Self-paced
Passage A is from a 2007 article on the United States patent system; passage B is from a corporate statement.
███████ █
P1
██████████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███
Critique ·
Of patent system
In theory, it should only be the "nonobvious" inventions that get patens.
Example ·
Patent upheld for "obvious" translation between Internet address and telephone number
P2
██ ██ █████ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ █████████ █████
Critique ·
Patents too broad
In theory, patents should be narrow enough so others can "invent around" existing patents. But recently, patents are so broad that that's getting difficult.
P3
█████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ █ ███████ ███ ███████ █
Negative Consequence ·
Large tech companies stockpile patents
This way, if they get sued for patent violations, they can countersue. If you're not a part of this "arms race" then you are defenseless against law suits.
P4
████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ████████ ██ █████████ ████
Negative Consequence ·
Software
This problem is particularly bad in software. A critical component can be patented. It can be challenging to discover whether something is under patent protection.
███████ █
P5
████████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ████████████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ████████████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████
One Company's Perspective ·
Patents impede innovation; open-source is better
Whereas Passage A describes the problem with patents in software from a high level, Passage B takes the perspective of one software company affected by this problem and how they are responding to it.
P6
██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ████ █████ █████████ ███████ ████████ ████████ █ █████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████████
Agreement ·
Software patents are a problem
This company agrees with Passage A that the "arms race" is bad for the industry.
P7
███ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ███████ █ █████████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ █████
Behavior ·
Amass a portfolio of patents
The company participates in the "arms race" but expresses regret. They have to do this even though they recognize that this is not good for the industry.
Passage Style
15.
Which one of the following █████ █████ ██ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ █ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████
a
"The Use and █████ ██ ████████
████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████████
The real problem is the second title. Passage B never calls for eliminating software patents. The company says it opposes them, but the passage is about the company's decision to build a defensive patent portfolio despite that opposition.
b
"Reforming Patent Laws"
███ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████
Passage A describes problems with the patent system but never proposes reforms. It diagnoses the issues (lowered bar for obviousness, overly broad patents, software patent abuse) without offering solutions. And Passage B is not a defense of software patents. The company explicitly says patents impede software innovation. The passage defends their decision to acquire patents as a strategic necessity, which is a very different thing from defending patents themselves.
c
"Patenting the Obvious"
█████████ █ █████████ ███████
"Patenting the Obvious" captures Passage A's central critique: the patent system awards patents for ideas that shouldn't qualify, particularly in software, creating a cascade of problems (broad patents, arms-race stockpiling, unavoidable infringement). "Patents: A Defensive Policy" captures Passage B's purpose: explaining why the company is reluctantly building a patent portfolio as a defense against the very system it opposes. Both titles match what their passages are actually about.
d
"A Misunderstanding of ██████ █████████
████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████
Passage A isn't describing a misunderstanding. The problems it identifies (obvious patents being granted, courts lowering the bar, software patents blocking development) are not a case of someone getting the rules wrong. And "Keeping Software Free but Safe" is too vague for Passage B. The passage has a specific focus: justifying a defensive patent strategy despite the company's opposition to software patents.
e
"Developing a Credible █████████ ███████ ██████ █████████
███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████
The deterrent strategy is one section of Passage A, not its overall subject. The passage covers the obviousness problem, overly broad patents, and the particular vulnerability of software before getting to the stockpiling point. The first title treats a supporting example as the main topic. And Passage B is not an apology. The company acknowledges a tension between its anti-patent stance and its decision to acquire patents, but it frames that decision as prudent and necessary, not as something it's sorry for.