In the US, the issue of calling yourself an "engineer" was confusing (disclaimer, I have lived and worked in South Korea for over 15 years, and I let my PE license expired in 2002).
To legally use the term "Engineer", you not only needed an engineering degree (there were a few exceptions), you need to pass a pair of tests. One test covers the fundamentals, is broad and covers many different branches of engineering. Typically people take this test soon after graduating from college, while all that knowledge is still fresh in your mind. Then four years later (it may vary by state), you take a professional engineers exam which it tailored to your declared area of expertise - Electrical in my case. You also need a mentor or supervisor, also a PE, who will sign-up to having supervised your work during the four years. After all of that, you get a PE license and can call yourself an Engineer. Once licensed, you have to maintain the license with annual fees and continuing education (CE). The CE wasn't too much trouble if you were working as an engineer - we had plenty of options for workshops, seminars, etc., put on by manufacturers and at trade shows. Also, the local IEEE would sometimes have seminars, as well as online classes could count in many cases. in fact, CE was the reason I let my license lapse, with all the travel and moving overseas, getting enough hours was just a nuisance. And....
... not once in my entire career did I ever use my PE license. The whole system is geared for engineers working in the area of public safety, construction, etc. In these fields, a responsible engineer has to sign and seal the final drawings which carries legal and liability ramifications. As an electronics engineer, I never worked in that area. The only reason I got my PE was that my mentors kept pushing it, and to be honest, it wasn't that difficult to get. In fact, my university required graduating seniors to TAKE the fundamentals exam (not pass it, just take it) up until the year I graduated. Some interesting observations on the system:
* Even though the second test is in your specialty, there is no official designation. A mechanical, civil, and electrical engineer all have the same license. As an Electrical engineer, the only thing legally keeping me from approving plans for a bridge was my professionalism, knowing that I wasn't competent as a bridge engineer.
* While engineers working in the public sector are subject to these regulations, engineers working for the government are not. So a government engineer can design a bridge without a PE license, but a public engineer cannot.
* The regulations vary by state. Some states have reciprocity agreements, it was helper skelter when I was licensed, maybe it has improved these days.
* People without a PE license could not claim to be a Professional Engineer, e.g., use the PE suffix with their name, nor could they legally sign documents for safety-related designs. In my opinion, this doesn't seem unreasonable.
* Where it gets crazy, is that people without a PE license, in theory, can't even call themselves an "engineer", as we saw in the Oregon case. This doesn't make sense to me. In my city (Huntsville Alabama) there were hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers working on projects not related to public safety nor construction, all calling themselves "engineers", even on their business cards. So this was a rule, but rarely enforced. I suppose if someone started a consulting company, and hung their shingle as "Bob's Engineering", they might draw some attention from the state licensing agency. But in general, everyone in my situation flew under the radar.
Looking back, I probably would tell my younger self not to get it. It wasn't directly helpful in my career. But it wasn't a negative experience, either. I enjoyed learning stuff from outside my field (in the case of the first test), and forcing myself to attend continuing education events over the years was good, I think.
About the Oregon case, I see two separate issues:
(1) an unlicensed person calling themselves an engineer
(2) an unlicensed person performing engineering services
Clearly from the ruling this month, #1 is not a problem (at least in Oregon). Regarding #2, in the situation which brought about the suit you could hardly call it "practicing engineering" in my opinion. This fellow collected data and presented it to the city for their analysis. They were free to examine it an evaluate it, and act on it or not. Suppose someone thinks of an improved way to do a surgery, and sends his idea to a hospital to consider. That person isn't "practicing medicine". Anyway, I'll shut up, the Oregon courts finally got this right, although it took almost two years.