I was otherwise buried in socialists and legal "realists," so, perhaps, you're the lucky one -- and, hopefully, one day, the rest of us!

Yes, James, you were!! ConLaw with Siegan, how jealous am I allowed to be? I heard he got treated really poorly during confirmation (spearheaded by Teddy Kennedy?). Nice speakers, too. I read a good debate between Meese and Brennan on constitutional interpretation (they are both wrong!!). And to think, I only got George HW Bush and Justice Ginsburg ()as speakers.

I agree with you about seeing the bad impact of philosophy embodied in law--the philosophical rubber really hits the road. I don't think this is all bad because you can immediately grasp the negative impact and argue against it. I guess I just didn't go in thinking I would see the implementation of Objectivism.

And I have had some pleasant surprises. I wonder how much the difference of generations between you and I has changed things? I've seen students come out strongly in favor of property rights and argue for free markets (besides me, of course). I've had a professor criticize the Supreme Court (in a patent case) because it was socialistic, not capitalistic. How prevalent were these things in your generation?

I struck up an unlikely friendship with one of my professors, a big time 60's liberal who is friends with/worked with Dukakis, Tip O'Neil, and others. He said, in front of the class, that he was "repulsed" by my paper on substantive due process as it went against his values. Yet, he had the intellectual honesty to give me a good grade, which has not always happened. He has since told me that he needs to "rethink some things" and keeps my paper on his desk. He also told me that he is friends with a lot of former communists, and they all "woke up one day" and realized the nature crimes committed by communist regimes.

I don't think people see capitalism as a dirty word anymore, perhaps it is in the process of becoming "cool" again. I don't think a Reawkening to capitalism is out of the picture--not by a long shot--especially to the younger generation.

I will send you the powerpoint file of my presentation if you send me a Solomail with an email address.

Jim

JHN-
I'm very interested in your work on Hawkins and Objectivism. I found On Intelligence very intriguing and enjoy talking with a couple friends who are involved in AI research towards implementing Hawkin's ideas.

a molecular biology degree works that way as well. The main problem was that the law firm I was looking at started loosing its customers. Not a good thing in any market, but in an IP market as small as Kansas City that can be fatal.

In other words, you have to be choosy about the law firm. They'll pay your law fees but only if you promise to give the company 5 years or so. Which is fine, except when the company isn't run too well...

In any event, I've obtained another Post Doc for another couple of years. The pay is mediocre, but the extra lab experience won't hurt and academia isn't subject to the idiotic rules governing the allocation of H1B VISAs. So the possible shift into patent law will not occur for a little while yet.

I'm feeling a little of Linz's Objectivist Rage .

I knew you had it in you!

WSS,

I might post some things over at Objectivist Living in about 2 years when I'm through being pissed off. It takes a lot to get me mad, but I'm mad and what can you do about that. I'm feeling a little of Linz's Objectivist Rage .

Jim

William,

I'm a very tolerant guy, but what do you do when someone persists in calling you a liar? I've also been called an out of focus sap. For Michael Stuart Kelly to say that is a bit rich . I was going to post my rebuttal to Robert Campbell over there, but I'm not sure it meets the posting guidelines. On some topics, trying to say something substantive while meeting those is like Advanced Calculus.

Jim

Yes, I had the very good fortune of having him for Con Law and another upper level course on his most recent book. He was responsible for a number of remarkable guest speakers at my law school during the time I was there -- he introduced me to former Chief Justice Berger, former Attorney General Meese, James Buchanan (the year he won the Nobel Prize)... At the time, he was still enduring endless Senate mistreatment following Reagan's nomination of him to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He never even got a hearing.... Yeah, I was one lucky bastard, indeed.

JHN notes, "I am not going to have anything to say about Nathaniel and Barbara henceforth except to those who ask me directly."

Why is this? What is gained by saying nothing in public about the Brandens?

You also write, Jim, "I was on Objectivist Living because I have many friends there," and this raises a couple of questions in my mind. As I understand it, despite MSK's roaring about deception and lies and evul motives, you are a member in good standing there.

Have you been insulted enough by OL owners to 'flounce'?

Do you feel bound to suspend your appearances at OL? Do you feel bound to 'choose sides'?

I look forward to your advanced topics . . . are you reviewing work in the neuroscience of emotion?

WSS

Not sure what you mean. Siegan? That must have been good.

And he makes it sound so easy, too...

IP is a fairly well-grounded area of law, trademarks and copyright being better than patents. Some of the issues in patent law are a lot harder to resolve and it needs an "epistemological cleanup". Then again, so does constitutional law. There are still a lot of issues to resolve, but that is in part what makes it very interesting.

