Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Which of the following would be the subject of the text?A.A looming threat to business-method patents.B.Protection for business-method patent holders.C.A legal case regarding business-method patents.D.A prevailing trend against business-method patents.
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.
Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.
The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Which of the following would be the subject of the text?
Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.
The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Which of the following would be the subject of the text?
A.A looming threat to business-method patents.
B.Protection for business-method patent holders.
C.A legal case regarding business-method patents.
D.A prevailing trend against business-method patents.
B.Protection for business-method patent holders.
C.A legal case regarding business-method patents.
D.A prevailing trend against business-method patents.
参考解析
解析：主旨题。本文第一段讲过去十年中无数的商业方法被授予专利。第二段指出现在最高专利法庭准备减少这类专利的授予。第三段回顾过去表明这是法庭态度的重大转变。第五段又回到现在点明法庭的反专利倾向．因此全文主题应是“法庭准备限制商业方法专利”。A项“商业方法专利的潜在威胁”正确。B项“对商业方法专利持有人的保护”与主题无关。C项“有关商业方法专利的一个法律案例”仅是文中举的一个例子，并不能概括主题。D项“反对商业方法专利的流行趋势”较有迷惑性，但是prevailing这个词使得此项不能选，因为商业方法专利仅仅是“受到威胁”，还没有变成“普遍的、盛行的”。
相关考题：
Over the past century, all kinds of unfairness and discrimination have been () or made illegal. But one insidious form. continues to thrive: alphabetism. A、chargedB、accusedC、criticizedD、condemned
Working hours in the United States ____________over the past 20 years.A. have increasedB. increasedC. were increasingD. have been increased
If payment is not received，legal action will be our only______.A．aggressionB．advantageC．alternativeD．ambition
请阅读Passage 1。完成第小题。Passage 1African elephants have been slaughtered at alarming rate over the past decade, largely because they are the primary source of the world's ivory. Their population has been dwindled from 1.3 million in 1979 to just 625,000 today, and the rate of killing has been accelerating in recent years because many of the older, bigger tusked animals have already been destroyed. "The poachers now must kill times as many elephants to get the same quantity of ivory," explained Curtis Bohlen,Senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund.Though its record on the environment has been spotty so far, the government last week took the lead in a major conservation issue by imposing a ban on ivory imports into the US. The move came just four days after a consortium of conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation International, called for that kind of action, and it made the US the first nation to forbid imports of both raw and finished ivory. The ban, says Bohlen, sends a very clear message to the ivory poachers that the game is over.In the past African nations have resisted an ivory ban, but increasingly they realized that the decimation of the elephant herds poses a serious threat to their tourist business. Last month Tanzania and several other African countries called for an amendment to the 102 nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that would make the ivory trade illegal worldwide.The amendment is expected to be approved at an October meeting in Geneva and to go into effect next January. But between now and then, conservationists contend, poachers may go on a rampage,killing elephants wholesale, so nations should unilaterally forbid imports right away. The US government brought that argument, and by week's end the twelve nations European Community had followed with its own ban.According to the passage, "dwindle" (Para.1) means__________.查看材料A．decreaseB．enlargeC．weakenD．eliminate
请阅读Passage 1。完成第小题。Passage 1African elephants have been slaughtered at alarming rate over the past decade, largely because they are the primary source of the world's ivory. Their population has been dwindled from 1.3 million in 1979 to just 625,000 today, and the rate of killing has been accelerating in recent years because many of the older, bigger tusked animals have already been destroyed. "The poachers now must kill times as many elephants to get the same quantity of ivory," explained Curtis Bohlen,Senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund.Though its record on the environment has been spotty so far, the government last week took the lead in a major conservation issue by imposing a ban on ivory imports into the US. The move came just four days after a consortium of conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation International, called for that kind of action, and it made the US the first nation to forbid imports of both raw and finished ivory. The ban, says Bohlen, sends a very clear message to the ivory poachers that the game is over.In the past African nations have resisted an ivory ban, but increasingly they realized that the decimation of the elephant herds poses a serious threat to their tourist business. Last month Tanzania and several other African countries called for an amendment to the 102 nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that would make the ivory trade illegal worldwide.The amendment is expected to be approved at an October meeting in Geneva and to go into effect next January. But between now and then, conservationists contend, poachers may go on a rampage,killing elephants wholesale, so nations should unilaterally forbid imports right away. The US government brought that argument, and by week's end the twelve nations European Community had followed with its own ban.Why did the African nations welcome an ivory ban?查看材料A．The rate of killing has been accelerating.B．The US government forbids imports of both raw and finished ivory.C．They realized that the killing of elephants is a serious threat to their tourist business.D．African people advocated an ivory ban.
