扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2017-RC-533
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
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。
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.
E. rationale：根本原因，revision的根本原因并没有提及
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
是 author of passage 啦
American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were "antipatent" and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons.是arguement, 那么作者是不同意judge是原因的，作者认为原因是1836的复查。作者是怎么证明这arguement是错误的呢？在第二段里用了pre1830的例子来证明是错的。
选项B，虽然文中说了Not all patent disputes in the early nineteenth century were litigated, however, and litigated cases were not drawn randomly from the population of disputes. 但是这个选项是说作者引用了非诉业务的“具体数量”，所以这个选项是错的
rc
文章架构，第一段提出scholar的观点，第二段其实是在反驳其观点，以not however为标志Not all patent disputes in the early nineteenth century were litigated, however,
要高度注意however，not这种态度词汇，以把握整体文章架构
不是反驳argument这句，是反驳argument这词指的那句话，就是上一句，，这么绕给快速读的人提高难度
最接近原文描述的答案，不要有任何发散
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,
法官本身没有问题
削弱题 法官的专断导致了方案无法顺利实施
因果联系
要么找它因/证明因果无联系
思路
F认为专利可以促进经济发展 但是学者并不这样认为 因为他们觉得法官很专断很任性 并且举例子说明 第一段结尾说 然而后期 法官的态度改变了很多 这样的结论的原因是 比率上升
第二段削弱 比率上升不代表态度改变/后面的案子还是引用前面的 并且给出了上升的真正原因
看第二段的解释1 样本不具有代表性 2 之后的会引用之前的 因此达到削弱的作用
argument是scholar对于judicial attitudes toward patent 观点的转变，后面作者引用例子证明1830后仍然provided a lasting foundation for patent law.没有改变。
D选项是作者和学者都想解释的change
今早做这篇阅读觉得很难啊，做了两遍都一道题不对，感觉走火入魔了似的。。。
If early judicial decisions were prejudiced against patentees, one might expect that subsequent courts would reject the former legal precedents. But pre-1830 cases have been cited as frequently as later decisions
C: The author's reasoning is that if the scholars argument were true, then it would be more likely that later judges would not use those precedents as heavily, but they do, therefore the scholars argument is invalid.