单选题 Do patents help or hinder innovation? Instinctively, they would seem a blessing. Patenting an idea gives its inventor a 20-year monopoly to exploit the fruit of his labor in the marketplace, in exchange for publishing a full account of how the new product, process or material works for everyone to see. For the inventor, that may be a reasonable trade-off. For society, however, the loss of competition through the granting sole tights to an individual or organization is justified only if it stimulates the economy and delivers goods that change people's lives for the better.
Invention, though, is not innovation. It may take a couple of enthusiasts working evenings and weekends for a year or two-not to mention tens of thousands of dollars of their savings-to get a pet idea to the patenting stage. But that is just the beginning. Innovations based on patented inventions or discoveries can take teams of researchers, engineers and marketing experts a decade or more, and tens of millions of dollars, to transfer to the marketplace. And for every bright idea that goes on to become a commercial winner, literally thousands {{U}}fall by the wayside{{/U}}.
Most economists would argue that, without a patent system, even fewer inventions would lead to successful innovations, and those that did would be kept secret for far longer in order to maximize returns. But what if patents actually discourage the combining and recombining of inventions to yield new products and processes-as has happened in biotechnology, genetics and other disciplines?
Or what about those ridiculous business-process patents, like Amazon.com's "one-click" patent or the "name-your-price" auction patent assigned to Priceline.com? Instead of stimulating innovation, such patents seem more about extracting "rents" from innocent bystanders going about their business. One thing has become clear since business-process patents took off in America during the 1990s: the quality of patents has deteriorated markedly. And with sloppier patenting standards, litigation has increased. The result is higher transaction costs all ronnd.
It is not simply a failure of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to examine applications more rigorously. The Federal Circuit has been responsible for a number of bizarre rulings. Because of its diverse responsibilities, the Federal Circuit-unlike its counterparts in Europe and Japan-has never really acquired adequate expertise in patent law.
To be eligible for a patent, an invention must not just be novel, but also useful and non-obvious. Anything that relies on natural phenomena, abstract ideas or the laws of nature does not qualify. The USPTO has taken to requiring a working prototype of anything that supposedly breaches the laws of physics. So, no more perpetual-motion machines, please.

单选题 What can we learn from the first paragraph?

A. It is a natural tendency for people to believe that innovation is stimulated by patents.
B. The inventors cannot reap the fruits of their patents until many years later.
C. Individuals and organizations welcome competitions brought about by the patentees.
D. Patenting can never be a blessing to society if it fails to benefit people at large.

单选题 The phrase "fall by the wayside" (Line 6, Para. 2) most probably means

A. "give up".
B. "break down".
C. "drop off".
D. "fall over".

单选题 According to the author, the "one-click" patent and the "name-your-price" patent are

A. comical.
B. shocking.
C. absurd.
D. unreasonable.

单选题 The author holds that business-process patents

A. should have been introduced earlier.
B. have helped innovation.
C. should be responsible for rising prices.
D. should achieve a higher standardization.

单选题 According to the text, which of the following is eligible for a patent?

A. The perpetual-motion machine.
B. A solar-powered automobile.
C. The "one-click" online payment system.
D. A words-memorizing approach.