【OG24-603题】It can be inferred from the passage that the frequency with which pre-1830 cases have been cited in court decisions is an indication that_mofa留学圈mofaGRE在线题库系统_GRE在线搜题_GRE题库解析_GRE真题机经_GRE课程_GRE培训机构

最新题目

题目内容

纠错

Because the framers of the United States Constitution (written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation’s economic growth, they gave Congress—the national legislature—a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers’ goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “antipatent” and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders (“patentees”)brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee.The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to these scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.

Not all patent disputes in the early nineteenth entury were litigated, however, and litigated cases were not drawn randomly from the population of disputes. Therefore the rate of verdicts in favor of patentees cannot be used by itself to gauge changes in judicial attitudes or enforceability of patent rights. If early judicial decisions were prejudiced against patentees, one might expect that subsequent courts—allegedly more supportive of patent rights—would reject the former legal precedents. But pre-1830 cases have been cited as frequently as later decisions, and they continue to be cited today,suggesting that the early decisions, many of which clearly declared that patent rights were a just recompense for inventive ingenuity,provided a lasting foundation for patent law.The proportion of judicial decisions in favor of patentees began to increase during the 1830s because of a change in the underlying population of cases brought to trial. This change was partly due to an 1836 revision to the patent system:an examination procedure, still in use today, was instituted in which each application is scrutinized for its adherence to patent law. Previously,patents were automatically granted upon payment of a $30 fee.

It can be inferred from the passage that the frequency with which pre-1830 cases have been cited in court decisions is an indication that

judicial support for patent rights was strongest in the period before 1830 judicial support for patent rights did not increase after 1830 courts have returned to judicial standards that prevailed before 1830 verdicts favoring patentees in patent-infringement suits did not increase after 1830 judicial bias against patentees persisted after 1830

正确答案： B

参考解析

提交我的解析

文章大意逻辑
美国宪法制定者认为保护发明相关财产权能促进经济增长，所以赋予国会授予专利的宪法授权，该专利体系成为他国典范。然而，学者质疑美国专利体系是否达成制定者目标。学者称1830年前美国发明者无法执行财产权，因为法官“反专利”且常随意使专利无效，依据是对专利持有人诉讼案件裁决的审查，19世纪20年代75%裁决不利于专利持有人，30年代有利于专利持有人的裁决比例上升，表明司法态度转变。但并非所有19世纪早期专利纠纷都诉讼，诉讼案件也非随机抽取，所以胜诉率不能单独衡量司法态度。早期决定为专利法奠定基础，有利于专利持有人的司法决定比例增加。 文章类型及逻辑简图
文章类型：新旧观点对比逻辑简图： Old view: 美国专利体系好，实现了宪法制定者目标 New view: 学者质疑美国专利体系未实现目标，依据是1830年前司法对专利权不利，1830年后有所转变 Counter argument: 胜诉率不能衡量司法态度，早期决定有积极意义 做题方法及问题类型
问题类型：推断题。做题方法：通过定位原文中关于1830年前案件在法庭裁决中被引用频率相关内容进行推断。定位提示句子为“But pre 1830 cases have been cited as frequently as later decisions, and they continue to be cited today”。 选项分析
A选项：文中未提及1830年前司法对专利权的支持最强，属于无中生有，排除。 B选项：因为1830年前的案件和之后的决定被引用频率一样，且持续被引用，说明1830年后司法对专利权的支持并没有增加，该项可以推断得出，当选。 C选项：文中没有提到法院回到1830年前的司法标准，无中生有，排除。 D选项：文中没有说1830年后专利侵权诉讼中有利于专利持有人的裁决没有增加，与原文不符，排除。 E选项：文中未体现1830年后对专利持有人的司法偏见持续存在，排除。

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

还没有人评论,赶快抢个沙发~

做题笔记

参考解析

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

请选择错误类型：

请描述一下这个错误：