您现在的位置: 主页 > 英语教学 > 中学英语 > > 正文


作者:admin    文章来源:盐田区外国语学校    更新时间:2018-04-24

On August 15th Google bid $ 12. 5 billion for Motorola Mobility.  The attraction for the internet gi-ant is not the handset-maker's 19,000 employees nor its 11% share of America's smartphone market,but its portfolio of 17,000 patents.  This will strengthen Google's weak portfolio of around 2,000 pa-tents, hugely strengthening its position in current and future legal battles with its more heavily armed in-dustry rivals.
The basic idea of patents is a good one: an inventor is granted a limited monopoly over a technologyin return for disclosing the details of its workings, so that others can build upon the invention  Advancedtechnologies are thus made widely available, rather than remaining trade secrets, spurring further inno-vation  In some industries, notably pharmaceuticals, it is doubtful that the huge investments needed todevelop new products would be made without the prospect of patent protection.
In recent years, however, the patent system has been stifling innovation rather than encouraging it.
A study in 2008 found that American public companies' total profits from patents in 1999 were about $ 4billion-but that the associated litigation costs were $ 14 billion.  Such costs are behind the Motorola bid:
Google, previously sceptical about patents, is caught up in a tangle of lawsuits relating to smartphonesand wants Motorola's huge portfolio to strengthen its negotiating positionWhat has gone wrong? The prizing of patent quantity rather than quality-lawyers are said to com-pare portfolios by measuring the heights of their respective piles-is one cause for concern  A second isthe rise in dubious patents,  particularly in the fields of software and business methods,  that should neverhave been awarded. This leads to the third: the growing problem of "patent trolls", or firms that treatpatents as lottery tickets and file expensive, time-consuming lawsuits against companies that have sup-posedly infringed them.
A patent-reform act is about to be passed in America, but it has been so watered down that it willfail to make much difference. Three much bolder reforms are needed.
First, patents in fields where innovation moves fast and is relatively cheap-like computing-shouldhave shorter terms than those in areas where it is slower and more expensive-like pharmaceuticals.  Thedivergent interests of patent-holders in different industries have held up reform, but there is no reasonwhy they should not be treated differently: such distinctions are made in other areas of intellectual-prop-erty law.  Second, the bar for obtaining a patent, particularly for software or business methods, shouldbe much higher, and the process of re-evaluating bad patents should be more open and efficient. Finally,there should be greater disclosure requirements of the ownership of patent portfolios, and patent casesshould be heard by specialised courts (as happens in other areas of law) ,  rather than non-expert juries injurisdictions in Texas. That would make life harder for trolls. These fixes would help America's patentsystem encourage innovation rather than litigation [470 words]
1. Google's bid for Motorola Mobility is cited as an example to show _.
[A] the intense competition for patents among companies
[B] the great value of patents to companies
[C] the current use of patents by companies
[D] the distribution of patents among companies
2. The patent system was intended to _.
[A] provide protection for innovations              
[B] expand the usage of innovations
[C] maximize the economic profits of innovations 
[D] encourage technological innovations
3. It can be concluded that presently patents are _.
[A] an efficient tool to spark new ideas            
[B] a commodity with great profits
[C] a common subject of legal disputes             
[D] a solution to technological backwardness
4.  The patent system is wrong in that _.
[A] the authorizing process is too complex         
[B] too many business-methods are issued
[C] it conflicts with other legal practices          
[D] it can't protect patent holders effectively
5. To which of the following statements might the author agree?
[A] Patent-holders should be treated diversely.
[B] Patents should have shorter terms.
[C] The granting of patents should be more efficient.
[D] Patent portfolios should be kept as a business secret.


1.文中例举谷歌对摩托罗拉移动公司的收购案例是为了说明  一。
[A]公司之间对专利的激励竞争    [B]专利对各公司的巨大价值
[C]公司对专利的当前应用    [D]专利在公司之间的分布状况
2.专利系统旨在    。
[A]保护发明创新    [B]扩大对发明的使用[C]使发明的经济利益最大化    [D]鼓励科技创新[精解]答案D本题考查段落主旨。第二段具体介绍了专利体制的良好初衷:授予发明人一定期限的技术垄断权,从而换取他们对技术细节的公开,以便于其他人在此基础上进一步创新。[D]选项符合文意。“授予发明人一定期限的技术垄断权”、“扩大创新的使用范围”分别是是专利体制实现“鼓励创新”这一目的的“必要手段”和“中间环节”,排除[A]、[B]选项。[C]曲解文意,将第二段末句的“专利体制的存在使得有人愿意投入大笔资金用于研发(确实起到了促进了创新的作用)”理解为“专利体制意在使创新的经济价值最大化”。
3.从文中可以得出结论:目前专利是  一。
[A]激发新观点的有效工具    [B]能带来巨大利益的商品[C]常见的法律纷争对象    [D]科技落后的解决方案
[A]授予过程太复杂    [B]颁发的商业法过多[C]和其他法律程序相抵触    [D]不能有效保护专利持有者
[A]应区别对待专利持有者。    [B]专利的期限应缩短。
[C]专利的审批要更加有效率。    [D]应将专利库视为商业秘密。
第六段第一句指出,“创新速度快、研发成本低”的领域内的专利有效期应该比“创新速度慢、研发成本高”的领域内短,[B]选项对shorter terms断章取义。第六段第二句指出,“劣质专利”的重新评估过程应该更加有效,选项[C]将“劣质专利”偷换为“专利”,从而产生巨大含义偏差,故排除。第六段第四句指出,应进一步公开专利库所有权,[D]选项和文意相悖。





