Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Sunday, February 09, 2020

Join us now at the IRC channel.

schestowitz__>> Worked like magic!Feb 09 04:06
schestowitz__> Excellent!  ISO-8601 FTW.Feb 09 04:06
schestowitz__>Feb 09 04:06
schestowitz__> [...]Feb 09 04:06
schestowitz__>> roy@vonick:~$  find ./Links/ -type f -name '*-merged.html' -print | sortFeb 09 04:06
schestowitz__>> -r | head -n 1Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__>> ./Links/m2020-02/2020-02-08-merged.htmlFeb 09 04:07
schestowitz__>>Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__>> I suppose I can push  this into timeline.sh or whatever I called itFeb 09 04:07
schestowitz__> Yes, just remember to adjust the paths and double check that you haveFeb 09 04:07
schestowitz__> the right ones locally.   The above could be shortened, visually :Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__>Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__> find ./Links/ -type f -name '*-merged.html' -print | sort | tail -n 1Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__>Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__> but I think that makes no difference computationally.Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__I've split this into separate scripts, one for downloading/checking, another for processing and appending (concatenating).Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__I'll add it to my "dialog" menu soon.Feb 09 04:07
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/TheAnonNetwork/status/1226302217373831168Feb 09 04:25
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@TheAnonNetwork: @schestowitz LolFeb 09 04:25
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/SleepyPenguin1/status/1226243272013733894Feb 09 04:26
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@SleepyPenguin1: What a complete load of s*** @schestowitz https://t.co/radn65zbV5Feb 09 04:26
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.youtube.com | Microsoft AI + Forus Health: Working to help eradicate preventable blindness - YouTubeFeb 09 04:26
schestowitz__That's Microsoft...Feb 09 04:26
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/GiveTruth/status/1226184823934476288Feb 09 04:26
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@GiveTruth: @schestowitz It’s 😆considering it was the DNC that created the chaos hoping ppl wouldn’t figure out it was HRC mini… https://t.co/808X0fuxKCFeb 09 04:26
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@GiveTruth: @schestowitz It’s 😆considering it was the DNC that created the chaos hoping ppl wouldn’t figure out it was HRC mini… https://t.co/808X0fuxKCFeb 09 04:26
schestowitz__"It’s considering it was the DNC that created the chaos hoping ppl wouldn’t figure out it was HRC minion Mook was pulling the strings it Now they come swooping in 2 double down on the rigging.Tulsi # will b ignored It’s what DWS did 2 @Tim_Canova in 2018"Feb 09 04:26
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/Flavia0847/status/1226170031903559680Feb 09 04:27
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Flavia0847: There seems to be an increased military interest in space. That sort of thing tends to spread and grow. https://t.co/unhWBFWG0lFeb 09 04:27
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: "Every week, the readers of our space newsletter, The Airlock, send in their questions for space reporter Neel V. P… https://t.co/NIfpBbdDVmFeb 09 04:27
schestowitz__space garbage in orbitFeb 09 04:27
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/Flavia0847/status/1226130995914645504Feb 09 04:28
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Flavia0847: @schestowitz The boreal (polar) nations are all experiencing the effect of warming trendsFeb 09 04:28
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/livemusic4me/status/1226127018221277184Feb 09 04:29
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@livemusic4me: @schestowitz Common Dreams is such a poor source. I no more take it seriously than I do the Daily Caller.Feb 09 04:29
schestowitz__what site/s would you recommend?Feb 09 04:29
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/GtbFrankHIll/status/1226125869237796865Feb 09 04:29
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@GtbFrankHIll: "Under Trump’s leadership, former national security adviser John Bolton dissolved the National Security Council’s g… https://t.co/7R2miGVyf0Feb 09 04:29
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@GtbFrankHIll: "Under Trump’s leadership, former national security adviser John Bolton dissolved the National Security Council’s g… https://t.co/7R2miGVyf0Feb 09 04:29
schestowitz__"Feb 09 04:29
schestowitz__Frank HIll Retweeted Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊)Feb 09 04:29
schestowitz__"Under Trump’s leadership, former national security adviser John Bolton dissolved the National Security Council’s global health security team."Feb 09 04:29
schestowitz__'Feb 09 04:29
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/emilyjodell/status/1226124229873025025Feb 09 04:30
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@emilyjodell: @schestowitz Thanks for sharing the piece!Feb 09 04:30
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/capheniatec/status/1226114044517650433Feb 09 04:30
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@capheniatec: @schestowitz Great! Check out our @capheniatec Power&Biogas-to-fuel (#PBtL) #biofuels / #syntheticfuels: Reduced co… https://t.co/snbDXoiyC2Feb 09 04:30
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@capheniatec: @schestowitz Great! Check out our @capheniatec Power&Biogas-to-fuel (#PBtL) #biofuels / #syntheticfuels: Reduced co… https://t.co/snbDXoiyC2Feb 09 04:30
schestowitz__"Great! Check out our @capheniatec Power&Biogas-to-fuel (#PBtL) #biofuels / #syntheticfuels: Reduced costs due to very high production process efficiency."Feb 09 04:30
schestowitz__https://twitter.com/ZodiacNein/status/1226106195951456257Feb 09 04:30
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ZodiacNein: @schestowitz Incels = Sad charmless twatsFeb 09 04:30
*tedbox is now known as royatTedFeb 09 04:55
*royatTed has quit (Remote host closed the connection)Feb 09 11:20
schestowitz__http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/02/ag-campos-in-brompton-bicycle-advises.html?showComment=1581026926029#c1291473853195152574Feb 09 12:42
schestowitz__"I can't see that the AG is discussing intent in the sense of that there must be an intent to make art. Isn't the AG discussing the author's intention as a part of whether the author has made free and creative choices? Say you have a multiplicity-of-forms scenario and one person's final product is the result of that person carefully making different aestetic choices as to the appearance of the final product, because the aim is to makeFeb 09 12:42
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | AG Campos in Brompton Bicycle advises CJEU to rule that 'exclusively' functional shapes do not deserve copyright protection - The IPKatFeb 09 12:42
schestowitz__the end product have a look that the person prefers and strives for. If another person were to make the exact same design, but the reason for ending up at that design was that the person thought that the specific design was needed for the product to achieve a certain technical result, or maybe even because the person just did not care about the design considerations. Setting aside the problem of evidence, while both products wouldFeb 09 12:42
schestowitz__produce the same aestetic effect (which is irrelevant as confirmed in Cofemel), wouldn't it be reasonable that the first person's product would be protected as a work meeting the originality requirement, but not the second - even if they are identical? "Feb 09 12:42
schestowitz__ARCHIVING:Feb 09 12:45
schestowitz__http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/02/gantry-gate-have-your-say-in-mercer.html?showComment=1580824474094#c4521974829078065478Feb 09 12:45
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Gantry-Gate: Have your say in the Mercer Review - The IPKatFeb 09 12:45
schestowitz__"Feb 09 12:45
schestowitz__AnonymousTuesday, 4 February 2020 at 13:54:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__"And its pretty well know that every feature should be construed (though I agree this is irrational)."Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__You will be disappointed to discover that some of the expensive JDDs courses actively encourage candidates to not construe all of the claimed features. Even for claim 1. Fortunately candidates talk to each other, and this misinformation does not affect pass rates as much as you would expect. Nevertheless, there are many capable candidates who adopt this approach because they trust the advice that they have received, and fail as aFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__result.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyThursday, 6 February 2020 at 08:09:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__I think I'd add one more rider to this: requiring the candidate to construe ever feature is unrealistic, but in the context of an exam where construction has a knock-on effect on everything else, it is defensible to have some hard points of construction for which getting the "wrong" answer does not double-punish the examinee later on when they get to novelty/inventive step.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__AnonymousTuesday, 4 February 2020 at 16:33:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__Even the supposedly "new low" pass rate of 33.3% is still much higher than was the norm back in my day.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__AnonymousTuesday, 4 February 2020 at 17:41:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__It would be interesting to see how pass rates have varied. We have easy access back to 2005, but I haven't seen earlier results. Mind you, if the examiners are to be believed, the low pass rate back in the day was due to poorly prepared candidates.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__The '97 examiner was particularly damning: "... it would appear that many candidates, particularly those who have been unsuccessful, are of the opinion that the paper sets an unrealistically high standard with the objective of keeping the pass rate low... The reason why so many candidates fail this paper appears to be because they are ill-prepared, particularly on the first attempt, and the quality of some submissions demonstratesFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__this all too clearly".Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 08:20:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__Is there a reason why PEB/CIPA feels the need to fail most candidates. I truly believe its to keep people out of the profession. I don't believe 70-75% of candidates who fail are not fit to practice. Doesn't make sense so the problem must be the exams.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 12:45:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__It is pretty simple. PEB aim to achieve a "budget surplus of 200,000 in 5 Years". More resits = more money. I think they are two/three years in so far.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__This information is buried on the CIPA website. Its actually a disgrace.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:37:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__I'm no longer shock at Examiner's comments accusing candidate of being ill-prepared or sat the exams too early or stating that it is obvious to do it this way. Please - 75% of candidates cannot be ill-prepared.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__I wish they just listen - the current exams do not reflect modern day practices anymore.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__ruthsoetTuesday, 4 February 2020 at 16:43:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__This email reminds me of the very first CIPA Academic post-exam committee meeting that I attended, many moons ago. Concerns were expressed then about the very high failure rate on one paper. Candidates had failed, almost en masse, a question concerned with patenting in China. One member asked "Why is 'patenting in China' on the examination paper if it is not included in the syllabus?" Answer: "Because it is very important that patentFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__agents (sic) know about patenting in China". EEEK!!! As the innocent (non-patent agent) academic present I reminded the committee of the adage drummed into university academics at exam writing time: Teach what you test, test what you teach.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__The message seemed to fall on listening ears, but that was a while ago. Perhaps it needs to be reinforced in its stark simplicity that the professional body should ensure the syllabus covers what a patent attorney needs to know and is delivered in such a way that future patent exams will reflect CIPA (or its delegates) teaching what it tests, and testing what it teaches.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__Professor Ruth SoetendorpFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__AnonymousTuesday, 4 February 2020 at 17:10:00 GMTFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__There are lots of problems with P6/FD4 but for me the key one is that there is a gulf of (mis)understanding between those who have passed the paper and those who have yet to pass it. From my experience of taking the exam and tutoring people, the people who are involved in setting the paper do not understand why the pass mark is low and what the issues are. CIPA people who I have met who are involved with setting exams seem dismissiveFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__of the problems that this paper causes. One key issue is confidence and an ability to cope with all the ambiguity.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__If you are unlucky enough to fail it a couple of times, the likelihood is that you will continue to fail it and with ever decreasing marks.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__Issues with the exam are:Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__- the papers are overly complex. Rather than just testing someone's ability to interpret a document and advise on infringement and invalidity, other issues are thrown in too. This makes me think that the people who set the exam do not understand what the main purpose of the exam is. They should endeavour to keep it much simpler.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__- because of these additional issues, it is nigh on impossible to achieve more than 80 marks as the exam papers are unnecessarily complicated. Thus the pass mark is effectively 50 out of a reachable 80 mark and so is over actually 60%. A better approach would be to mark on a bell curve, as is done with the patent administrator exam.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__- candidates generally speaking will have never written an exam answer like this before. It is effectively an essay paper with no right or wrong answer. This is an alien concept to scientists who are used to things being right or wrong;Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__- patent attorneys generally are hopeless at helping candidates through this exam. My experience was that in tutorials, I was told what I was doing wrong and what I should do instead. Only in my last tutorial was I told what I was doing right and this gave me the confidence to pass.Feb 09 12:46
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:46
