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 century 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
题目分析:
文章推断题:可以推测,1830s前的案例被引用的频率说明了?
选项分析:
A选项:1830年前对专利权的支持最强大:文章没有提到什么时候支持最强大。
B选项:正确。对专利权的支持并没有在1830年后增加:1830s前的案例被引用,说明态度并没有改变,所以司法支持并没有改变。
C选项:法庭回到了1830年前的标准:文章没有讨论过司法标准。
D选项:支持专利所有者的案例没有在1830年后增加:文章只是提到比例增加,不代表绝对数量增加。
E选项:1830年后依旧有司法偏见:文章并不认为是法官和法律的问题,所以并没有司法偏见。
态度并未改变,故选B
D选项,比例增长,不代表诉讼的数量增长
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论