The system of patent-granting, which confers temporary monopolies for the exploitation of new technologies, was originally established as an incentive to the pursuit of risky new ideas. Yet studies of the most patent-conscious business of all"”the semiconductor industry"”suggest that firms do not ecessarily become more innovative as they increase their patenting activity. Ziedonis and Hall, for example, found that investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor
firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. Moreover, Ziedonis and Hall found that as patenting activity at semiconductor firms increased in the 1980’s, the consensus among industry employees was that the
average quality of their firms’ patents declined. Though patent quality is a difficult notion to measure, he number of times a patent is cited in the technical literature is a reasonable yardstick, and citations per semiconductor patent did decline during the 1980’s. This decline in quality may be related to changes in the way semiconductor firms managed their patenting
process: rather than patenting to win exclusive rights to a valuable new technology, patents were filed more for strategic purposes, to be used as bargaining chips to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors’ products.
The passage suggests which of the following about patenting in the semiconductor industry during the period from 1982 to 1992?
(A) The declining number of citations per semiconductor patent in the technical literature undermines the notion that patenting activity increased during this period.
(B) A decline in patent quality forced firms to change the way they managed the patenting process.
(C) Increased efficiencies allowed firms to derive more patents from existing research and development expenditures.
(D) Firms’ emphasis on filing patents for strategic purposes may have contributed to a decline in patent quality.
(E) Firms’ attempts to derive more patents from xisting research and development expenditures may have contributed to a decline in infringement suites.
Here both C and D seem to very close!!!!
I chose C because of the lines below taken from the passage
......did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures.....
Why is C wrong and D correct??
The passage makes which of the following claims about patent quality in the semiconductor industry?
(A) It was higher in the early 1980’s than it was a decade later.
(B) It is largely independent of the number of patents granted.
(C) It changed between 1982 and 1992 in ways that were linked to changes in research and development expenditures.
(D) It is not adequately discussed in the industry’s technical literature.
(E) It was measured by inappropriate means during the period from 1982 to 1992
I can see why A is correct.... But cant really find a reason to eliminate C..
Please help !
Cheers
GMAT Forum
- jp.jprasanna
- Students
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:48 am
- LazyNK
- Students
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:25 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
Hello JP,
First question :
"......did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures....."
- You have assumed that "squeezing" more patents out of existing reasearch and development expenditures means incresed efficiencies. I'd not assume that after reading this passage, as it is very clear that the passage is conveying that filing patents is no longer done for innovation but for other reasons. After reading this passage, I'd be in the frame of mind that increased efficiency in R&D and patent filing would be last thing the author would bring forward in this passage. Infact, I'd assume that this statement means that firms are utilizing higher proportion of R&D budget for filing patents rather than performing R&D.
Still, you could keep this answer in standby, and look for other answer choices. And, the option "D" is a more direct conclusion from the line "This decline in quality may be related to changes in the way semiconductor firms managed their patenting process: rather than patenting to win exclusive rights to a valuable new technology, patents were filed more for strategic purposes, to be used as bargaining chips to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors’ products." So, go for answer D, even if you thought C was correct, because there were ample scope of assumptions in option-C, there aren't any assumptions in D.
Second question : C can be easily eliminated because it is mentioned in the passage that "investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. " . Thus it is clearly mentioned that R&D expenditures-> same, number of patents -> increased , so it can't be said that quality of patent filings changed in a way related to R&D expenditure.
-NK
First question :
"......did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures....."
- You have assumed that "squeezing" more patents out of existing reasearch and development expenditures means incresed efficiencies. I'd not assume that after reading this passage, as it is very clear that the passage is conveying that filing patents is no longer done for innovation but for other reasons. After reading this passage, I'd be in the frame of mind that increased efficiency in R&D and patent filing would be last thing the author would bring forward in this passage. Infact, I'd assume that this statement means that firms are utilizing higher proportion of R&D budget for filing patents rather than performing R&D.
Still, you could keep this answer in standby, and look for other answer choices. And, the option "D" is a more direct conclusion from the line "This decline in quality may be related to changes in the way semiconductor firms managed their patenting process: rather than patenting to win exclusive rights to a valuable new technology, patents were filed more for strategic purposes, to be used as bargaining chips to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors’ products." So, go for answer D, even if you thought C was correct, because there were ample scope of assumptions in option-C, there aren't any assumptions in D.
Second question : C can be easily eliminated because it is mentioned in the passage that "investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. " . Thus it is clearly mentioned that R&D expenditures-> same, number of patents -> increased , so it can't be said that quality of patent filings changed in a way related to R&D expenditure.
