扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2017-RC-531
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
题目就理解错了，理解成了对比1830前后cases frequency
应该定义到第二段“ If early judicial decisions were prejudiced against patentees, ……, provided a lasting foundation for patent law. ”
B，提到support，更接近文意
应该定义到第二段“ If early judicial decisions were prejudiced against patentees, ……, provided a lasting foundation for patent law. ”
一方面说明support未改变 另一方面说明作者认为之前没有prejudice
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
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.
在说引用pre-1830那句话之前，作者说，如果司法决定改变了态度，对申请专利的人更支持了的话，就会否定1830前的那些司法例子。 但是pre-1830大量引用，说明没有改变态度。
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.因此，有利于专利权人的裁决率本身不能用来衡量司法态度的变化或专利权的可执行性，1830s的案例的例子就是为了说明前面的这句话，选B
选项B：原文中说的是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. 是比例，这选项B说的是数量
rc
简单题，
又是看见e这个貌似正确的选项，就马上冲动选了。把自己之前判断为正确的选项b抛之脑后；仔细读文中原句，不要带入自己的惯性思维判断！！
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. ）-没有bias
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.） -increase是由于case变多了
被引用的频率没有变，说明对专利权的支持在前后也没有变
D，为了说明偏向专利人的裁决1830年后并没有增加。
文章说这类裁决1830年后确实比例提高了，但这个提高不表示法官转变为偏向专利人，因为不是所有的专利纠纷都会提起诉讼，诉讼指标不能代表当时社会对专利纠纷的态度。
B，judicial support意为司法支持，文章里限定为法官个人的支持；judges，法官，裁判。
E：作者本就认为司法偏见不存在，否则1830s前的案例不应该被引用
错选D：verdict n. an official decision made in a court of law, especially about whether someone is guilty of a crime or how a death happened
D选项的意思是支持patentees的法庭裁决的绝对值在1830以后就没有增长，这一点在原文中无法考证
往but直前看一句 之前如果反对的话 之后就会推翻 但之后没推翻 所以之前没反对 所以judical support没increase
E选项与全文主旨相悖。全文一直在强调无论在1830之前还是之后，judicial bias against patentees 都是错误的，其实是由于adherence to patent law的问题。
judicial support＝judge's attitude
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.对专利的态度没变，不支持的，后面说in favor of patentee的cases的比例变多，原因是1836年法律，但是司法上（法官）的态度1830s前后还没变
要仔细思考每个选项表达的意思judicial support不等于verdicts favoring patentees ，后者是表示结果，同时也不符合原文之前的意思
定位frequency到第二段中间But pre-1830 cases have been cited as frequently as later decisions,。。。。 provided a lasting foundation for patent law. 1830年前和后面的一样多，到今天也一样，were a just recompense，所有信息表示没有什么变化。再看选项B、D、E都是说没有变化的。返回文章看But上一句 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. 里面说了supportive of patent rights，所以最终确认选择B。
C: 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