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。
不懂为什么E错,求老师同学解答。
文章分为2个观点:作者和 scholar。第一段是scholar 认为专利法并没有促进经济增长,1830年前净瞎折腾去了,且(重点)1830年后由于(证据)专利权人的判决比例在二十世纪三十年代开始有所增加,这些学者认为,有关专利权的司法态度开始转变。
第二段就是作者开始各种用 evidence 反驳 scholar,即作者认为对专利的司法态度并没有转变。核心观点俩:1.1830年前的案例已经被引用为后来的决定,并且今天仍然被引用,这表明早期的决定为专利提供了持久的基础法。(前提并没有改变)2.司法裁决中有利于专利权人的比例在1830s开始增加,原因是人数变化。这一变化部分是由于1836年对专利制度的修订:审查程序中每个申请都受到审查,以遵守专利法。以前,专利是在支付30美元的费用后自动获得的。(引入他因削弱 scholar)观点。
结论:对专利的司法支持其实并没有改变。
小的语句方面可能还有逻辑漏洞。但大意就是俩观点,学者 VS 作者。作者用俩原因削弱,得到结论就是 judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then不是对的。其实我开始也没太看懂,哭哭,生词太多了看得太艰难。而且作者观点都是也没个总结啥的...
总结好到位!
allegedly more supportive of patent rights—would reject the former legal precedents. But pre-1830 cases have been....
所以,最贴近原文才是答案。。。不可以有自己的发散,一点也不可以。。。。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论