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 author and the scholars referred to in the highlighted text disagree about which of the following aspects of the patents defended in patent-infringement suits before 1830?


Whether the patents were granted for inventions that were genuinely useful

Whether the patents were actually relevant to the growth of the United States economy

Whether the patents were particularly likely to be annulled by judges

Whether the patents were routinely invalidated for reasons that were arbitrary

Whether the patents were vindicated at a significantly lower rate than patents in later suits

考题讲解

题目分析:

文章推断题:关于1830年前的专利侵犯案,作者和高亮的学者不同意以下哪点?


选项分析:

A选项:是否专利给了那些真正有用的发明:原文没有提。

B选项:是否专利真的和美国经济增长有关系:文章没有提作者对“专利是否促进了美国经济增长”的态度。

C选项:专利是否有可能被法官废除:原文没有提。

D选项:正确。
是否专利真的因为武断的原因而无效:学者认为1830年前专利案失败的原因是法官武断裁决,而作者认为失败的原因是专利所有者没有遵守专利法。

E选项:
是否专利在之后的官司里,被证明有效的比率更高:作者和学者都同意,在之后的案例里,支持专利的案例更多。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2017-RC