schestowitz__MaxDreiTuesday, 4 February 2020 at 17:57:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Many years ago, I attended a "Train the Trainers" day-long event in Berlin, organised by the EPO's Patent Academy. During the day, it became evident, what a huge advantage is enjoyed by candidates being trained at the big prosecution firms.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__For the UK exams, how do the trainers acquire the qualification and experience to get candidates through the qualifying exams?Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__AshWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 09:21:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__I've worked in both private practice and industry so I hope to shed a light on the differences in training.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Most trainees in private practice firm rely on their manager (often only one) which means that most of their learning is from one person. This can be good or bad but I know people have negative experiences with their managers. Some want to teach but billing comes first. Most attorneys frankly do not want to teach. One attorney told me that if they wanted to teach, they would've entered the teaching profession. They have a point - theyFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__are not teachers. Some can't be bothered and the trainee is often left to learn on their own. Trainees in private practice generally get one shot at it and possibly one retake and they need to sit it as early as possible to increase their billing hours.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Industry training is also poor for UK exams but much better for EQEs. The company I worked at are only interested in EQEs. There was no UK work so they didn't want to spend resources into getting trainees UK qualified which is understandable.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__I feel that the training system in the UK is broken and the advanced PEB exams really do not relate to real life work at all. I'm in favour of a open book FD1 exam with weekly in depth lectures on FD1 topics run by attorneys. I think most firms would be open to paying for this. I feel the PEB webinars are too broad and general.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__For FD4, I am in favour of coursework based assessment. We recently had work on infringement and validity and this involved many things such as DD, fund raising which took several weeks and not 5 hours. It would be better to set a coursework type so that candidates can understand in depth the issues whilst making it relate to real life practices. This would be more a appropriate test.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Many people I know who've passed FD4 are still not confident. Maybe this is reflected in why so many attorneys do not wish to teach FD4 or avoid infringement and validity type work.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Get rid of FD2/FD3. EQEs exams are adequate. My advice is to focus on EQEs first to all candidates.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__A small number of private practice firms are beginning to recognise EQEs only so career progression is not affected by one's ability to pass UK finals.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 13:44:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Most trainees in private practice firm rely on their manager (often only one) which means that most of their learning is from one person.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__This may be true in smaller firms but the bigger ones are moving away from a Master & Apprentice model. Training is then delegated to those more recently qualified, many of whom are still not confident with FD4.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:13:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Worth noting here that the pass rate amongst UK candidates for the EQEs is the highest of any substantially-sized national group (i.e., excluding the countries which have so few people taking the exam that a 100% pass rate is possible).Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Whatever the UK profession is doing differently to other countries in Europe, I cannot see that it is worse. Personally, I think the mindset instilled by the UK exams does help - other European countries have much easier national exams.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:32:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__FD4 is a real problem that even those who pass - many do not feel like they are confident enough to teach the next generation or to advise their clients. The exams are having the opposite effect which PEB/CIPA need to get to grips with. If you are unsure how you managed to pass FD4 (like me) but just glad you did, there is no way that I feel comfortable advising clients based on a 5 hour exam which I happened to get lucky with.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__PeterWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 07:53:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__The biggest issue for FD4/P6 is time. Why set an exam where 90& of students are so rushed for time. No space for thinking time. Extending time DOES NOT make it better as these exams are already too long. No one can think like that for 5 hours. They need to reduce content and reduce the exam time.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Also - I can say that I do not feel confident at all giving any advice on infringement and validity to clients after failing multiple times doing this exam. I eventually got it on my 7th attempt but do not feel at ease with it. It actually destroys your confidence.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__JJWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 08:04:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__It doesn't make sense why the profession is so insistent on rigorously testing "fit for practice" exams when the exams themselves bear no resemblance to the day to day work. For example, CIPA/PEB make you do a litigation course (presumably to generate some income) for a week but no one in their right minds would start ligating without any experience in a firm.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__They make you sit FD4/P6 for 5 hours and with a bit of luck, you've passed. No one in their right minds would start dishing out infringement and validity advice in court. These things are ONLY gained from work experience.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__You sit FD1/P2 and pass (which by the way I think should be open book). No one is going to start opening up an attorney firm the day after they pass as CIPA/PEB always suggest. It is better to have an experience cap even if you do pass exams like after 5 years in the profession before you can register as a sole practioner.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__These PEB exams especially FD4/P6 are based on luck. They are not fit for purpose.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__CIPA/PEB seems to think that if people pass exams they can do whatever they like - Not the case in real life. You still need plenty of practice and in my experience, the only real valuable thing is learning on the job. That is why I am in favour of getting rid of the UK exams altogether and find another way of testing. Its meant to be confirmative exams to check that you know rather than a barrier to people's careers.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__I hope PEB will change but my trust in them is low. We've had so many reviews about exams procedures and progress over the years and nothing has changed.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__JJWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 08:09:00 GMTFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__Training is very poor in this profession especially for FD4/P6. CIPA/PEB do nothing to help. Please look at EPO where they provide a lot of materials. Some are charged but some are free. CEIPI courses and Delta Patents are brilliant.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__In the UK, we only really have JDD but the amount of students that pass is VERY low. Maybe we need to look at all training courses to see why it has not improved the pass rate.Feb 09 12:47
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:47
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 08:12:00 GMTFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__The exams themselves needs changing. Examiners are very inconsistent with their marking scheme every year. I also think they are too harsh in their marking. They need to remember that students are under incredible pressure. They don't need to mark "word for word" in what is on the mark scheme. In my mind, as long as the candidate provide sound advice or is writing on the right lines (no need to exactly quote the words of the law forFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__FD1/P2) - they should get the marks. Everyone gives different advice so if the advice is not correct in view of the law, why shouldn't they get marks for it. The examiners are too rigid in sticking to what's on the mark scheme.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__As a side note, I start to note that many firms put clauses in contracts that they are no longer willing to pay for resists or worse, be out of a job for failing. This can only add to stresses and worries to candidates.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 08:36:00 GMTFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Has anyone questioned the impartiality of the panel collating and presenting these answers? I have reason to believe a number of the board/panel are current PEB examiners.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Is this another cover up operation?Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 08:56:00 GMTFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__The impact of P6/FD4 on the mental health of candidates cannot be overstated. The exam is capricious and destroys the confidence of perfectly capable practitioners. It also fails to reflect real life, especially for non-engineers.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Those in big firms may receive some extra support but they are also under the threat of dismissal for "failure to pass professional examinations in a reasonable timeframe". Many firms will only pay the first time around, both for exams and relevant courses. In general the extra support from the firms themselves is of limited use, since those attorneys who have passed are either unaware of the reasons why they themselves passed orFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__passed so long ago that their techniques are outdated or out of favour with examiners.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Those in-house or in small firms receive less support and are often left to deal with the exam alone. CIPA tutorials etc are useful but there is often conflicting advice. JDD courses are expensive and may be difficult to justify to employers.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Similarly P2 is unrealistic since no one in their right mind gives out advice in an entirely closed-book manner. To do so would actually be negligent.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__There is talk of keeping people out of the profession but we lose many good attorneys to other lines of work because of this exam. TO paraphrase Nigel Franklandon his JDD course, is we are not careful the profession will die.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__The review is therefore welcome but sadly I fear nothing will change, especially given who is running it. I have nothing against Chris Mercer but he is one of the most old school of the old school.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 09:49:00 GMTFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Absolutely agree. I hope CIPA actually looks at mental health of students more closely. The suggestion to make exams longer does not help at all.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Increasingly, I see firms are cutting back on training and investment. The exam fees are now so high that firms are only paying for 1 retake. As you've suggested above, there appears to be a culture of replacing candidates after only 2/3 attempts. Ridiculous!Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__My experience is that JDD course does not help you pass FD4. This is generally reflected in the low pass rate seen for decades.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__As for suggestion to improvements - FD1 should be open book. FD4 should be coursework based.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__PCWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 09:55:00 GMTFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__As a senior attorney in a private practice firm, I have seen far too many capable candidates leave the profession as a result of these exams. Many are competent and it saddens me when the exams saps out the confidence in them. Trainees dropping out present a huge problem for firms, not least replacing their knowledge and skills can be difficult. Almost all of them cite the constant, intense and continuation of the exam system asFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__reasons as to why they have left. I have sympathy as I almost left the profession myself. We are over-examining!Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__The exams do not work at the moment for the profession. I'm glad there is a review but big changes needs to happen quickly.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 10:22:00 GMTFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Completely agree that FD4 should be coursework based.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__5 hours to give a complete infringement and validity opinion is negligent and completely at odds with how long this takes in the real world and what companies are willing to pay for such work.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__On the other hand i do think it is semi-plausible to do a basic response in 3 hours (amendment), draft good claims in 4 hours (drafting), and answer a client question in around 20 minutes (FD1).Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__Those people that question whether it is too easy to cheat with coursework need to get a grip.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__1) This is a professional guided by an ethical code, if someone ever found out you were cheating you would likely loose your ability to practice. I think most people would acknowledge this isn't worth the risk and would try to avoid this potential "prisoners dilemma" situation.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__2) You could give different candidates different interpretations that they have to take on certain phrases. This technique was very common when i was at university for topics such as RF filter design (obviously here the desired filter characteristics were changed between candidates), see no reason why it couldn't be done here.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__3) most (prospective) patent attorneys are good boys and girls who wouldn't say boo to a goose and have likely never been told off at any point in their life (school, uni, police etc.). Why would this suddenly change?Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__PatWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:16:00 GMTFeb 09 12:48
schestowitz__I think the idea of having a coursework based PEB examination for FD4/P6 is a good shout and needs exploring. I personally suffer far too much with this exam. It held back my career for many years and I'm now suffering as a consequence by progressing much more slowly than my peers despite around 15 years in IP. My firm is happy to let me do everything patent related but I suspect some partners look down on me because I didn't pass FD4Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__first time or second or third time. It has a long-term effect on one's career that PEB/CIPA are unwilling to mitigate for.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__I agree with other suggestions that FD1 should be open book. I see no point trying to memorise large sections of the law. If FD1 is all about client advice, then why are we still refusing to make it open book.Feb 09 12:48
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 09:36:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__My firm is responding to Mercer review and they are very critical at the current PEB examinations. I think they feel the costs of training trainees to pass FD1 and FD4 is too high and the exams do not reflect real life practices. This may be because we do so little UK work now. They feel the way the exams are at the moment that too many competent and good candidates are not passing. The exam fees are also too high with little help orFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__input from CIPA/PEB for training.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__I had no idea my firm felt this way about UK PEB exams so perhaps firms should respond to the review too.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:09:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__I think its better that CIPA focus their energy and materials for EQEs candidates. UK based exams are nice to have BUT they are not critical for a patent attorney as evident by the lack of UK work we all do.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__NewbieWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:24:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__As I'm new to the profession (just finished QM) I am yet to do these advanced exams so feel less qualified to state my opinion. However, I do note that when I speak to my colleagues who are further down the track and recently qualified attorneys - they all sigh at FD1 and FD4 and almost all mentioned that there is an element of lucky guessing and it all depends "on the day". I do wonder if these exams are fit to actually test anFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__attorney's skills and ability.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__I personally would welcome the idea to have FD1 open book not because I would like an easy pass as some have suggested in the past but because I feel it reflects modern day practice. I often see attorneys in meeting whipping out the black book, going on the internet to check facts or saying to clients that they want to check the law before coming back with sound advice.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AngelWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:46:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__and that is how it should be.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:18:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__Making the UK exams open-book is a bad idea. One need only look at Paper D of the EQEs to see why.