    For Benjamin Franklin, it was "early to bed and early to rise. " For Dale Carnegie, it was the dictate"to do and dare. " For Stephen Covey, it was seven simple habits. The principle of self-improvement hastaken varied forms throughout history and is perhaps America's most successful export.  But in the digitalage,  the idea of improving yourself is under siege by a similar-seeming but utterly different principle: thatof self-branding.
    The Internet-connected class worldwide faces growing pressure to cultivate a personal brand. Ordi-nary people are now told to acquire what once only companies and celebrities required: online "findabili-ty," thousands of Google hits and Twitter followers, a niche of their own, a virtual network of patrons,a personal Wikipedia page and dot-com domainThe rise of the personal brand reflects changing economic structures, as secure lifetime employmentgives way to an agitating market in tasks.  It suggests a new unscriptedness in institutions as we evolvefrom the broadcast age to the age of retweets.  It predicts a future in which we all function like one-personcompanies, calculating how every action affects our positioning.
   As personal-branding experts see it, individuals' internal sets of skills, motivations, and interestsare merely responding to new economic realities.  It is no longer enough, they say, to join an organizationand ride its brand for decades. Companies are outsourcing aggressively; globalization is creating and de-stroying industries more rapidly than before; the Web is fostering job-hopping; the recession is throwingmillions on the street.  In this new world, personal branders argue, self-packaging rules. Employees aretold to run permanent marketing campaigns to build an audience that follows their tweets and maintainsFacebook-level awareness of what they are doing.  This audience belongs to you, not your organization,branders say; it will follow you and attract employers to you.
    Companies are wrestling with personal brands. Jonny Bentwood, the head of analyst relations forthe public-relations firm Edelman, said that many clients were torn between the view that multiple voicescheapen a brand and an emergent sense that attracting talent requires tolerating brands-within-a-brand.
    In a much-blogged-about episode, Forrester Research, a market-research firm, this month moved to pro-hibit star analysts from publishing analysis on personal blogs. The move was widely interpreted as abacklash against personal brands.
    Personal branding will, of course, change not just big institutions but also the lives of brandable in-dividuals.  Will it improve job security or simply increase our anxiety? Will it divert power and influencefrom the well-educated to the merely well-branded? There is great pressure from personal audiences tosay hello from Beijing, to speed-review "Avatar," to broadcast the meeting's latest insight.  But is the so-ciety always better off with the undigested utterance, the instantaneous attempt at positioning? And inmarketing ourselves, will we neglect the pursuit of actually improving?  [468 words]
16.  In the opening paragraph,  the author introduces his topic by -'
[A] citing famous quotes by celebrities               [B] listing examples throughout history
[C] comparing two types of principles               [D] bringing forth the new through the old
17.  Self-branding is to _ .
[A] make oneself famous in internet                      [B] own a findable personal website
[C] let oneself be loved by others                        [D] create one's own commercial brand
18. Because of the rising of personal branding,         .
[A] lifetime employment may be replaced by a market in tasks
[B] many one-person companies may spring up
[C] people may concern less about their position in the society
[D] the emphasis may be put on reputation over talent
19. Self-branding may cause companies to face greater difficulty in _ .
[A] attracting talents                                 [B] satisfying customers
[C] maintaining image                               [D] managing employees
20. What is the author's attitude towards the idea of self-branding'?
[A] Indifferent.                                     [B] Anxious.
[C] Indignant.                                    [D] Supportive.
[A]引用名人名言    [B]列举历史上的例子[C]比较两种信条    [D]以旧信条引出新信条
17.自我品牌化是指  ___。
[A]使自己在网上蹿红    [B]拥有一个可被发现的个人网站[C]让自己受到别人的喜爱    [D]创建自己的商业品牌
18.因为自我品牌的兴起,  。
[A]终生雇用制可能被任务劳动市场取代    [B]很多一人公司可能涌现
[C]人们可能较少关注他们在社会中的地位  [D]可能会更多地关注名誉而不是才能
[精解]答案D本题考查推理引申。第三、四段指出个人品牌的兴起:①反映了经济结构的变化,即终生雇用制让位于任务劳动制;②暗示了各个组织机构不再照本宣科(a new uns。,iptedne。s in insti-tutions);③预示未来我们所有人都像一人企业那么运作(function like one-person companies);④反映了在新经济现实下,自我包装才是王道。
19.自我品牌化可能导致公司在    方面面临更大的困难。
[A]吸引人才    [B]满足顾客    [C]保持形象    [D]管理员工
[A]、[B]、[D]分别是根据该段中的个别词汇或短语“attracting talent”“clients”“prohibit star ana-lysts from publishing analysis on personal blogs’’设置的干扰项。
[A]漠不关心。    [B]忧虑。    [C]愤怒。    [D]支持。