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.


The author of the passage cites which of the following as evidence challenging the argument referred to in the highlighted text?


The proportion of cases that were decided against patentees in the 1820s

The total number of patent disputes that were litigated from 1794 to 1830

The fact that later courts drew upon the legal precedents set in pre-1830 patent cases

The fact that the proportion of judicial decisions in favor of patentees began to increase during the 1830s

The constitutional rationale for the 1836 revision of the patent system

考题讲解

题目分析:

文章细节题: 作者引用了哪一点来反驳高亮的结论?

原文中高亮的结论认为法官的决定武断,所以导致有很多反对专利所有者的案例;而作者认为不是因为法官。

选项分析:

A选项:1820s反对专利所有者的比例:1820s的案例数量是用来支持“法官很武断”这个观点的。

B选项:1794-1830年间,提出诉讼的专利案的数量:原文没有提到这个数量。

C选项:正确。之后的法庭引用了1830前的案例:1830年后的审判原理和1830年前的一致,但支持的案例数量上升,说明不是法官的问题。

D选项:
1830s间支持专利所有者的案例数量上升:这是一个现象,而不是反驳的论据。

E选项:
1836年专利体系审查的宪法原理:原文没有提到这样一个原理。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2017-RC