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__Candidates have to bring large suitcases filled with heavily annotated (and very expensive) text books into the exam. Freed of the restrictions of a closed-book exam, the EQE examiners set the most utterly obscure questions in the knowledge that you have the answer to hand somewhere in the thousands of pages of text you've brought with you.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__Last year's Paper D had a question on deposit accounts and automatic debiting, something of absolutely no use to the average attorney, but which failing to answer would instantly drop your mark by 8%. At most in the UK exam remembering something like this might be worth a discretionary half-mark for being clever, but for the EQEs it is considered essential knowledge!Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__It turns what should be an exam on your knowledge into an exam on how well you've organised the paper material you've brought with you. Totally unrealistic.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__Concerned of 1312Wednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:37:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__How about a halfway house -allowing only a few specific texts in (e.g. just Doug Ealey's guide). I do think some topics covered in P2/FD4 are obscure. I remember a paper B question where the majority of the marks were for working through the test for awarding an interim injunction. After the exam I checked the syllabus. This was not specifically mentioned, but I guess they intended it to fall under general knowledge of UK law!Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:58:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__There are plenty of examples of questions in FD1 that doesn't relate to most attorney's practice. There was 5 marks on security question one year. Most attorneys in their life time will never come across this so it is difficult for these candidates to pick up marks on these questions. I think FD1 have their fair share of asking irrelevant or out of sync questions.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:59:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__I would support having an open book FD1 exam.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 16:06:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__The same could be said about FD1 - you have questions on threats which no ones comes across in real life. You have questions on interim injunctions that most attorneys don't actually do, you are required to cover JP, CN law (albeit a small amount). I agree that fees have no use to an attorney, but the same could be said for some topics on FD1.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__FD1 also doesn't reward marks that are correct but not on the mark scheme e.g. you can say that patent is granted and in force but you won't get a mark for this one year but you will in another year. Inconsistent marking scheme is probably where the problem is in FD1.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__NewbieWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 16:14:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__What about providing calendars like the EPO do in their exams. Shouldn't be any harm in that surely.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__I still think open book FD1 would be good but perhaps limit it to a few books as suggested by others.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:28:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__The worst thing about this whole saga is that trainees actually enjoying learning about and practising infringement and validity analysis.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__The problem is the exams are so poorly constructed that it just becomes a speed reading competition with very little thinking time. Seriously, look at the word count (not the page count!) of P6 Exams over the last few years.Feb 09 12:49
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__AngelWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:49:00 GMTFeb 09 12:49
schestowitz__FD4 needs changing. Its clear to most people in the profession. It has been going on for decades. I'm never in favour of coursework but have an exception for FD4. I think FD4 coursework based assessment may work. We should consider this.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 14:53:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__No one has mentioned the fact that we lose alot of Design work to law firm/solicitors. Attorneys do not get a look in until they have passed FD1 but generally, until they are considered UK qualified. I believe we are over-testing so much that we are losing business to other professions.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__I see plenty of ex-trainees on the other side of the fence as IP managers, IP consultants etc... They are very capable of doing "attorney type" work themselves but most I spoke to decide not to continue becoming an attorney because of pressures with exams either from firms, lack of training or bad work/family life.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__We need to take into consideration the impact of these exams on individuals and on firms as I believe we are driving the patent attorney profession out of business.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:23:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Really, design law probably needs to become a separate, complimentary qualification to the patent attorney one. The idea that one question in FD1 is enough to cover it properly just doesn't wash. Better to take the question out (which for some reason most score badly on even though its there every year).Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__In terms of stress - the hours attorneys are expected to put it generally in work are far more to blame than any exam.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:41:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Gilman - I agree that it makes no sense to have 1 design question in FD1. I think foundations should sufficiently cover the design aspect.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__You're right that hours are to blame but these can often be mitigated by attorneys going part-time or reducing workloads or moving jobs. However, exam stress are completely different and trainees are not usually offered the same benefits e.g. reduced working hours plus the additional hours of studying in one's spare time. Candidates are under even more pressure given from what I've been hearing that some firms do not fully supportFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__their candidates and are only paying for 1 retake. As I understand, this is from a direct result of exam fees going up 20% every year. This also indicate that firms are not fully satisfied with the PEB examination system and what they offer.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:01:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Why not make the advanced patent exams the same as the trademark final exams?Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 15:16:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Alot of people would not be sad to see FD4 as an exam go. Says it all really.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__I think having a coursework created by attorneys and assess by attorneys have two advantages;Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__1) Having a coursework allows in depth understanding and analysis but also provide sufficient time for candidates to truly understand and appreciate these type of problems in the IP world. There can be lectures run by attorneys that explore infringement & validity issues.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__2) it relieve pressures for Examiners to mark papers over a short period of time. Instead, examiners can actually mark someone's work and be given sufficient time to do so. It can be submitted electronically so examiners do not need to read messy writing.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__The courts take weeks to come up with decisions so why is there a need to make it so time pressured in a form of exam.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 16:15:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__"The review is therefore welcome but sadly I fear nothing will change, especially given who is running it. I have nothing against Chris Mercer but he is one of the most old school of the old school."Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__100% agree with this. The only conclusion that is going to be drawn is that candidates are taking the exam far too early in their career. The quality of the exam is not going to be questioned. Sigh.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyThursday, 6 February 2020 at 13:58:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__"The only conclusion that is going to be drawn is that candidates are taking the exam far too early in their career.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__There's some pretty good reasons to believe this is true though. At the very least taking P6/FD4 at the same time as all the other finals, as soon as possible after the foundations, seems unwise but very common and indeed is promoted by senior people in a lot of firms.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:06:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__There are also very compelling reasons to think it's nonsense. For example: people who have passed every other exam with flying colours failing. People with extensive experience of giving actual infringement and validity opinions failing. People who have resat the exam multiple times and are 10+ years in to their careers after successfully prosecuting hundreds of applications failing. That strongly suggests a serious failing of theFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__exam rather than candidates.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyFriday, 7 February 2020 at 08:42:00 GMTFeb 09 12:50
schestowitz__" People who have resat the exam multiple times and are 10+ years in to their careers after successfully prosecuting hundreds of applications failing.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__Need I point out the obvious issue that experience of patent prosecution is not experience of giving opinions on infringement and validity? The people I know who are repeat takers/failers of P6/FD4 are typically very capable at patent prosecution (which is why they're still in the business) but often work in firms with little or no exposure to infringement issues.Feb 09 12:50
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 09:58:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__And to the candidate who does give opinions on infringement and validity, yet fails?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Are you really suggesting there is no overlap in skills between prosecution and infringement/validity? Opposition work alone stems from infringement issues. Attorneys limit during opposition with a very clear eye on an infringement.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Aside from this, is setting an exam in an area that a candidate has no opportunity to develop skills in is an acceptable barrier to entry?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 11:32:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Gilman, there are many examples of people who are very good at carrying out infringement and validity analyses and indeed do a lot of these in real-life but still fail at P6 because the exam is not about experience, but rather about some mysterious exam technique. I refer you to Ron's comment in the blogpost. How do you explain this?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__MaxDreiSaturday, 8 February 2020 at 13:33:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__I read that many candidates fail, who do little else in the office all day other than FTO opinions, and that this can't be right.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Really? Just because you drive motor vehicles all day long, on a country estate, and have done little else for years, doesn't mean that passing the driving test is a foregone conclusion.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Or, put it another way: you seek a patent attorney, and the job applicant assures you that his (or her) FTO opinions are safe, it's just that he's yet to pass the Paper. Is that enough reassurance?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__AnonymousSaturday, 8 February 2020 at 15:26:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Alternatively, you seek a patent attorney, and the job applicant assures you that his (or her) FTO (or validity/infringement) opinions are safe on the sole basis that they have passed the Paper, but otherwise have no experience in this area. Is that enough reassurance?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Such passers of the paper do exist!Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__The two examples above get to the purported heart of the issue: Is FD4 fit for purpose? Some say yes, some say no!Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Who is right?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Is there a third way that avoids such reductive conclusions? Hopefully the review will find out.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__AnonymousWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 16:52:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__I have 2 comments (which I don't think have been addressed before).Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Firstly, a little bit in defense of the examiners - the exam may be flawed, but it is patent attorneys setting these papers, in their spare time, and not really being paid for it (I mean there is a stipend involved, but honestly it is far less than their professional rate) so please don't think they are doing it for money. If they wanted to make money then they'd be better off at work.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Secondly, I do appreciate the advantages of a university course, but personally I trained in a small (1/2 person) in house department. If the professional qualification was restricted to attendance at a university course it would not have been an option for me. I know I am not alone in this fact. So we should make sure that any future changes keep the professional qualification route open for all areas of the profession. It may haveFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__actually helped me qualify to be honest as being in house means that this type of advice was more in my daily work and I actually passed first time. Which to me speaks to experience and not academic training as being the most important factor (this is based on an n of about 3 though...). So whilst an academic course may help improve the pass rate, I strongly believe that it will then change what is tested. Maybe we want to do this,Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__but it is not just a case of replace.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyThursday, 6 February 2020 at 08:03:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__I second every single word of this. I also work in-house in a small department, I also have to do way more infringement/validity work which is what made passing the exam easier, I also don't think I'd been able to qualify if I'd had to have taken a university course to do it.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__MaxDreiThursday, 6 February 2020 at 09:21:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__I'm with you here. I qualified in the 1970's and I suspect the thinking inside CIPA is still as it was then, that qualifying means more than regurgitating book learning. Rather, the qualification is a licence to practise, that the public can have confidence that, when it consults a CPA it will get sound, business-like and reliable advice, a solid basis for commercial decisions in the real world, advice which focusses on the key pointsFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__and won't drop the client in a hole.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Isn't this an utterly different proposition from the EPO qualifying exams? Isn't it really really hard to teach? Isn't it an enquiry into whether each supplicant has aptitude enough for the profession that he or she is "safe to let loose on the public"?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__I guess that in my day there was more time for tutoring, less pressure to bill hours.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__But please, hang on to the best of training in the UK. here in germany, faith is put in the "Amtsjahr" for getting candidates qualified. totoring is delegated to the Patent Office and the Patent Court. No wonder patent attorneys in Germany are inclined to give their clients unhelpful advice.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__The old-fashioned, classic, British training route gives UK patent attorneys an edge over the patent attorneys of every other country in the world. Do not squander that unique USP, that unique advantage to companies who choose a UK patent attorney as their outside counsel.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 09:37:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Anonymous - Wednesday, 5 February 2020 at 16:52:00 GMTFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Unless the examiners are equity partners or their billing is tied to their salary, their professional rate is irrelevant.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__Out of interest, is any examiner willing to disclose how much they get paid per marked paper?Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__The flip side of your argument is that candidates have to pay thousands of pounds of their own money to the benefit of private tutors and examiners. Equally, hundreds of hours have been spent by candidates preparing for the exam compared to the mere hour some examiners spend marking an individual paper (an examiner told me this is how long they spend marking each paper). Further, career progression and thus earning potential ofFeb 09 12:51
