 3 years. As a trainee patent attorney problems were on my desk for 3-4 hours. There was no going back.

    Then some years later, I found the following quote from the opinion of Mr Justice Jackson in the A&P case:

    “A patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, such as is presented here, obviously withdraws what already is known into
    the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.”

    I realized that I had found the true vocation of any patent attorney: diminishing the resources available to skilful men.

  42. 35

    NWPA, funny you should write that. The best profession in all the world is European Patent Attorney because the core activity is learning about and then debating internationally (within tight common sense Rules) the nature,merits and wonders of specific technologies.

    I could never choose lawyering as a career. So…. b o r i n g. Unlike natural philosophy, natural justice is just common sense.

  43. 34

    Could not download the survey. Anyway,my engineering job, which I loved, required a lot of travel. Wife did not like my being away from home. After six years,she suggested I find a new job with less travel or a new wife!
    While I was in school a college professor had encouraged me to work in the PTO and become a patent lawyer. I finally did. Best decision I ever made. Still married for 54 years to a wonderful woman and still working at age 76 for great young clients.

  44. 31

    >>And what about those who are both (i.e. most >>patent lawyers)?

    in that small universe:

    (1) engineers
    (2) lawyers who are engineers
    (3) lawyers

    Let’s face it, lawyers are in general scummy people.

  45. 30

    Where is the answer concerning how one enjoys spending six dollars to make sure a three dollar cake is sliced fairly? No litigators chiming in?

  46. 28

    I hold engineers in higher esteem than attorneys

    And what about those who are both (i.e. most patent lawyers)?

  47. 26

    6, where is that case you referenced in another thread about advertising 12(b)(6) and 101?

    That is quite an interesting case. It deserves a post, Dennis.

  48. 25

    I’m not 100% sure that putting down that you’re not a professional…

    fixed for the LSAT failing 6.

    And don’t worry about being a lawlyer, in a field whose focus is the law.

  49. 24

    “Yes – aint it nice how subtle the Big D can be with his slams?”

    I’m not 100% sure that putting down that you’re not a lawlyer (the most despised of professions?) is a slam. That is, even if that is what he wants him to put.

  50. 23

    “That’s the major for those who drop out of comp sci.”

    Which is a major for those that drop out of EE. Don’t worry about it man, it’s all part of the great circle. Wait, I meant totem pole.

  51. 22

    As an examiner, I assume I should check the “not a patent law professional” option?

    Yes – aint it nice how subtle the Big D can be with his slams?

    I chose patent law because no one was going to hire me as an engineer.

    Damm that’s bad when you have engineer’s who think you have no personality.

  52. 21

    I chose patent law because I could see that I was at best an average computer programmer. I was okay at software design and worse than average at debugging. From talking to those with real talent, I realized this was not a wise career choice for me.

    Nice thing about the litigation side of patent law is that you don’t need to be that great in the scientific fields — okay is good enough. You just need to be good at learning the details of a specific invention, and about closely-related inventions, products and publications.

  53. 20

    I chose patent law because no one was going to hire me as an engineer. Which is fine, because I enjoyed law school far more than I did undergrad as an engineering major (or, at least on the academic end of things).

  54. 19

    What do Computer Science majors put? “Software and Information Systems”? I take offense. That’s the major for those who drop out of comp sci.

  55. 17

    I tried being a piano player in a bordello but there were too many distractions so I went into patent law.

  56. 16

    Dennis,

    Because I could combine two significant interests I’ve had since junior high school: (1) chemistry specifically and technology generally; and (2) the practice of law. I was also blessed with the opportunity to “try out” practice in an IP firm through summer work at my dad’s firm (Cushman, Darby & Cushman), plus I tried chemical research in the summer between my junior and senior years of college and decided being a research chemist wasn’t for me. And I’ve never regreted the choice I made in terms of career.

  57. 14

    As an examiner, I assume I should check the “not a patent law professional” option?

  58. 13

    Dear IANAE,
    I believe that anyone with a strong opposing opinion about the mosque would have commented by now. None have – perhaps my comment rings true in readers’ minds.

    Fellas, get a life!!
    As much as I love Patently-O, and you know I do, there is nothing hallowed about it.
    Those who work in the IP industry are people, Just people, hopefully people making a comfortable living in IP.

  59. 12

    There is only one reason to get involved in this nonsense and that is to cut the nonsense out of the system.

  60. 11

    I second “protect the hallowed grounds of patentlyo.com from the sewage of online political rants” even though they provide me rare opportunities to agree with Mooney.

  61. 10

    Dear IANAE,

    I felt compelled to state certain facts in my comment on the hot-issue-of-the-time in this, the forum I respect most, and in the community in which I have labored.

    However, I inadvertently posted in this thread – I meant to post in the Patently-O Bits and Bytes thread – oops.

  62. 8

    Dennis I still don’t see any survey here, but will readily confess that when it came to a choice of even more advanced mathematics for EE grad school, or relying on verbal skills and simpler [but interesting] forms of “logic” by going to law school [a la LSAT exams] I luckily chose the latter, even though I was quite naive about it at the time. Never regretted it.

  63. 7

    Mosque controversy?! That’s all we need to pull in IP professionals for civil, patent-related discussions.

    I say protect the hallowed grounds of patentlyo.com from the sewage of online political rants.

  64. 6

    Regarding the building of the proposed mosque,

    Wow, trolling two threads now? It really is astonishing how desperate you are to have an argument about this on the internet. Not to mention how much difficulty you’re having in finding someone willing to argue an issue that comes with pre-manufactured controversy.

  65. 5

    Dear IANAE,

    Re: “I don’t have the patience to deal with each of your particular delusions on an individual basis.”

    Thanks again for your comment.
    I accept it for what it is despite the redundancy therein.

    Regarding the building of the proposed mosque, there is no way it would ever be completed in my city. No construction worker would tolerate such construction, and they wouldn’t tolerate scabs on the job.

    So, this is only an academic concern, and on that score, with all due respect, you are somewhat ill-equipped :-(

  66. 4

    There are times I wonder if I made the right choice…

    You probably did, but if you change your mind it’s never too late to go to law school.

  67. 2

    It was a close call between practicing law and driving big rigs. There are times I wonder if I made the right choice…

Comments are closed.