请阅读Passage 1。完成第小题。Passage 1African elephants have been slaughtered at alarming rate over the past decade, largely because they are the primary source of the world's ivory. Their population has been dwindled from 1.3 million in 1979 to just 625,000 today, and the rate of killing has been accelerating in recent years because many of the older, bigger tusked animals have already been destroyed. "The poachers now must kill times as many elephants to get the same quantity of ivory," explained Curtis Bohlen,Senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund.Though its record on the environment has been spotty so far, the government last week took the lead in a major conservation issue by imposing a ban on ivory imports into the US. The move came just four days after a consortium of conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation International, called for that kind of action, and it made the US the first nation to forbid imports of both raw and finished ivory. The ban, says Bohlen, sends a very clear message to the ivory poachers that the game is over.In the past African nations have resisted an ivory ban, but increasingly they realized that the decimation of the elephant herds poses a serious threat to their tourist business. Last month Tanzania and several other African countries called for an amendment to the 102 nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that would make the ivory trade illegal worldwide.The amendment is expected to be approved at an October meeting in Geneva and to go into effect next January. But between now and then, conservationists contend, poachers may go on a rampage,killing elephants wholesale, so nations should unilaterally forbid imports right away. The US government brought that argument, and by week's end the twelve nations European Community had followed with its own ban.What's the author's attitude?查看材料A．Subjective.B．Neutral.C．Pessimistic.D．Active.
请阅读Passage 1。完成第小题。Passage 1African elephants have been slaughtered at alarming rate over the past decade, largely because they are the primary source of the world's ivory. Their population has been dwindled from 1.3 million in 1979 to just 625,000 today, and the rate of killing has been accelerating in recent years because many of the older, bigger tusked animals have already been destroyed. "The poachers now must kill times as many elephants to get the same quantity of ivory," explained Curtis Bohlen,Senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund.Though its record on the environment has been spotty so far, the government last week took the lead in a major conservation issue by imposing a ban on ivory imports into the US. The move came just four days after a consortium of conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation International, called for that kind of action, and it made the US the first nation to forbid imports of both raw and finished ivory. The ban, says Bohlen, sends a very clear message to the ivory poachers that the game is over.In the past African nations have resisted an ivory ban, but increasingly they realized that the decimation of the elephant herds poses a serious threat to their tourist business. Last month Tanzania and several other African countries called for an amendment to the 102 nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that would make the ivory trade illegal worldwide.The amendment is expected to be approved at an October meeting in Geneva and to go into effect next January. But between now and then, conservationists contend, poachers may go on a rampage,killing elephants wholesale, so nations should unilaterally forbid imports right away. The US government brought that argument, and by week's end the twelve nations European Community had followed with its own ban.Since many of the older, bigger-tusked animals have already been destroyed, what did the poacher do?查看材料A．They gave up poaching.B．They killed more elephants to get the same quantity of ivory..C．To them, game is over.D．They realized it was illegal to slaughter elephants.
