2. 考研
  3. A supposed pillar of the US capitalist vigour has been revealed in all its degeneration. That pillar is the US patent system, wh

A supposed pillar of the US capitalist vigour has been revealed in all its degeneration. That pillar is the US patent system, wh

admin2014-06-25  14
问题     A supposed pillar of the US capitalist vigour has been revealed in all its degeneration. That pillar is the US patent system, which has allowed Apple to extract $lbn from Samsung in compensation for alleged theft of intellectual property. Americans reasonably worship property rights and unreasonably extend this attitude to intellectual property rights, conflating "rival" goods like homes and hamburgers, which cannot be shared costlessly, with "non-rival" intellectual products that can be enjoyed simultaneously by all. Likewise, Americans worship innovation and presume that intellectual property rights always promote it. But this presumption is wrong.
    The poster child for patents is the pharmaceuticals industry. But, as Richard Posner, a federal appeals court judge, has argued, what works in this sector is not necessarily appropriate in communications, software or elsewhere. Bringing a new drug to market is extremely expensive, mainly because of the need for large clinical trials. Monopoly rights over new drugs provide a needed spur to invention. And because trials take as long as a decade, the 20-year exclusivity typically granted can mean only 10 years of monopoly profits.
    The technology industry is different. No clinical trials are needed, so costs of development are lower and the case for monopoly weaker. Certainly, 20-year exclusivity cannot be justified. But as Michele lioldrin and David Levine observe in a new paper, the right policy for Silicon Valley might be to grant no patents whatsoever. Technology innovators are amply rewarded by the first-mover advantage.
    If the need for monopoly incentives in the tech industry is doubtful, the cost of granting them is clear. Whereas a drug patent covers one independent product, a technology patent typically covers a building block of a product, such as the look of the icons on a touch screen, to cite one of Apple’s complaints against Samsung. By patenting such building blocks, tech groups prevent rivals from using yesterday’s inventions to create tomorrow’s improved ones. Rather than spurring progress, patents can trip it up.
    Some patents are kept deliberately low-profile in hopes that deep-pocketed companies will violate them unknowingly, at which point patent holders pounce. Last year US companies spent about $29bn fending off raids from "non-practising entities", also known as patent trolls, litigators who own bundles of patents with no intention of using them to build products.
    In a better world, the US Patent and Trademark Office would take care not to approve frivolous and overlapping applications. But its examiners are swamped. The US has made modest efforts to rein in this excess. But the US has a long way to go before attaining sanity. Some observers believe that the patent system should be abolished outright. But you don’t have to go that far to see that there are grounds for worry. Americans labour under an illusion that their lawyers’ paradise is good for innovation. They could hardly be more wrong.
The need for monopoly incentives in the tech industry might be doubtful most probably because______.
选项 A、the costs of granting tech patents are low
B、tech first-movers are rewarded with high margins
C、tech patents are mutually dependent on each other
D、tech groups keep their patents low-profile deliberately
答案B
解析 第三段主体观点为：技术行业与制药业不同，无需授予专利来激励创新。原因有两个：①无需临床试验．研发成本低；②技术先行者凭借先行之利能够获取高额利润；第四段从技术行业专利授予现状来加以说明：技术行业授予专利过多，不仅不利于而且阻碍了创新。可见．[B]选项最符合文意，指出了不授予技术专利最有可能的原因。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/sFK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)