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 passage implies that the scholars mentioned in the highlighted text would agree with which of the following criticisms of the American patent system before 1830?


Its definition of property rights relating to inventions was too vague to be useful.

Its criteria for the granting of patents were not clear.

It made it excessively difficult for inventors to receive patents.

It led to excessive numbers of patent-infringement suits.

It failed to encourage national economic growth.

考题讲解

题目分析:

文章推断题:文章认为高亮里的学者同意以下哪点关于1830前的美国专利体系的批评?

选项分析:

A选项:关于专利的定义过于模糊,所以没用:文章没有针对专利定义的讨论。

B选项:批准专利的标准不够清楚:文章没有讨论这一点。

C选项:发明者很难收到专利权:没有提。

D选项:
它导致了很多违反专利法的案例:文章没有认为 专利体系导致了违反专利法的案例,只是成功的案例很少罢了。

E选项:正确。
它没能促进国家经济增长:这帮学者质疑专利体系真的促进经济发展了嘛?之后提出了自己的论据,认为并没有促进。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2022-RC