The fundemental issue is not a matter of where he is licensed but that he is an electrical engineer and not a civil engineer. He is presenting information and using the “engineering” word to help give his information additional credibility when the type of engineering degree he has is not relevant to the information he is presenting.
His ideas may be very sound, if he’d just managed to promote them without implying he was a civil engineer then I would hope there wouldn’t be a problem.
This, very, very strongly.
I’m a doctor. A have doctoral degree. When I taught, students called me “Doctor FtG”.
But I am not a medical doctor. Big difference. If I wrote a letter calling myself a doctor and offering medical advice I would certainly expect that to be a legal issue.
So what if he has an engineering degree? So … what? It’s a different type of degree. The guy was out of line.
Bringing up the EE thing is weird. Again, so what?
Has this law ever been used in this way previously?
What do you mean by “in this way”? To fine someone presenting themselves as an engineer and practicing as such, who doesn’t have a license? I should imagine so. To fine someone who really shouldn’t have been in legal trouble at all? Then you must first make the case that this is such a situation.
Have people been prosecuted for calling themselves/implying they are engineers? Sure.
An infamous example is scum-of-the-Earth Fred Leuchter. Made up some crap about being an “unregistered” engineer in Massachusetts and got convicted.
He didn’t just call himself an engineer. He took money from others operating as one, while falsely claiming that
According to your article he went far beyond just saying he was an engineer and giving an opinion that fell within his (unlicensed) expertise.
Yeah, this is small cheese. He wasn’t trying to profit from his misrepresentation he was just being deliberately vague in order to help push his ideas forward.
Not according to the Order linked above. One count is indeed about to calling himself an ‘engineer’ (without a license), but another count is that he performed engineering (without a license). So, according to the Oregon board, even if he hadn’t used the magic word ‘engineer’ to describe himself, he still would have been in violation. And there is no allegation at all that he was outside of his specialty.
Performing engineering bit is silly I agree.
You don’t think that there’s electrical engineering involved in the design of traffic light systems?
I haven’t gone through them exhaustively, but the graphs look very similar to the timing diagrams which are a staple of circuit analysis and logic design.
Figuring out traffic light timing in order to regulate automobile traffic flow is a civil engineering thing.
The particulars of the switchy circuit thingies that make the lghts go blinky blinky aren’t what Mr. Umlautsson was opining about.
One of the differences is that the title of ‘doctor’ existed as a title for a learned person back when the medical arts, such as they were, were practiced by barbers and the like.
They can’t take ‘doctor’ away from us PhDs, we were there first. But we generously allow the practitioners of the medical trade to share our title. 
Granted. But the math behind traffic flow in computer network design (which many EE programs cover) is related. Mats appears to have gotten curious about the subject, and adapted his knowledge to it.
But it doesn’t matter to the board. Mats could have a doctorate in civil engineering (but no license) and it’s still a paddlin’.
It seems like it’d be awfully hard to guarantee that I’m violating the law this Oregon board is enforcing. I always understood that you can’t advertise services as an engineer without being licensed. But I didn’t know that so many other uses of the word were covered.
Until I became a manager (and except for one period when I was a Research Mathematician) my job title has always included the word “engineer”. For years, I listed it as my occupation on tax returns. Assuming the law is similarly broad here in Maryland, could the state fine me? Could they fine my employer (the federal government) for coming up with the job titles? Hell, could they fine me for performing my job?
Correction: "hard to guarantee that I’m not violating the law "
His quest for better-timed lights isn’t curiosity. His wife got a ticket for running a red light in 2013, and he’s been trying to blame a short yellow light for it ever since.
Exactly. It’s amazing how many people are misunderstanding the facts which were linked earlier in the thread.
I’ll wager most folks here have no idea without Googling what it takes to be a licensed Professional Engineer. Such as this person:
[QUOTE=UltraVires]
It seems as if a secondary purpose of these laws is so that the public does not spend money hiring engineers who didn’t pay the state licensing fee or otherwise participate in the monopoly the state wants to create.
[/QUOTE]
It seems that way because you have no idea about the acquisition of an ABET-accredited engineering degree, 4+ years of professional experience, training, validation by other more experienced Professional Engineers who you’ve worked directly under and who will sign an affidavit vouching for you, and sitting for two 8-hour formal exams that are needed for licensure. Plus the professional continuing education credits needed every year, and the host of other laws and regulations that we need to adhere to.
Just getting an engineering degree doesn’t mean you should be practicing engineering to the public or representing yourself as an engineer to governmental entities. Not all people who get engineering degrees are equal; sorry. Some of the C- students that squeak through really shouldn’t be designing anything. Professional licensing and its process is another bar to cross that tries to weed some of the folks out and leave the best engineers to work for the public.
It’s not even known if this guy’s degree meets the US ABET accreditation for engineering. I meet people with “engineering” degrees from schools all over the globe who can barely perform sophomore-level engineering.
So? That doesn’t mean he’s good enough to be a licensed Professional Engineer. He should begin the licensure process if he wants to be one.
Big deal. I’m not a computer scientist but I had a paper published at a national software engineering conference. I sit on committees for two of the largest engineering conferences in the world, and I can tell you there is no written requirement that anyone have a degree nor licensure to get a paper published. Sometimes papers are selected based simply upon being on a timely subject and out of curiosity.
The problem is you seem to be under the misunderstanding that engineering is mainly just math and physics.
Una Persson, I respect your credentials (I know you’re a licensed P.E.).
But I stand by my opinion that the law is overly broad, and the enforcement heavy-handed.
I was not aware of Mats’ history with the government related to his wife’s parking ticket (although that might explain some of the heavy-handedness).
I think a critical part of Mats’ problem was who he contacted. He contacted some of the very people who are going to be sticklers about this sort of thing, and when they cautioned him (from my reading of the court document) he kinda didn’t take the hint?
BTW, thank you for your calm reply to my somewhat hot-headed original response. I apologize.