schestowitz__candidates is stalled.Feb 09 12:51
schestowitz__There is an underlying implication when referencing how the examiners are giving up their own time that they are somehow the "guardians" of the profession. Yet, we do not know who they are, how they are appointed or what makes them in anyway qualified to decide who is "competent".Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Gilman Grundy - Thursday, 6 February 2020 at 08:03:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Whilst working in-house helped you, that is not a viable option for other members of the profession. As per comments above, there are serious doubts whether FD4 does in fact assess a candidate's ability to do infringement/validity work.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 09:42:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__"The old-fashioned, classic, British training route gives UK patent attorneys an edge over the patent attorneys of every other country in the world. Do not squander that unique USP, that unique advantage to companies who choose a UK patent attorney as their outside counsel."Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Have you any evidence to back that claim up?Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyThursday, 6 February 2020 at 13:52:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__It's a credible claim based on:Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__1) The much higher pass-rate of UK candidates in the EQEs than any other substantially-sized national grouping. 91% of UK candidates passed Paper A last year, compared to 79% for France and 78% for Germany. A lead of ~5-10% in pass-rate for UK candidates over FR/DE is consistently seen across all the final exam papers. Italy, Spain and other such middle-rank countries normally score around ~50% in terms of average pass-rate in the EQEFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__finals (though unlike GB/FR/DE they have an added linguistic barrier to overcome).Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__2) Considering the US doesn't have a real patent attorney exam - the closest is the USPTO patent bar exam for patent agents, which is a single multiple-choice test that no US attorney I've ever spoken to believes credibly tests ability.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__3) With the exception of Japan, no other major jurisdiction outside Europe has a well-established, high-quality examining system for attorneys. The Japanese one is infamously difficult but beyond this it is hard to say much about it.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 14:47:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__2 and 3 aren't evidence mateFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 14:56:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__It is not a credible claim based on those reasons.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Higher UK pass rates for the EQEs does not support the above claim that QUALIFIED UK attorneys have an edge over their peers in other countries THAT APPARENTLY ARISES FROM THE UK QUALIFICATION SYSTEM. I doubt clients consider EQE pass rates (or are even aware of FD4) when selecting outside counsel.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__If I a not mistaken, hasn't it been said ability to pass EQEs is not indicative of ability to pass UKs... can't have it both ways by rolling out EQE pass rates to justify the UK qualification system.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Certain UK attorneys don't believe FD4 credibly tests ability either, and thus compares well with the US system.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__The above statement remains unsubstantiated.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 15:43:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Yes, UK candidates in terms of stats do better but PEB does not see that UK candidates are also the WORSE PAID trainees and attorneys around the world. The simple answer is -PEB is holding back able candidates from earning a better living.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 15:45:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__PEB always has this arrogance. You can see this in their marking scheme. Candidates need to work harder, why are you thinking like this, this is so obvious... this is basic topic... PEB think 75% of candidates who fail are clearly too stupid to stay in the profession.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 15:54:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__I can see P2 helping a little bit.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Unfortunately, P6 is no help whatsoever for EQE exams.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Many candidates don't sit P3 and P4. I don't think PEB exams actually help that much with EQEs.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:08:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__"If I a not mistaken, hasn't it been said ability to pass EQEs is not indicative of ability to pass UKs... can't have it both ways by rolling out EQE pass rates to justify the UK qualification system."Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__This is very simple. If we train to a higher standard in the UK (and by all evidence we do) then our trainees, even those who fail the UK exams, are better placed to pass the EQEs than those from other countries. There is no contradiction here.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__I'm also not sure why anyone would want an exam that tests essentially the same skills, to essentially the same level as the EQEs - what would the point be of testing the same things twice?Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Either we do what they do in e.g., Italy, and have an easy-to-pass national exam that essentially weeds out complete no-hopers, or we have exams that set a higher standard than the EQEs in an effort to encourage better performance. In the UK we have chosen the later. The former is done in many other European countries but is now a bit pointless since the pre-exam for the EQEs was introduced.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:46:00 GMTFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__And the evidence for this higher standard of training due to the UK exams (implied by your comment "even those that have failed") can be found where? EQE pass rates don't tell us how many of those candidates have sat or even prepared for UK exams. Plus if it is true that all UK exam failures are due to candidates taking exams too early as is widely alleged, then we must equally accept that they did not train properly for them and canFeb 09 12:52
schestowitz__get no benefit for the EQEs.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__There is still a contradiction - if the exams are different, training for one set will not help the other. Surely the only logical conclusion is that UK candidates have better EQE training than their peers on the continent. Training for UK exams will not help with different EQEs.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__Irrespective of the above, EQE pass rates tell us nothing about the unsubstantiated claim that UK attorneys "have an edge over their peers in other countries".Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__I don't think anyone is suggesting we should not have a process which merely "weeds out complete no-hopers", but rather that the current process is far from satisfactory.Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__"higher standard than the EQEs in an effort to encourage better performance"..... the evidence that this is what happening is to be found where?Feb 09 12:52
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:57:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Making people attempt poorly formed exams IN THE HOPE that they improve EQE performance is mental.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Why not just train people better for EQEs and get the pass rate up that way? Same result, less stress. Probably less money as well.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:58:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__"Surely the only logical conclusion is that UK candidates have better EQE training than their peers on the continent."Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__This is worth considering but doesn't match what is known (i.e., all the facilities for training that we have in the UK are available on the continent and as far as can be seen the in-firm training is basically the same, some of the best training facilities are based on the continent).Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__"EQE pass rates don't tell us how many of those candidates have sat or even prepared for UK exams."Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__I'd wager that there's more than a little over-lap between the ~200-odd PEB examinees and the ~200-odd UK EQE examinees trooping to Walsall (of all places!) each year, wouldn't you?Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 18:38:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__"as far as can be seen the in-firm training is basically the same, some of the best training facilities are based on the continent"Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Where can I read about comparisons between all in-firm training schemes?Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__"I'd wager...."Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Still not seeing any evidence here.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyFriday, 7 February 2020 at 08:36:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__This article's as good a place to start as any:Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__https://www.managingip.com/Article/3885597/Managing-Patents-Archive/EPO-exam-results-why-the-UK-tops-the-class.htmlFeb 09 12:53
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.managingip.com | EPO exam results: why the UK tops the class | Managing Intellectual PropertyFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 09:51:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__EQE pass rates tell us nothing about the allegedly superior qualified UK attorney. There has been no attempt to address this point.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__This article is not evidence of your claim made above. The opening line "lawyers offering differing views on why" does not even come close to evidence of the above claim that UK exams lead to better performance in EQEs which leads to UK attorneys having an edge over their peers in other countries to the extent clients chose UK counsel.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__It is crucial that unsubstantiated facts such as UK attorneys having an edge over their peers (seemingly due to FD4) in other countries play no part in the Mercer Review. There might be valid reasons to keep FD4, but exceptionalism is not one of them.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 21:37:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Alot of people take EQEs before they take the PEB exams. So it's difficult to correlate between the two exams.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__MaxDreiWednesday, 5 February 2020 at 19:24:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Please forgive, if the comment which follows has been made already, in this already long thread.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__I got on the UK Register early enough to be grandfathered on to the EPO Register. Back then, there were pass rates as low as 12.5%. I remember wondering what were my chances of passing. I remember telling people (after I had passed) that these were the first exams in my life (including Oxford University Finals) for which mere hard work was not sufficient for success. Rather, without talent for the profession, one would never pass. IFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__had in mind the drafting Paper but, even more than that, the Paper called back then "Interpretation and Criticism".Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__And then came the EPO exams. And then, for me, some years later, came 25 years of practice in Germany. the world of practice today bears little relation to the one of the 1970's, when I qualified.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Reading the thread, what occurs to me is this: that everybody knows what the syllabus is for the EPO exams and what competences are being tested. But, for the UK exam, there is confusion. The 50 year old notion of competence, tested by the UK qualification exams and presumably the driving force in CIPA circles, is to find out whether the candidate is "safe to let loose on the public".Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__That is a much more diffuse objective than merely competence to practise before the EPO. How are candidates and trainers, in today's ever more rapidly changing world, supposed to know what "safe to let loose on the public" means, these days? How do advisers and critics from the world of academia understand that objective? How can trainees, doing nothing other than prep, pros and occasional oppositions at the EPO, even begin to get aFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__feel for it?Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 09:10:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__the world of practice today bears little relation to the one of the 1970's, when I qualified.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__The world of practice has changed a lot just in the 15 years I've been in the profession. We live in an ever more complex world and the patent profession needs to change to reflect that.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__I was actually quite surprised when the EQE removed the option of the chemistry paper. Specialization is common in other walks of life, yet all patent attorneys are expected to be mechanical engineers. This does not reflect the reality of the job in the slightest.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__The time has come for a complete rethink.Feb 09 12:53
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 11:39:00 GMTFeb 09 12:53