I am in my last semester of law school and it was significantly better than undergraduate. Law is an area where philosophical implications become readily apparent--a great blend of philosophy and practical implication.

Note that if you have an engineering degree (and electrical is a sought after one), IP law firms will hire you as a technology specialist. It pays pretty well, and they pay for your law school (and you get experience). Something to consider, if you are interested.

Robert,

In your field, you probably wouldn't have to get registered with the uspto first, they'd probably hire you on and give you a year or two to get registered, but you probably already know that.

Jim

Robert,

Typically technical people like us can go one of two routes: go to law school immediately or study for the Patent Bar Exam and become an agent. I have several friends who have done this.The USPTO website uspto.gov keeps an updated copy of the MPEP in soft copy format. If you're like me you like things in paper you can get a hard copy subscription for about $200. What I'd recommend is reading the primer Patent It Yourself by David Pressman. It goes through the whole process from invention disclosure, patent searches, writing a patent and representing it in front the uspto.

The MPEP is about 3600 pages long, but has two much smaller sections which are much more important: Patent Rules and the Patent Laws in CFR Sections 35 and 37.The uspto also has old exams on their website. I've still got a lot of work to do on this .

Jim

I came close to swapping out of Molecular Biology and joining a Law Firm late last year with the aim of obtaining a Law degree (specializing in patent law) to go with my PhD.

I may still do so. If there is any field that needs good philosophy it is the Biotech Patent Law.

It really isn't my field, and it's got a host of very specialized issues all its own. If I could master those, I'd write a whole theory of justice myself -- but it is this very area that I know I have yet to really master. A recent post over at NoodleFood illustrates the some of them.

But I am happy to discuss legal education generally with you, anytime.

Initial thoughts? Law school was a much more straightforward experience for me than the undergraduate world of the humanities -- actual legal practice and policy considerations tend to anchor folks, to some degree, to certain aspects of reality. Patent law, I imagine, is a case in point. Nonetheless, for me, it also made the real impact of bad philosophy all the more apparent.

I was also blessed with great teachers, in both, the late Bernard Siegan, for example.

And, yeah, there's some reading involved...

James V,

My current career plan is to transition very gradually toward work in patent law. I may ask you questions from time to time about legal education. I've already obtained the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (3600 pages, sheesh)and read through a couple of introductory books on the patent process. I'm planning to prepare for the Patent Bar Exam sometime in the next couple of years. My interest has been piqued by filing my first invention disclosure earlier this year for my work at IBM.

I realize intellectual property is not your field, but do you have any initial thoughts?

Thanks for the kind words, James! I look forward to hearing more about your book on Christianity. The more I think about it, I'm increasingly annoyed at the amount of time I've had to spend on movement issues. I'm paying myself by reclaiming that time.

Jim

Aaron,

It will be a side venture. We have gotten through the first phase of the startup and I will soon have a forgiving schedule. We will be working compressed workweeks and I don't have enough short vacation ideas to fill 4 days off 26 weeks a year. My first small project will be to rework my Arizona Objectivists talk on Jeff Hawkins' memory-prediction model and its synthesis with Objectivism into written form. I also plan to have extended comment on work put forth by Antonio Damasio, Eric Kandel an others.

Jim

J H Nelson-
Neuroscience and cog-sci? Have you left Intel? Is this a new career move, or a side venture while still in the semiconductor industry?

We haven't always agreed, either, Jim, but you have always been an advocate and practitioner of open and civilized debate.

For that, I am most grateful.

I look forward to your presence here, too.

[btw: welcome to MSK's Enemies List.]

MSK and Kat are now calling me a Branden-hater, which is a misnomer. I am an advocate of truthful, open debate whether it comes from the Brandens or not. On subjects where I feel they are reliable, I'm happy to hear them speak and welcome their contribution.

They also misunderstand my intention. I am not going to have anything to say about Nathaniel and Barbara henceforth except to those who ask me directly. I'm going to be an advocate for open debate and support Linz in any collaboration with TAS that he wishes to pursue.

Over the next several years I plan to pursue advanced topics in neuroscience and cognitive science as they relate to Objectivism. I will post prototype work here and final work here and ROR for comment. I was on Objectivist Living because I have many friends there and because I greatly respect Robert Campbell and consider him a friend, although I vehemently disagree with him on many topics of what's best for the Objectivist movement.

I look forward to a productive online life here on SOLO.

Jim

Nice to ya!

There's just so much having my integrity questioned that I can take. If that's tolerance it may kill me yet.

Jim

And survived to talk about it!

And having taken up his opinion against all gainsayers- knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter- he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.

J.S. Mill as cited by David Kelley in Truth and Toleration