Xref: utzoo misc.legal:20003 comp.edu:3425
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!ceomax!gillett
From: gillett@ceomax..dec.com (Christopher Gillett)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.edu
Subject: Re: CS degrees are not "technical" degrees.....???
Message-ID: <410@e2big.mko.dec.com>
Date: 27 Jul 90 18:59:49 GMT
References: <8201@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Sender: usenet@e2big.mko.dec.com
Reply-To: gillett@ceomax.dec.com (Christopher Gillett)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Semiconductor Engineering Group
Lines: 61

In article <8201@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> petersja@debussy.cs.colostate.edu (james peterson) writes:
>
>	"...only computer science courses which are computer engineering 
>	in nature, i.e., courses directed to design and analysis of
>	computer circuitry as opposed to mathematics and/or computer 
>	software, will be accepted."
>
>I find this to be curious.  Is it not the case that software can be patented?
>If software can be patented, why exclude computer scientists from the ranks
>of patent attorneys?

Wow!  That is pretty surprising.  It's interesting that this subject comes
up now.  There was a raging religious war going on over in comp.arch about
the "scientific-ness" (or lack thereof) of a CS degree.  While it's probably
best not to rekindle that discussion (I'm still smoking from all the "drop
dead" flames that everyone in .edu-land mailed me :-) ), let me try to
offer one rationale for their requirements.  Of course, I have nothing to
do with the U.S. Patent Office, so these are just my opinions.

The one thing that the "CS War" discussions made evident was that Computer
Science is a fairly strange beast.  In the final analysis, it seems to me
that the field is not completely science, nor completely art, nor completely
practical discipline.  There are elements of science, art, and engineering
(assuming that you buy into the idea that there are significant differences
between scientists and engineers, and that you can be one or both of these)
in the field.  

The Patent Office deals with new technology in both hardware and software
as directly relates to presumably marketable products (Big Leap of Faith:
One does not patent something unless one believes that it, or something
based on it, can be sold to someone).  If this is correct, then it makes
sense to have people with more hands-on, practical, engineering-based
backgrounds, as opposed to someone with a background in the theoretical.
I'm not trying to say anything bad here about either engineers or 
scientists, and I also recognize that many engineers are scientists, and
vice verse.  However, it *is* possible to do work in computer science
without having much knowledge about engineering, in the same sense
as it is possible to work as an engineer without knowing much about
the science.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that CS schools tend to have their emphasis
on either the engineering, the art, or the science, but not all three.
My twisted reasoning, then, says that it's fair to judge a person
not on the degree, but on the substance (i.e. the type of emphasis in
coursework...not flame about quality of degree indended) behind the degree.

Again, let's *not* rekindle the flame wars about Computer Science. This
is just one point of view.

Make Sense?  Or not?

FWIW,

/Chris

>james lee peterson				petersja@handel.cs.colostate.edu
k
---
Christopher Gillett               gillett@ceomax.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation     {decwrl,decpa}!ceomax.dec.com!gillett
Hudson, Taxachusetts              (508) 568-7172