This morning, I started with this text and I was very frustrated with my terrible comprehension of this text.
Well, no complaints but action!
Here is the text:
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.
Now I apply the critical thinking line to this article.
1. The main purpose of this article is:
To refute the assertion of some 'scholars" about the American patent legislature evolution.
2. The key question that the author is addressing is:
Why were there changes in the patent jurisdiction in the 1830s?
3. The most important information in this article is:
The change was attributed partly to the underlying population of cases brought to trial. Also, it was partly due to a 1936 legislation revision.
4. The main inferences/conclusions in this article are:
The rate of verdicts cannot be used as a gauge of patent rights.
5. The key concept we need to understand in this article is:
a. the patent right before and after the 1830s.
By this, the author wants to say that the patent adherence to the law was one of the reasons for the changes in the patent rights.
6. The main assumption underlying the author's thinking is:
The proportion of verdicts did not come from the change of judicial attitude toward patent rights.
7a. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are:
Other reasons need to be found for explaining the change of proportion of verdicts.
7b. If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are:
8. The main point of view presented in this article is:
Changes in the patent rights in the 1830s in US came from change of population of cases brought to trial and patent system law revision.
网友评论