schestowitz__Just change the rules so that every year every patent firm has to send a sacrificial equity partner to sit P6, and if they fail they are deemed not "fit to practice" and removed from the register. P6 would be miraculously fixed overnight.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__I'm being flippant, but we all know it would work. Suddenly the narrative would flip from "in my day P6 was even harder" to "in my day P6 was a proper exam, this is an outrage".Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 14:52:00 GMTFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__Thank you for a most entertaining comment. :-) The only reason this is never going to be implemented is because we'll have equity partners dropping off the register like flies.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 12:53:00 GMTFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__The discussion above is long overdue.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__For years, I simply accepted that failure of FD4/P6 meant I just was not ready to practise, aka not safe to be let loose on the public, not competent, or a "bit of an idiot" (actual quote).Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__Not only that, I ignored all of the evidence to the contrary: 10+ years of experience, drafting infringement/validity/FTO opinions, drafting and prosecuting applications worldwide including extensive UKIPO work; reading and writing practice notes on several UK court decisions, representing clients by myself before the ED, OD, and BoA; positive reviews at work, positive feedback from clients, you get the idea....Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__It was only the reaction to 2018's paper on this blog did I begin to question what had been deeply instilled as to the merits of FD4/P6. I have no longer have any confidence in the procedure: changing the pass mark without any acknowledgement of a mistake, PEB's non-apology (expressing regret is not an apology), equating failure to lack of readiness and preparation, ignoring the Middlesex review, etc.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__The sole defence that I see repeatedly aired is that FD4/P6 is a test of readiness to practise. However, that is wholly irreconcilable with failure regularly being attributed with inadequate training for the exam. If it truly is a test for the former, the latter would simply not be required.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__As to changes, simply saying that all potential alternatives are worse for whatever reason does not address the fundamental issue: F44/P6 is not fit for purpose since it in no way ensures a competent candidate passes.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__I wish to thank this blog for enlightening me. If not, I doubt I would still be in the profession.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 13:20:00 GMTFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__"The sole defence that I see repeatedly aired is that FD4/P6 is a test of readiness to practise. However, that is wholly irreconcilable with failure regularly being attributed with inadequate training for the exam. If it truly is a test for the former, the latter would simply not be required."Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__That is something I never thought about but is actually a great point!Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 15:55:00 GMTFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__Likewise, I've never seen this point expressed in this way before. It is interesting.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__I guess what we're working up to here is a requirement for a certain number of years practice before being eligible to sit FD4/P6. Perhaps success in P2 (or P3 & P4, or the EQE!) could be another requirement.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 21:41:00 GMTFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__But why do we feel the need to add more obstacle to keep delaying ones progression. Yes, the public needs to know that they are dealing with a safe pair of hands but if we keep putting barriers up, no one will get to the end of qualification. No other country does this to their own national profession.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 13:32:00 GMTFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__In my view the main issue is with P6 is the nature of the paper itself. Marks are allocated in an objective way with little flexibility to something which has an inherently subjective element to it.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__P6 is then basically a kind of tea-leaf-reading-for-patent-attorneys exercise, where you can only pass if the features you’ve assigned the most importance to (in terms of words written in your script) perfectly align with the points the examiners had in mind.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__Some may argue that you just construe every claim word/element and everything follows from a solid construction. However, the subjectivity comes in to play later on in the actual infringement and validity: how do you decide how important one claim element is over another? It’s obvious in some cases but for the key features where the big marks are scored, it is very difficult to know how much depth is required on one point. However,Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__the examiners seem to consider that this is an objective exercise with a clear answer. This results in candidates going down rabbit holes where few marks are available.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__This could easily be resolved in my view but it requires acknowledgement that there is subjectivity and that two different answers can qualitatively both be “good” infringement and validity opinions.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__If you disagree, compare to real life: two experienced attorneys can come to very different views on the finer points in an infringement and validity opinion.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 13:57:00 GMTFeb 09 12:54
schestowitz__To add to your frustration, it has been suggested to me that the mark scheme only exists to appease PEB's desire to increase transparency, and Examiners at best use it as a vague guide. Changing the pass mark last year would suggest there is some truth in this.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__If this is true, the mark scheme has only made matters worse for those who trust it.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__In fairness, this is not PEB's fault but that of the examiners' obstinance. I am old enough to remember the old examiners' comments, 2012 p6 example: "Tried too hard to get to a "set" answer and as a result inf and nov were very poor."Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__Of course, always remember all exams are imperfect, except P6.Feb 09 12:54
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 15:50:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__This is exactly what I mean when I say passing P6 is basically tea-leaf reading.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__"Tried to hard to get a set answer" = "fail"Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__Write a careful infringement/validity opinion on a claim feature the examiners don't consider to be worthy of merit = "fail"Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__Thus the only way to pass is to somehow anticipate where the "salient points" will be in the opinion of the examiner who marks your script. They have an idea in their mind (which they think is right, even when it deviates from the mark scheme) and mark accordingly.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:11:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__hence, its fair to say P6/FD4 has a strong element of luck.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__BingaThursday, 6 February 2020 at 15:49:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__My opinion is that we simply need to move away from this examination culture. Make FD4 coursework based. Students would actually enjoy learning it. I would make P2 the same. Patent law is something that should be regularly discussed.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__With the current system, I see attorneys completely ignoring P2 and P6 once they've passed.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 15:52:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__I think most people in the profession (trainees, associates, attorneys, senior attorneys, partners) and small firms, industry, large private firms ALL want to see the exam system radically changed.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__How long will PEB/CIPA take over this. We seem to be having many reviews but NO action. I've been asking for changes for years. Some of my colleagues were talking about trying to change things in the early 1990s.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__The world and the profession has moved on.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__Is this another review with no end point?Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ACThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:01:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__I hear a lot of comments asking for university style exam for advanced papers. Why not have these exams taught by attorneys, set by attorneys and marked by attorneys. The whole point is that candidates get taught a similar thing. The problem we have is that some are learning on their own with no guidance whatsoever.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__I know some attorneys already go into university to teach foundations.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:04:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__After the uproar of FD4, they must surely change it. It would be the most depressing thing and obviously completely ignore many people's view. We want the exams to be robust but not so ridiculous that we are losing talented people and no one is qualifying. Clients are not going to thank CIPA if they have very limited options to select attorneys they want. There are so much more than just qualification - you need to be able to interactFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ it also depends on specialist topics of the attorney. Having a limited pool of attorneys is no good for the public.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyFriday, 7 February 2020 at 08:18:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__"After the uproar of FD4, they must surely change itFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__It's worth noting that the post-exam changing of the mark scheme that occurred last year in the PEB exams happens most years in the EQEs. It was not a good thing to happen, but framing it as a catastrophe is a bit over the top.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:21:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__Someone above made a brilliant point about the long-term impact of these exams.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__Its not simply a case of not passing a for a few years. This has a substantial impact on their career progression to partner level when they do pass. I guess in industry, its the same for promotions etc... I would say that there is a lot more to exams. We are losing people who have good leadership but are unable to become leaders (i.e. promoted) because of 1 or 2 exams. We have lost specialists i.e. skills in software knowledgeFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__because they can get paid just as much and more without the hassle of exams.Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 20:53:00 GMTFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__Is Mercer going to look at the impact of exams on career, wages, work/life balance etc...Feb 09 12:55
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:55
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 16:28:00 GMTFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Wouldn't it make sense to make FD4 much much clearer. The EPO expect one answers and tries to make sure this is the case. I don't understand why PEB make these exams so open ended. Everyone will interpret things differently.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Time is a huge problem and they should reduce contents. If they can't, I'm in favour of coursework. I don't agree with extending the exam time limit because it will only give examiners more room to slowly increase the workload during the exam time.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__This is already the case where it went from 4 hours to 5 hours. Candidates are now expected to do more in 5 hours so an extra hour is no longer helpful.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 20:52:00 GMTFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__It used to be the case that more marks were awarded for construction and infringement/novelty for the 4 hour exam. You can pass just on this even if you don't finish. Ever since they switched to 5 hours, they've moved the marks more to inventive step so candidates are under more pressure to get through everything just to pass.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__So I am strongly against time extension of exam. Move it back to 4 hours and reduce number of claims.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 17:45:00 GMTFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__My firm pays for a P6 examiner to tutor trainees. I think we should all want to get away from this.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__I dont have any problem with the examiner being a tutor if he is particularly brilliant at infringement and validity analysis but i'm pretty sure that is not why he was selected. He was selected to teach people how to pass the exam. nothing to do with knowledge of case law about interpretation, special insights about infringement, relevant experience etc..Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__We should all as a profession want to move away from the type of test where people are being trained to pass the exam. In my mind it would be a lot more interesting, and beneficial for the profession as a whole, if the tutor could equally be an ex-judge, barrister, solicitor etc. After all, they will all likely deal with the issues of infringement and validity more often than patent attorneys. This is simply not possible with P6 atFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__the moment.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__I think it would be better to move to a course work based assessment, of similar length and content to a UKIPO opinion. That way, legal arguments can be considered alot more.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Inventive step attacks can be properly planned instead of having about 45 mins to do I/S for about 5 claims.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Maybe this would also give people more confidence to actually use their rights of audience as well?Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__As a side note, it would be interesting to know what qualifications a UKIPO examiner needs to give his non-binding opinion on infringement and validity.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 20:49:00 GMTFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__I'm with you on this. I think a coursework approach would be beneficial. Patent attorney shouldn't be giving out advice with so much time constraint and without thinking through their advice. The nature of the exam is so extreme that most candidates rush their answers. I think it sends out the wrong signal. Yes, we are under pressure in our jobs but we have so much more resources available at our fingertips so I don't buy thisFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__argument that attorneys should be put under intense pressure.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Doctors don't rush their operations, dentists don't do a 2 minute job on an root canal and judges take their time over deciding their full judgement so why are we expected to provide advice on infringement and analysis on a time-scale that is unrealistic.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Anon Y. MouseThursday, 6 February 2020 at 17:48:00 GMTFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Some years ago, when I was preparing to take P6 (as it was called then), I happened to mention this to an IP barrister friend. His response was an airily dismissive "Oh, yes; that's the paper that we all think is really easy but all of you seem to find really difficult!"Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Now, said friend hasn't taken the UK qualifying exams, and (to my knowledge) there aren't many barristers who have, so this remark seemed to be coming from a position of looking at what's in the papers themselves as though they were to be treated as a real-world exercise, getting straight to the actually-relevant points, rather than applying the artificially formulaic approach which the exam demands. This flags up a glaringFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__inconsistency between the way in which one is supposed to approach the exam and how one would approach a real-world validity/infringement opinion.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__In particular, it seems to be widely-understood (and reflected in the mark schemes for past papers) that candidates are expected to construe every term in the claims, even where it is self-evident that some of these terms will have no bearing on the conclusion. It’s all very well saying that candidates “don’t need to” do this, but on a paper where so many people only narrowly squeak over the boundary is a candidate reallyFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__going to take the risk of omitting a construction of an irrelevant term which could nevertheless gain them another half-mark or so?Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Then there’s the shifting distribution of marks, and in particular the tendency I’ve noticed in recent years for more and more marks to be allocated to inventive step in the final mark scheme. In principle this is all well and good but it completely misses the fact that inventive step cannot be addressed until both construction and novelty have been done. With the formulaic approach that seems to be required, candidates areFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__necessarily going to take up a good chunk of the available time churning through construction and novelty before they are able to tackle inventive step. It is no good allocating more marks to inventive step each year, and then complaining that candidates’ answers on inventive step are poor, when the approach which is demanded doesn’t allow candidates much flexibility in how they allocate their time.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Another trend that keeps recurring (and potentially worsening) is for there to be multiple independent claims, multiple embodiments of the invention, multiple potential infringements, multiple prior art embodiments, etc. Obviously I understand that this is intended to create various possible outcomes but it simply creates a proliferation of issues that consume more and more time in construction/novelty/infringement.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Perhaps some of these issues could be alleviated if an indication were to be given on the cover sheet of how many marks are available for each of construction, novelty, obviousness, infringement, sufficiency, and advice? Candidates would then, perhaps, be able to judge their time allocation and the detail of their answers more efficiently, spending less time on “precautionary” construction of irrelevant claim features if the paperFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__is weighted less heavily towards awarding marks for construction. A degree of restraint from the examiners regarding the “multiplicity” issue would also be welcome – I’m not saying that the exam should be restricted to a single claim, single embodiment, etc.; that would be going too far the other way. But having every possible issue of multiplicity on the table just creates a nightmare scenario for time management and bordersFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__on the sadistic.Feb 09 12:56
