PrepTest 139

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Example of how permissive patent office has become in granting patents.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Ideal situation: patent office only gives patents for nonobvious inventions (first sentence)
  • Example of how this is being ignored: court held that technology company infringed on patents covering computers that perform translation from Internet address to phone number (second sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “theoretically” (first sentence); “seems obvious” (first sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Patent-granting departing from ideal; patents being granted for very broad inventions.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Ideal situation: patents granted narrowly so others can “invent around” them (first sentence)
  • Actual situation: patent office granting very broad patents so that others can’t invent around them (fourth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “in an ideal world” (first sentence); “narrow enough” (first sentence); “unfortunately” (second sentence); “dramatically lowered” (third sentence); “so broad” (fourth sentence); “practically impossible” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Technology companies racing to accumulate patents as defense mechanism.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Result of permissive patent regime: large technology companies racing to accumulate patents, so that if it is sued for patent infringement, it can countersue the other party based on infringement of one of a large group of patents (first-second sentences)
    • Some tech companies haven’t joined the arms race = mistake (third sentence), because this leaves them defenseless against lawsuits (fourth sentence)
    • Analogy: accumulating patents like accumulating nuclear weapons (first sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “bad patents” (first sentence); “nuclear stockpiling” (first sentence); credible deterrent” (second sentence); “fundamental mistake” (third sentence); “find itself defenseless” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Consequences of permissive patent regime for software industry: particularly bad.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Software particularly vulnerable to permissive patent regime
    • Reason 1: software assembled from modular components (first sentence)
      • If patent office allows those modules to be patented, impossible to develop software product without infringement (second sentence)
    • Reason 2: Software is complex
      • Prohibitively expensive to find all patents a given software product might be infringing (third sentence), so couldn’t find and license all the patents even if you wanted to (fourth sentence)
    • Author’s attitude: “ripe for abuse” (first sentence); “almost impossible” (second sentence); “prohibitively expensive” (third sentence); “unlikely to be able” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Software company: software patents impede innovation.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Some software makers believe software patents impede innovation and are inconsistent with open-source/free software (first sentence)
    • This company aligns itself with those who oppose patents (second sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “makers like ours” (first sentence); “consistently” (first sentence); “inconsistent with” (first sentence); “promote this position” (second sentence); “join our colleagues” (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Current patent regime allows for abuse of patents by large companies.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Small number of large companies have a huge stockpile of software patents (second sentence)
  • These patents can be misused because:
    • Reason 1: questionable nature of software parents (third sentence)
    • Reason 2: high cost of patent litigation (third sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “forced to live” (first sentence); “ripe for misuse” (third sentence); “questionable nature” (third sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Software company has decided to stockpile patents in spite of inconsistency with previous stance.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Defensive strategy against large companies stockpiling patents: amass your own war chest of patents (first sentence)
    • Many software makers do this (second sentence)
  • The company has decided to do this, even though it is inconsistent with their previous stance against patents, because they have to be prudent (third sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “defensive purposes” (first sentence); “in the interests of our company” (third sentence); “protect and promote” (third sentence); “reluctantly” (fourth sentence); “perceived inconsistency” (fourth sentence); “prudence dictates” (fourth sentence)

Main Points:

Passage A - The current patent regime is very permissive, leading to technology companies amassing patents to defend themselves against infringement suits; this is a particular problem in the software industry.

Passage B - A software company spokesperson declares that, though they believe software patents inhibit innovation and are inconsistent with open-source software, they have decided to stockpile patents in order to defend themselves against infringement suits, as other companies have done.

Passage A:

Passage A, Paragraph 2, Sentence 4 (PA P3 S4) - Problem with current patent regime: too permissive

PA P3 S1-2 - Generalization: how technology companies respond to patent regime

PA P3 S3 - Have to engage in patent stockpiling

PA P4 S1 - Example: Software industry; reason 1 for particular vulnerability

PA P4 S3 - Reason 2 for particular vulnerability

Passage B:

PB P1 S1 - Statement of previous policy

PB P2 S3 - Problem

PB P3 S1 - Possible solution

PB P3 S3 - Adoption of solution

Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages?

Passage A: Generalization/Example - This passage uses a Generalization/Example Meta-Structure. The author points out a problem with the current patent granting and enforcement regime: patents are granted too easily and for very broad purposes. This means that companies are not able to innovate without infringing existing patents. The generalization that the author states is that technology companies respond to the patent regime by amassing war chests of patents in a defensive way so that if they are sued for infringement, they can countersue any potential adversary. The example the author gives of an industry in which this is a particular issue is the software industry, which the author states is particularly vulnerable to patent abuse.

Passage B: Problem/Solution - This passage uses a Problem/Solution Meta-Structure. The author of this passage is a spokesperson for a software company acting in precisely the way that the author of passage A described. The author of passage B states that the fact that other companies are amassing war chests of patents is a problem for them, because they don’t have a similar war chest. Though the company in question believes in open-source software and is against software patents in principle, the solution they have decided to adopt in order to solve the problem they face is to amass a war chest of their own.

The relationship between these two passages is fairly straightforward: passage A describes a general state of affairs and then points out a specific example, and passage B validates this example by showing that the predictions of the author of passage A are correct in practice. The arguments and contentions of the two authors are roughly equivalent, with both pointing out the same problems of the permissive patent regime, the misuse of the patent system by companies amassing large numbers of patents for defensive purposes, and the consequences for the particularly vulnerable software industry. These authors are in agreement, with the author of passage A providing an overview of the issues involved and then the author of passage B following up with a perspective taken from a particular industry.

These passages are similar in viewpoint but different in scope. Passage A deals with the patent regime in general, discussing technology companies as a sector, then drilling down to software. Passage B is much narrower in scope and is written from the perspective of an insider in the software industry responding to the forces described in passage A.