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.The word "about-face" (Paragraph 3) most probably meansA.loss of good willB.increase of hostilityC.change of attitudeD.enhancement of dignity
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Business-method patents have recendy aroused concern because ofA.their limited value to businessesB.their connection with asset allocationC.the possible restriction on their grantingD.the controversy over their authorization
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?A.Its ruling complies with the court decisions.B.It involves a very big business transaction.C.It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.D.It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.27.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?A.Its ruling complies with the court decisionsB.It involves a very big business transactionC.It has been dismissed by the Federal CircuitD.It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.28.The word"about-face"（Line 1,Para 3）most probably meansA.loss of good willB.increase of hostilityC.change of attitudeD.enhancement of dignity
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.29.We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patentsA.are immune to legal challengesB.are often unnecessarily issuedC.lower the esteem for patent holdersD.increase the incidence of risks
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.30.Which of the following would be the subject of the text?A.A looming threat to business-method patentsB.Protection for business-method patent holdersC.A legal case regarding business-method patentsD.A prevailing trend against business-method patents
Text 2 Over the past decade,thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods.Amazon.com received one for its"one-click"online payment system.Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy.One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents,which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago.In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S.court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents.In re Bilski,as the case is known,is"a very big deal",says DennisD.Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law.It"has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face,because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case,approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets.That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings,initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions.Later,more established companies raced to add such patents to their files,if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch.In 2005,IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them.Similarly,some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products,even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market.The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges,rather than a typical panel of three,and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should"reconsider"its state street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders.Last April,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for"inventions"that are obvious.The judges on the Federal circuit are"reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court",says HaroldC.Wegner,a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.26.Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because ofA.their limited value to businessB.their connection with asset allocationC.the possible restriction on their grantingD.the controversy over their authorization
African elephants have been slaughtered at alarming rate over the past decade, largely because they are the primary source of the world's ivory． Their population has been dwindled from 1．3 million in 1979 to just 625,000 today, and the rate of killing has been accelerating in recent years because many of the older, bigger tusked animals have already been destroyed． "The poachers now must kill times as many elephants to get the same quantity of ivory," explained Curtis Bohlen, Senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund． Though its record on the environment has been spotty so far, the government last week took the lead in a major conservation issue by imposing a ban on ivory imports into the US． The move came just four days after a consortium of conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation International, called for that kind of action, and it made the US the first nation to forbid imports of both raw and finished ivory． The ban, says Bohlen, sends a very clear message to the ivory poachers that the game is over． In the past African nations have resisted an ivory ban, but increasingly they realized that the decimation of the elephant herds poses a serious threat to their tourist business． Last month Tanzania and several other African countries called for an amendment to the 102 nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that would make the ivory trade illegal worldwide． The amendment is expected to be approved at an October meeting in Geneva and to go into effect next January． But between now and then, conservationists contend, poachers may go on a rampage, killing elephants wholesale, so nations should unilaterally forbid imports right away． The US government brought that argument, and by week's end the twelve nation European Community had followed with its own ban． What's the author's attitude?A. SubjectiveB. NeutralC. PessimisticD. Activ
Questions 76-79 refer to the following advertisement.BONDHAM INTERNATIONALBondham International, one of the leading real estate firm in the world, has been in business for over 50 years. We began our business by specializing in residential sales, primarily in Australia. Over time, our business has grown to include property rental and management services in locations throughout the world. We now sell, and manage over 15000 commercial and residential properties, and our global network includes employees in Australia, Canada, England, Kenya, and Mexico. We have won numerous industry awards, and our firm has been named one of the top ten international real estate firms by the World Association of Property Management.In our effort to provide the highest quality service available, we have made significant investments in staff training. As a result, our sales agents offer a wealth of real estate expertise that our clients can always rely on. In addition, through market research and customer satisfaction surveys, we have been able to fulfill client expectations by consistently delivering the highest quality of service.Whether you have interested in selling a home,purchasing a commercial property, or simply obtaining expert real estate advice, Bondham International can respond effectively to your needs. Learn more about our firm by visiting our Website, www.bondhaminternational.co.au.What is stated about Bondham International?A. Most of its work is done online.B. The staff works only in Australia.C. Its prices are the lowest in the industry.D. It has expanded over the years.