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__Anon Y. MouseThursday, 6 February 2020 at 18:15:00 GMTFeb 09 12:56
schestowitz__I don’t agree that limiting eligibility to sit the exam, e.g. to those with a certain number of years’ experience, would help. Nor would replacing the exam with a "portfolio-based" approach, as I've seen suggested elsewhere. The type of work that trainees are presented with is highly variable depending on which firm they are with and who their clients are. Having more years’ experience doesn’t necessarily mean that the traineeFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__will be more familiar with infringement and validity advice; it could even be the case that the firm has no work available in infringement or validity matters! Partners can often be reluctant to allocate such work to a trainee, anyhow. And, in the end, the exam bears so little resemblance to reality that more experience in infringement & validity matters seems unlikely to be of any benefit, and could potentially be detrimental!Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__A coursework-type approach, allowing candidates time to write a full, reasoned opinion, sounds ideal in principle but how could it be ensured that there were no issues of plagiarism and/or candidates getting "help" from more senior attorneys to write their opinions?Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Finally, a couple of words in defence of the exam (and the examiners). I don't necessarily agree with the idea that the examiners penalise candidates for getting the "wrong" answer arising from a “wrong” construction. The whole point of an infringement/validity analysis is that there are terms which could be construed differently and which could radically affect the conclusions reached. What I was always taught was that theFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__important thing was to provide a justification for your preferred construction, and to ensure that all subsequent advice was consistent with that construction, regardless of whether or not it matches the “model” outcome. At least when I took P6, my own analysis and conclusions were *wildly* different from those of the Examiners but I still achieved a pass mark. And as to the criticism that the exams favour those working inFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__mechanical fields – I don’t really see this as an issue. The subject-matter generally relates to quite simple, everyday devices that don’t require extensive mechanical experience to understand. I really don’t think chemists (like me!) and biotech specialists are going to be unduly bamboozled by, say, craft knives or covers for water butts…Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 19:10:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I think the first priority should be to get a test that is representative of real life and then worry about cheating.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__At some point you need to rely on the ethical conduct of a person (even if they have passed P6)Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Does your firm ask graduates how many of their modules were coursework based? They could have cheated during their degree?Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 20:31:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__For the coursework style exam - this can be easily resolved. There are plenty of anti-plagiarism software out there which CIPA/PEB can employed. You can assign each group different scenarios.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I think the current FD4/P6 is not working and is clear to most people. I would be happy for CIPA/PEB to try a different method. The coursework route would seem realistic.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Otherwise, we end up sticking with the exam and then a few years later, this issue flares up again.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 20:39:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Anon - in principle, yes P6/FD4 is meant to be designed like this. But in practice, its not like this and there is an element of luck. I passed P6 on my first attempt and thought I could start training the next batch of trainees. I always try to sit the paper myself first to see where the common mistakes are. Unfortunately, I would've failed most of them from 2014 onwards. This led me to think that P6/FD4 really is "on the day". I'veFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__qualified near to 5 years but I can honestly say I have no confidence in passing this exam again. So I completely understand why people say P6/FD4 is a lottery game.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 07:57:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I'm not sure if my previous reply submitted properly, so if you get two replies along the same line, its the same person :).Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Cheating - What procedures are in place to ensure qualified attorneys follow IPREG rules?Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__This is an area of a patent attorneys practice which depends on their ethical conduct. Following these rules will likely have a greater impact on most clients than cheating in the P6 exam. Yet most people are happy for adherence with these rules to be based on trust. Why the double standards?Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyFriday, 7 February 2020 at 08:22:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__" There are plenty of anti-plagiarism software out there which CIPA/PEB can employed."Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Anyone familiar with academic plagiarism will recognise just how little software can actually achieve against it. If people can cheat, they will, and the entire validity of the qualification is brought into question.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 09:42:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__"If people can cheat, they will"Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I'm not so sure about that. What would YOU do if someone came to you asking to copy your answers? I'm betting you would probably report it? You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself, but why don't you think everyone else would do the same?Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__"and the entire validity of the qualification is brought into question."Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I think P6 is already considered a joke. Most candidates that pass have no idea about relevant case law from the English courts concerning interpretation. In fact, the book published by CIPA specifically tells people not to bother with it. People have literally no idea if the advice they are giving is up to date with how the issues are interpreted in the english courts...Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 10:02:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__"If people can cheat, they will"Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I am actually speechless - that is certainly not my view of peopleFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 10:11:00 GMTFeb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I don't know why you think people would jeopardise 3+ years spent training and their future career when they could just read a bit of case law and spend a bit more time working on their opinion?Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__The risk of getting caught far outweighs the reward.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__Also, it doesn't really make sense. If you cheat with another person sitting the exam, they have the same level of knowledge as you. So why would you believe their opinion over yours?Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__I think it is commonly agreed that there is hardly anyone who does regular I&V opinions.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__So going to a random associate/senior associate wouldn't help you.Feb 09 12:57
schestowitz__You would need to find the person who does regular I&V opinions, most likely a partner. If they are willing to help you cheat then there are a lot bigger problems than one P6 cheater.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 10:37:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__It would be very easy to have multiple scenarios if you really believe this a threat.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Each document could have five statements that could vary. e.g.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__"a bull dog clip is a well known alternative to a paper clip" orFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__"a bull dog clip is not an alternative to a paper clip"Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__You have 5 of these variables in each document you are given (four docs. currently), then you would never have the same scenario as anyone else that sits P6. Different facts, same legal analysis.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:32:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__I am up for people expressing opinions but please be more respectful. I think Gilman comments are a little disrespectful to trainees and attorneys. Why do you think they would cheat. These are highly skilled intelligent people who have been vigorously assessed throughout their entire lives. Why would partners would to aid their trainees to cheat. Its in their interest to have competent members of staff. The real test is work for theFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__client. To suggest that people would cheat is a bit surprising coming from a fellow person in the profession. Yes there should be checks in place but don't paint everyone under the same brush.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__What about passing exam on a lottery. Is that cheating? Should we make everyone take the exam 3 times just to check they really do know how to passFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:39:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Its in the interest of current attorneys and partners to have capable and competent trainees for their clients. Why would they be aiding cheaters.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Makes no sense why trainees would want to cheat. They have been heavily examined all their lives. Its in their interest to understand it well as they will be facing clients.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__You can have a viva similar to what they do at PhD level. If they explain well what they've done and why they've done it that way then that's good to me.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Nothing to see here, move alongThursday, 6 February 2020 at 20:01:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__The Middlesex Report appears to have been taken down. Is anyone able to make a copy available?Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 12:10:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__I asked IPReg for a copy today and they emailed me a pdf of the report.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:23:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Any chance you could post it on here or ask Ipkat to add a link to it.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 19:02:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Done - I emailed the IPKat gmail account a few hours ago asking Rose if she can add it to the article.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Rose HughesFriday, 7 February 2020 at 21:09:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__A link to the report has now been added!Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 21:24:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Rose has now edited the post to include a link to the article - thank you!Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 21:31:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__Great thanks. Shall take a good read of it this weekendFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__AmieeFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__MRThursday, 6 February 2020 at 21:02:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__I think Mercer means well and if he is willing to take on board the comments here and feedback from others in formal responses than that should be a good thing.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__However, if Mercer recommends any of the changes and PEB/CIPA do not implement them quickly, then this would be a slap in the face for all of us.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__MRThursday, 6 February 2020 at 21:04:00 GMTFeb 09 12:58
schestowitz__I should also add that there has been a disconnection between exams and real-life work for a while now and this needs addressing.Feb 09 12:58
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__SummariserThursday, 6 February 2020 at 21:22:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__If Chris Mercer happens to be reading this - I just want to summarise the common themes are so farFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__It feels most want FD4/P6 to change. The most popular suggestion is to move towards a coursework based assessment allowing candidates time to develop an understanding and study infringement & validity analysis in depth. The hope is the quality of infringement & validity opinions would be at a much higher standard. I can see this being a credible route as I've seen some terrible infringement & validity opinion reports from qualifiedFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__attorneys in the past.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Second is a university style exam - There are issues surrounding whether an academic study course would be a suitable replacement for advanced exams given that it is meant to be a fitness to practice exam and academics may not be suited to deliver this. On the other hand, candidates would be learning from the same source. The course could be taught by attorneys and exams set by attorneys. I do share some of the worries here for thisFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__type of testing.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Keep it the same as it is. I think this is definitely not an option anymore. Otherwise, what's the point of this review. Most would agree that we should change the exam.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Reduce content in exam and allow more time for candidates to develop their construction. Some have asked for it to be more like Paper C in that there must be one right answer. This again would be an ideal solution that I would support but clear training and expectation would need to be clear to all candidates. Like many above, I'm against adding further time to these exam.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Follow the advanced trademark exams. I don't know enough about this area so perhaps someone could explain this further.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__P2/FD1 - Make it open book. The exam is about fitness to practice/advise clients not memorising the law. Limit to specific books. Calendars should be provided. I would agree with this too.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 22:35:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__If moving to a coursework based assessment is dismissed owing to ethical concerns, then the current set-up surely has to be open to similar scrutiny.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__JDD have recently advertised their 2020 courses. Some of the tutors are current examiners.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__How can setting the exam, marking the exam, and profiting from teaching how to pass the exam be anything other than a conflict on interests? Create the problem and sell the solution!Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__AnonymousThursday, 6 February 2020 at 23:00:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__I think Paper C has an ideal solution. I believe there may still be marks available for weaker attacks so perhaps not a yes/no answer but at least have marks available for alternative solution as well as the ideal solution. Time is a challenge.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__I like the new idea of a coursework style based assessment as it feels more realistic in the real working life. Infringement and validity analysis cannot be done properly in 5 hours.