Why I'm Not a Paper Patent Attorney

When the USPTO moved to more convenient computer-based testing through Prometric, I thought it was a great way to make the patent agent/attorney registration process more accessible to people who might not otherwise be able to accommodate the travel and schedule required for traditional testing (only once or twice a year in Virginia was it? Talk about barriers to entry). The problem, though, when you make a multiple-guess certification/registration exam more readily available for test-takers, is the proliferation of "braindump" sites that undermine the value of the credential.

As an IT professional who invested much time and effort in earning (what used to be) valuable Microsoft professional certifications in the 90's, the gradual decline in value of those credentials was understandably unnerving when "paper MCSEs" (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers - the most commonly sought and relatively highly paid credential back in the day) flooded the market. "Paper MCSEs" notoriously had limited to no practical, hands-on experience and only "learned" where the most common answers were on their exams so they can be assured of passing, not based on valuable experience and expertise, but on rote memorization.

Fortunately, Microsoft and other IT vendors changed their exams to rely less on multiple guessing and more on demonstrating hands-on experience (I can't help but similarly think of the qualitative difference between preparing for MBE questions vs. the MPT and essays on the Bar exam).

It makes me wonder if the USPTO will also, somehow, eventually go that route to prevent what seems like an impending glut of patent agents and attorneys. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment to me to pass yet another multiple-guess exam.

Sorry folks, but the TechLawGeek will not be a paper patent attorney this year.