African elephants have been slaughtered at alarming rate over the past decade, largely because they are the primary source of the world's ivory． Their population has been dwindled from 1．3 million in 1979 to just 625,000 today, and the rate of killing has been accelerating in recent years because many of the older, bigger tusked animals have already been destroyed． "The poachers now must kill times as many elephants to get the same quantity of ivory," explained Curtis Bohlen, Senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund． Though its record on the environment has been spotty so far, the government last week took the lead in a major conservation issue by imposing a ban on ivory imports into the US． The move came just four days after a consortium of conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation International, called for that kind of action, and it made the US the first nation to forbid imports of both raw and finished ivory． The ban, says Bohlen, sends a very clear message to the ivory poachers that the game is over． In the past African nations have resisted an ivory ban, but increasingly they realized that the decimation of the elephant herds poses a serious threat to their tourist business． Last month Tanzania and several other African countries called for an amendment to the 102 nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that would make the ivory trade illegal worldwide． The amendment is expected to be approved at an October meeting in Geneva and to go into effect next January． But between now and then, conservationists contend, poachers may go on a rampage, killing elephants wholesale, so nations should unilaterally forbid imports right away． The US government brought that argument, and by week's end the twelve nation European Community had followed with its own ban． According to the passage, "dwindle" means______A. decreaseB. enlargeC. weakenD. eliminate
A requirement is simply a statement of what the system must do or what characteristics it needs to have. Requirements written from the perspective of user and focus on user needs are called __(71)__. Requirements written from the developer's perspective and describe how the system will be implemented are called __(72)__. Requirements evolve from detailed statemens of business capabilities that a system should have to detailed statements of the technical way in whick the capabilities will be implemented in the new system. Requirements can be either functional or nofunctional in nature. For example, during the analysis phase of travel vehicles sales system, the system that must have the ability to search for available inventory is __(73)__. The requirement that the system should be able to work on any Web browser belongs to __(74)__. That customer personal information is protected in compliance with the Data Protection Act is a requirement of __(75)__.（72）应选？A.operational requirementsB.business requirementsC.technical requirementsD.system requirements
A requirement is simply a statement of what the system must do or what characteristics it needs to have. Requirements written from the perspective of user and focus on user needs are called __(71)__. Requirements written from the developer's perspective and describe how the system will be implemented are called __(72)__. Requirements evolve from detailed statemens of business capabilities that a system should have to detailed statements of the technical way in whick the capabilities will be implemented in the new system. Requirements can be either functional or nofunctional in nature. For example, during the analysis phase of travel vehicles sales system, the system that must have the ability to search for available inventory is __(73)__. The requirement that the system should be able to work on any Web browser belongs to __(74)__. That customer personal information is protected in compliance with the Data Protection Act is a requirement of __(75)__.（74）应选？A.functional requirementsB.technical requirementsC.operational requirementsD.information requirements
单选题Your ship is in shallow water and the bow rides up on its bow wave while the stern sinks into a depression of its transverse wave system. What is this called?（）.ABroachingBFish tailingCSquattingDParallel sinkage
单选题Manually， you set the consumer group of all of the newly created users to MYDB_GRP. You want the users to be able to change their consumer groups as per the application requirement. What was the first step that was needed in the process to achieve this objective？（）A The user must have been granted the DBA role.B The user must have been granted the switch privilege as a part of a role.C The user must have been granted the Resource Manager administrator privilege.D The user must have been granted the switch privilege by using the DBMS_RESOURCE_MANAGER_PRIVS package.
单选题Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?ABoth Compton’s and World Book are encyclopedias.BEncarta Encyclopedia is giving way to Encyclopedia Britannica.CThe sales of Encyclopedia Britannica have been going down dramatically over the past Decade.DEncyclopedia Britannica opens its Web site to attract more readers.
问答题题目要求： In this part of the test, you are asked to give a short talk on a business topic. You have to choose one of the topics from the three below and then talk for about one minute. You have one minute to prepare your ideas.Practice 1 (The candidate chooses one topic and speaks about it for one minute.) A How to negotiate successfully when we are in business? B In business, what important role does the communication take? C What kinds of skills shall the technical writers have?
单选题Manually， you set the consumer group of all of the newly created users to MYDB_GRP. You want the users to be able to change their consumer groups as per the application requirement. What was the first step that was needed in the process to achieve this objective？（）AThe user must have been granted the DBA role.BThe user must have been granted the switch privilege as a part of a role.CThe user must have been granted the Resource Manager administrator privilege.DThe user must have been granted the switch privilege by using the DBMS_RESOURCE_MANAGER_PRIVS package.
判断题In 1998 America introduced so-called “business-method” patents, which have greatly encouraged commercial innovation.A对B错
单选题What kind of experience does Mr. Nixon have with Employco?AHe worked for it in the past.BHe has used its website before.CHe is currently one of its headhunters.DHe was disappointed with its service.