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__CWFriday, 7 February 2020 at 08:58:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__There are ways to combat ethical concerns regarding coursework assessment but one can also cheat in exams. In fact, people are more likely to want to cheat in exams.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__We all abide to the ethical code of conduct so to now suddenly say candidates will start cheating because its switched to coursework is a little far-fetched. There are some issues like the nature, type, how its assess etc... but these can be resolved. The coursework route as some mileage and I'm keen to support this.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 09:02:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Unfortunately, the examination system we have at the moment do favour the big firms who have the most resources for training. Coursework would at least address the imbalance in training and provide a more level-playing field between big, small firms and industry. I see this as a good thing so that all candidates have a chance.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Gilman GrundyFriday, 7 February 2020 at 09:52:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__"Coursework would at least address the imbalance in training and provide a more level-playing field between big, small firms and industry."Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Speaking as someone who qualified in a small department I do not recognise this at all. The cost of me taking P6/FD4 was basically the exam fee, a train-ticket, a hotel room in London for a night, a bit of study-time each week, and the Nigel Frankland P6 book. The total was probably no more than around £400.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Contrast this with the cost of being away from potentially work for weeks, at a university that may be hours travel away, to attend a course that will inevitably cost thousands. That's quite an ask for a small firm.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Consider also the impact this will have on people having to look after children and other dependants - particularly single parents.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__I for one do not believe I could have qualified at all this way.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 12:15:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__You don't need to go to university to do coursework....You just need the patent, prior art and infringing document sent to your email.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__If anything it would be cheaper to do coursework than an exam. No need to pay for the P6 book, no need for a train-ticket, or a hotel room. All you need is access to case law and access to UKIPO decisions for formatting.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__It would actually be better for people with children. Instead of having to get childcare for multiple whole days to practice past papers the person could dip in and out as and when fits.Feb 09 12:59
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 12:22:00 GMTFeb 09 12:59
schestowitz__Consider the impact of a repeatedly failing attorney who now has small children and has to pay £400 + for the exam fee alone, arrange childcare for 5 hours at weekends multiple times to sit an exam, stay in hotel the night before exam because they cannot be guaranteed sleep with young children teething. Easily £1000+.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__In the modern world, the time at lectures can be minimized if not avoided; remote learning for example. One of the justifications for FD4 time pressure is that it replicates the job. The same is true of remote discussions with clients.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__It seems some are of the view that FD4 is perfect and no changes are required. However any potential changes are fraught with insurmountable difficulties such as plagiarism, childcare, and single parents.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__There is a certain irony in referencing how your in-house experience got you through FD4, whilst expecting others without this advantage to accept FD4 the way it is.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:08:00 GMTFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__Gilman makes no sense. The exam fee alone is close to £500.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__Are you saying all training at the moment is equal for all trainees. I don't think so.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__I actually think coursework assessment is a good idea. It should be a tool for continual training and development as your career progresses. I bet if you ask for the exam scripts back - people will cringe at what they write. How many look back at their Fd4 scripts and thought what they wrote was the best I and V opinion.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__MatchFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:12:00 GMTFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__I see the coursework assessment addressing the imbalance in training and resources. I think there are some issues to think through but generally I quite like the idea.you will still need to do this in your own time along with work.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__Exams in general are very disruptive for a firm and for the individual.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 10:21:00 GMTFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__I wonder what Birss, Kitchen, Arnold et al. make of all this. Ultimately they hold the power for these decisions, so I'd be interested to hear their thoughts on how practitioners should be trained to approach these problems.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:03:00 GMTFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__No doubt they will definitely be against the stupid time pressures of FD4.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 10:59:00 GMTFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__Let's retain the current paper, as it does test an important skill. However, let's remove the time pressure and intimidating exam context entirely.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__For example, an exam similar to the present one could be taken on a given day (the same day for all candidates), however candidates would have any time between one hour and ten hours to complete the paper, and would quietly leave and assemble their answer-script in a supervised ante-room when finished. Potentially also on an "open black book" basis. How the candidate allocates their time is up to them - also a real-life skill.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__A more nuanced view of "no conferring" could be taken with a more risk-based attitude. How many loudmouths did I know who preened after the Exam telling everybody who listened that "X was definitely invalid over Y". If such comments were made during a break-time, how much would that really assist a second candidate? The skill of the Exam is in applying one's own construction coherently. Even if, in a less supervised context, there wasFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__a small degree of conferring - how much would that help a candidate?Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__With a more risk-based attitude to conferring, you could imagine a situation where the exam could be taken in a meeting room of a candidate's firm, under video camera supervision (with audio). An eight hour MP2 video is about 20 Gb? Gigabytes are cheap nowadays. The video of the exam room would be submitted along with the candidate's answer script, so that it would be easy to detect if serious bad faith had occurred (exam script beingFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__taken out of room, help being given during exam…). Initial candidate ID, and verification of unsealing and the sealing of the script, could be provided in the same video. PEB could sample a number of videos to ensure that rules were being adhered to. Disadvantage is what would happen in the case of a disrupted video recording - would that render the entire exam invalid?Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__Thus, the exam could be self-administrated by candidates or firms if the PEB could tolerate this level of risk, because the exam is not one that is easy to cheat convincingly even if isolated "hints" are given out.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__BkFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:01:00 GMTFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__Why not move to coursework if we are suggesting a 10 hour exam.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 11:27:00 GMTFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__Speedy Resolution:Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__What was the problem with the first review that a second review had to be instituted? As far as I recall, that one was pretty damning but nothing substantial was done off the back of it. For some reason, there were lots of tutorials on how to pass the exam and a handful of patent attorneys got rich teaching trainees the "correct" exam technique. Surely the only way to pass the exam should be by knowing how to carry out infringementFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__and validity analyses?Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__I don't think there is any need to carry out a further review. Many have offered perfectly good suggestions on here and the earlier posts on how to address the many failings of P6. What needs to be done is (i) someone to collate the responses from the blogposts, (ii) someone to circulate them to the PEB examining committee, (iii) examining committee to sit together and select one of the many perfectly sensible solutions and (iv)Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__someone to announce the final outcome to the rest of the profession.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__I am happy to do (i) and (ii) above by this weekend so that we can get (iii) and (iv) done by the end of this month. I really do not want to wait another six months before we get to find out what the second review has found and then another six months before anything is decided and then a whole year after that before the changes are implemented.Feb 09 13:00
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:00
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 21:27:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Thank you speedy resolution. We need to apply max pressure on CIPA to make sure changes take placeFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 13:00:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__I suppose this is "unspeak", but what the hell:Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Fact is, FD4 examines to a level of sophistication that 95% of UK patent attorneys do not need to apply in their day to day job of removing added matter from American and Japanese EPO filing instructions. There is already a defacto elite of practitioners who do I&V work versus those who churn the foreign instructions. It should be reflected in the exam system.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__My suggestion would be: de-fang FD4 and rename it "freedom to operate" with fairly trivial freedom-to-operate examples based on two or three short and easy patents and possibly infringing products. Some of it could even be multiple choice, like the pre-exam. You could have a graded difficulty level as you work through the exam.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__This would make the route to qualification for the majority of office-action churning people easier and less traumatic.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__The "difficult IV exam" (the present FD4) would be run as an optional extra certificate, either by CIPA or by a private provider. Masochists with an emotional need to feel extra special could sign up for the year-in, year-out punishment such an optional certificate could provide, and then acquire the kudos of being able to render an IV opinion.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__We already have a defacto mezzanine profession, why not reflect that in the Examination system?Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 13:21:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__"Unspeak" actually makes a valid point. But the outcome of such a "mezzanine", as he/she puts it, strikes at the heart of what a professional is. It also would not have a good outcome on salary levels, because there will be a commensurate impact on salary banding, as any Tom, Dick, and Harry (sorry, Thomasina, Dick, and Henrietta) are able to pass the exam first time. So how many of the people who bemoan the difficulty of FD4 will beFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__willing to accept a career-long reduction in earning potential of say 30%, for an "easier" qualification system? Roll up, roll up!Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__I don't think many of the moaners would like such an outcome. I think that what they want is an easier test, but still retaining the respect and earning potential that comes from acquiring CPA status. Shame.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 14:29:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Following your argument, your salary should be decreasing 30% now that you don't need to be an elite "CPA" to represent someone at the UKIPO?Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__I dont think it is.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__BkFriday, 7 February 2020 at 15:57:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__UK patent attorneys are one of the lowest paid compared to European, Asian and US counterparts.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Look at fellow and associate surveyFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__My reasoning is that these PEB exams hold back a person career for so long it has a negative long term impact on wages.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 13:38:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Soon AI will be able to do all of the added matter-type work. Patent attorneys will have to get to grips with I&V or leave the profession.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__RepliesFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 14:13:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__You've missed the point.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Most people acknowledge it is a skill worth knowing. It's just assessed in a completely unrepresentative way.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 14:32:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__No - I think we get the point so well that perhaps you are feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance? IV is difficult, ambiguous. It is hard to decide on in "real life", let alone an exam situation.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__The point is - Mercer should honestly and openly consider whether the profession should delete from the expected set of capabilities of a base-level UK patent attorney, the ability to perform a subtle IV analysis.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Once the simplified exam structure is in place, the complaints will drop off significantly. I hope people have paid off their mortgages, though.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 15:24:00 GMTFeb 09 13:01
schestowitz__"Mercer should honestly and openly consider whether the profession should delete from the expected set of capabilities of a base-level UK patent attorney, the ability to perform a subtle IV analysis."Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__Presenting it in this way is a false dichotomy. FD4 in its current form is not the only way to assess the ability to perform a subtle IV analysis. Barristers and judges have not taken FD4. Other countries don't have FD4 and IV is as relevant there as anyone else.Feb 09 13:01
schestowitz__All I see from FD4 purists are arguments for the status quo. Are you really that limited in thought that you can't see any way the process can be improved?Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 13:59:00 GMTFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__"Soon AI will be able to do all of the added matter-type work"Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Evidence?Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__The question of whether or not an amendment contains added subject-matter over a given disclosure is really dependent on the technical field of the skilled person - i.e. - the technical context of the patent application. AI is terrible at discovering and applying context (in text, images, audio).Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__ClarityFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:16:00 GMTFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__CIPA/PEB need to implement changes and stop ignoring review after review.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__The university report - can we have an explanation why most of this report was ignoredFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Are they going to ignore feedback from here and others as well. I sincerely hope they don'tFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 16:19:00 GMTFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Why hasn't the patent profession have a union.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__If it wasn't for Ipkat many of us in the profession would still be sitting at our desk in the dark.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__I'm glad most people here are in favour of change. The profession needs modernising.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__a nanny mouseFriday, 7 February 2020 at 17:19:00 GMTFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__We should recall that PEB and CIPA are (wo)manned by people, most of whom are genuinely trying to do their best. If we discourage them by ad hominum arguments, who will be left? I believe this review is being carried out in the spirit of good faith and with a genuine wish to listen and improve matters. And I thank the folk involved.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Someone said above 'Barristers and Judges don't do FD4' - very good point – although I do recommend keeping it.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__To all those who said things along the lines of - 'most (>95%) UK attorneys do agency office action work' - please remember, this may be true in your surroundings right now, but is not true generally, and may change for you in future – one never knows where life will take you! And what is more, there are many UK businesses and individuals who do seem to use our services!!Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__We are very well respected in the world of IP, and the success rate in the EPO exams shows our training works. I shall repeat that – our training (for EPs) works! Let’s not break it!Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__But it is seemingly not working for FD4.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Someone above mentioned the very good syllabus and training materials available for the EPO exams – is that the difference? (As an aside - are the CEIPI seminars still offered here to any and all who want to attend?)Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__As to reducing the amount of material in FD4 - this may well be a good idea, and making it open book (with, for example, only the black book allowed).Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Having written, taught and marked courses at university, I can see that Universities are driven by many things that do not sit at all well with a professional exam - needing to make a profit for example, needing to have people pass at certain grades, and pay fees (very expensive fees!). And attending a university course is almost impossible to fit in for those with caring responsibilities. The Bournemouth course style (3 shortFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__weekends and 3 months self-study) may be a good compromise.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__In summary – I suggest for FD4Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__- a revised, well drafted syllabus for FD4Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__- a(n) optional but recommended programme of 3-4 months of self-study materials, possibly with 1 or 2 short (optional) residential weekends, written by CPAs/RPAs possibly with academic assistance. The material at least available for free to those who have passed the foundations (very important for accessibility and diversity).Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__- an exam carefully drafted to test what is taught on the syllabus and in the programme of self-study (maybe give some guidance in each exam as to the number of terms that may need to be construed (yes I know in practice we don’t have this guidance – but we do have time to reflect and settle the issue before leaping in in practice)Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__- a reduction of material to read in FD4 itself (e.g. by 15-20%)Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__- 1 (or max 2) selected books to be allowed in an open book exam (e.g. the Black Book – and loaned to students in the exam if they cannot bring the office oneFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__- recommendation that you do not sit the exam until after 3 years in the profession and having dealt with, or at least reviewed in depth, at least two IV scenarios in practiceFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Read Max Drei’s comments too –sensible and respectfully delivered.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__Go Mercer team – work your magic and bring peace and comfort that we as a profession and PEB and CIPA as our organisations are listening and changing things whilst keeping what is working!Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__AFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__AnonymousFriday, 7 February 2020 at 21:25:00 GMTFeb 09 13:02
schestowitz__I would agree with most points from A. The exam needs a big reduction om content and clearer guidance.Feb 09 13:02
schestowitz__An good alternative proposal is coursework assessment. This is also some merit.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Most trainees wont get to do any I and V work as these are generally reserved for higher fee earners so coursework good well be a good way for candidates to actually gain some experience.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__MaxDreiFriday, 7 February 2020 at 22:57:00 GMTFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Emboldened by the encouragement from Nanny Mouse, I offer a further comment on the problem of examining for competence in I and V analysis.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__I wonder whether there is evidence of syllabus creep. When I sat Finals, in the 1970's, there were 5 Papers, two on drafting, two I+V and lastly, on the Friday, the Practice Paper. In I+V, the number of words to be read was reasonable. Is it really not possible to revert to that economical format?Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Consider the way they qualify in Germany. The Amtsjahr is spent in the Patent Office and the Patents Court. But with bifurcation, that court does validity but has no experience of infringement. So the outcome is that patent attorneys get qualified without being examined on their competence to write infringement opinions. This is one reason why UK patent attorneys have a standing avantage over those in Germany when competing for theFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__task of giving Europe-wide (even world-wide) business advice to corporate clients who want to have a reliable assessment of risk.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__When I qualified, the EPO had only just opened its doors for business. So, in my firm, all files were UK files. Now, given the success of the EPO, pretty much the only thing most trainees do is prosecute at the EPO. And this has been going on now for so long that pretty much the only experience the trainers of the trainees have is prosecution at the EPO. When UK opinion writing is examined, but hardly anybody is doing it within theFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__employer organisation, it is little wonder that trainees are failing the I+V exam and angry about it.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Can anybody provide a cite to the famous Theory Of Justice (Rawls, I think) which bases itself on the proposition that one writes a system of laws knowing that you will yourself be made subject to it, but what you don't know is which minority of society you will be born into (Jewish, say, or black). So, it is in your own interests to write the laws that will be fair to everybody. Those who devise the syllabus and write the examsFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__should put themselves in the position of a candidate sitting it.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__The clients cherish the solid and business-oriented advice they (often) get from UK patent attorneys. I think some sort of I+V exam is key to maintaining the market edge of UK patent attorneys. It should not be beyond the capabilities of CIPA to devise a procedure for testing aptitude to "tell the wood from the trees" when given a patent, an accused embodiment and a piece of prior art. My gut feeling is that some trainees have thisFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__talent, but others not, and the public deserves from the profession a qualifying exam that is fair and effective to separate the sheep from the goats. The very existence of a distinct UK patent attorney profession might depend on it.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__MaxDreiSaturday, 8 February 2020 at 07:00:00 GMTFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Justice? Rawls? Found it: "Original position".Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Here the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_positionFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__AnonymousSaturday, 8 February 2020 at 08:28:00 GMTFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__The coursework option is a plausible and reasonable option to test infringement and validity given the stresses of modern day.Feb 09 13:03
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-en.wikipedia.org | Original position - WikipediaFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__ReplyFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__RogaSaturday, 8 February 2020 at 10:57:00 GMTFeb 09 13:03
schestowitz__The suggestion to move towards coursework model of assessment is valid.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__I sat Fd4 a few times and in the year that I passed I didn't get to the inventive step and advice part. So FD4 does not provide a satisfactory outcome as most candidates pass by only completing some sections.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Coursework would at least allow candidates to tackle all sections of the paper: construction, infringement, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency and client advice.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__Off course the other option is to reduce content of materials tested in an exam. This may work but the variability every year is hard to control. My experience is that eventually Examiners feel the need to increase content of an exam paper (as it is now evident in the 5 hour paper where candidates are now expected to do more for marks) whilst everybody's handwriting gets slower.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__The other option is to increase exam time but it would be unacceptable and unfair to expect candidates to focus intensly for 6-7 hours. Bear in mind others may have exams the next day or two.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__So the option of coursework seems the most appropriate route for me.Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__"Feb 09 13:03
schestowitz__http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/02/05/the-signs-are-ominous-for-the-uks-participation-in-the-unified-patent-court/#commentsFeb 09 13:05
schestowitz__"Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__It is refreshing to have a more realistic view from a British scholar over the future of the UPC in post Brexit times. At least he does not have a finger in the pie.Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__It is very clear that in view of the political position taken by the PM, the UK will not participate in the UPC. It might not yet be dead, but a further nail has been added to its coffin. The mention of London in the agreement itself might not facilitate amending the UPCA.Feb 09 13:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | 'The signs are ominous' for the UK's participation in the Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent BlogFeb 09 13:05
schestowitz__I can fully endorse the proposal to rethink the whole of the UPC, but the initial question should be: do we need such an agreement if it is not endorsed by all the member states of the EU?Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__Furthermore, one way of avoiding a clash in case law in respect of validity would be to have the opposition period not limited to 9 months, but like the limitation or revocation, possible during the whole life of the patent. This would however limit a supra-national jurisdiction or national courts to only decide upon infringement.Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__It is a daring proposal, and in contrast with established practice, but it should not be dismissed at once. It would at least improve cooperation in IP matters and go over the strict limits of the EU.Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__This would however require that the Boards of Appeal of the EPO are truly independent from the general administration and the president of the EPO, and not merely the perception of their independence to be improved. May be the awaited decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court could help to move matters in this respect.Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__This could be an excellent topic for a conference of ministers of the Contracting States according to Art 4a EPC, which is long overdue.Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__"Feb 09 13:05
schestowitz__https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982191/Fugitive-American-wife-Anne-Sacoolas-wanted-death-Harry-Dunn-CIA-spy.htmlFeb 09 14:32
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.dailymail.co.uk | Fugitive American wife Anne Sacoolas who is wanted over the death of Harry Dunn was a CIA spy | Daily Mail OnlineFeb 09 14:32
*social_log has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Feb 09 15:32
*social_log (~roy@host81-154-169-104.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 15:33
*tedbox (~roy@host81-154-169-104.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 15:46
*tedbox has quit (Changing host)Feb 09 15:46
*tedbox (~roy@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 15:46
*oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Feb 09 19:07
*oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 19:07
*TechBytesBot has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:24
*TechBytesBot (~b0t@199.19.78.19) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:25
*pedro4 has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:29
*XFaCE has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:29
*logger-secondary has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:29
*logger-secondary (~schestowi@host81-154-169-104.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:30
*pedro4 (sid145515@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ogqaunjiqjprwgzn) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:30
*XFaCE (XFaCE@unaffiliated/xface) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:30
*acer-box has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:31
*TechBytesBot has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)Feb 09 21:32
*acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:32
*pedro4 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)Feb 09 21:33
*oiaohm has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:34
*oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:34
*Researcher- has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:35
*alynpost has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:35
*hook54321 has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:35
*hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fqefujndqywvgxmf) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:35
*GahNoo has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:35
*tedbox has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:36
*rianne has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:36
*Researcher- (iana@64.140.159.183) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:36
*alynpost (~alynpost@prgmr/staff/lobsters.sysadmin.alynpost) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:36
*GahNoo (~freenode@e3.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:36
*pedro4 (sid145515@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:36
*pedro4 has quit (Changing host)Feb 09 21:36
*pedro4 (sid145515@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jsolalzpujasyydl) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:36
*tedbox (~roy@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:38
*rianne (~rianne@host81-154-169-104.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:38
*hl has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:38
*MinceR has quit (*.net *.split)Feb 09 21:38
*hl (~hl@unaffiliated/hl) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:39
*MinceR (mincer@unaffiliated/mincer) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:39
*hook54321 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Feb 09 21:39
*hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hsllaspjqpqtfjnq) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:47
*hook54321 has quit (Excess Flood)Feb 09 21:48
*hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kezgzqshuqayzwcv) has joined #techbytesFeb 09 21:49

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!