-NK
Last edited by LazyNK on Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
- jp.jprasanna
- Students
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:48 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
LazyNK Wrote:Hello JP,
Second question : C can be easily eliminated because it is mentioned in the passage that "investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. " . Thus it is clearly mentioned that R&D expenditures-> same, number of patents -> increased , so it can't be said that number of patent filings changed in a way related to R&D expenditure.
-NK
Hi NK - For Question 2
"investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. "
The above can be interpret to say the companies spent less on R&D at the same time churned out more patents for bad reasons, so the quality of patent changed from 1982 to 1992 option C..
(C) It changed between 1982 and 1992 in ways that were linked to changes in research and development expenditures
Im not arguing again the correct ans.. which is the best one among the 5, and I chose this option A in the exam but i'm not completely able to eliminate this ans choice C i was brooding over C & D- which ate a lot of my time...!
LazyNK Wrote:Hello JP,
First question :
"......did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures....."
- You have assumed that "squeezing" more patents out of existing reasearch and development expenditures means incresed efficiencies. I'd not assume that after reading this passage, as it is very clear that the passage is conveying that filing patents is no longer done for innovation but for other reasons. After reading this passage, I'd be in the frame of mind that increased efficiency in R&D and patent filing would be last thing the author would bring forward in this passage. Infact, I'd assume that this statement means that firms are utilizing higher proportion of R&D budget for filing patents rather than performing R&D.
Still, you could keep this answer in standby, and look for other answer choices. And, the option "D" is a more direct conclusion from the line "This decline in quality may be related to changes in the way semiconductor firms managed their patenting process: rather than patenting to win exclusive rights to a valuable new technology, patents were filed more for strategic purposes, to be used as bargaining chips to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors’ products." So, go for answer D, even if you thought C was correct, because there were ample scope of assumptions in option-C, there aren't any assumptions in D.
For Question 1 same as above...
"......did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures....."
I do understand the author has a negative tone about the companies in passage who patent to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors’ products.
Again cant the above Bold can be interpret to say, for example
The companies churned out more products without increasing the expenditure (more efficiently) but these products turned out be bad in quality...
Option C
(C) Increased efficiencies allowed firms to derive more patents from existing research and development expenditures
Although I agree that "Increased efficiencies allowed firms to derive more patents" conveys a positive tone I'm not sure whether the words "Increased efficiencies" is alone sufficient to ding this ans choice!
Cheers
Jp
- LazyNK
- Students
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:25 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
Hi JP,
You say :
""investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. "
The above can be interpret to say the companies spent less on R&D at the same time churned out more patents for bad reasons, so the quality of patent changed from 1982 to 1992 option C.."
Note the difference between "investment in research and development did not substantially increase" and what you say "companies spent less on R&D". The first statement means that R&D investment remained more or less same (may be increased but not substantially) AND NOT that R&D investment decreased as you interpret. This difference is critical, as if it were mentioned that R&D expenditure reduced, then your interpretation could be correct, but in this case, it is incorrect to intrepret the way you say.
Second, you say :
"......did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures....."
I do understand the author has a negative tone about the companies in passage who patent to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors’ products.
Again cant the above Bold can be interpret to say, for example
The companies churned out more products without increasing the expenditure (more efficiently) but these products turned out be bad in quality...
Option C
(C) Increased efficiencies allowed firms to derive more patents from existing research and development expenditures
Although I agree that "Increased efficiencies allowed firms to derive more patents" conveys a positive tone I'm not sure whether the words "Increased efficiencies" is alone sufficient to ding this ans choice!
Your contention that the above can be interpreted as "The companies churned out more products without increasing the expenditure (more efficiently) but these products turned out be bad in quality..." again is going too far in assuming.
First thing, "Patents" are different from "Products". Generally speaking, you can't degrade the quality of patents by reducing costs, like in the case of products. Patents are IDEAS, and how do you degrade quality of ideas by reducing cost ? I've myself got about 8 patents (filed + grants) in my name, so I sort of know how it works :) . For a product, you could reduce cost by using cheaper quality material, thereby reducing cost and degrading quality, but not so for patents. For patents, the cost comes from Attorney's fees, the USPTO charges and maintainence fees etc., and whatever one might do, there is no "quality"-"cost" tradeoff.
See, that is the thing. That is precisely why, even Manhattan guys prefer that a student read the passage first , rather than looking at question and searching for answer in the passage after that ("hunter" style).
1.)If you get a feel of the context, it is less likely that you will interpret the statements oppositte to the spirit of the passage.
2.) Refrain from assuming too far - if you get attracted towards an answer - put it on standby (don't discard it right away), but in case you find something which is more direct and requires lesser assumptions, go for it.
3.) Real life knowledge (contrary to how Manhattan says), does come handy. You don't want to bring in too much of it, but you still want to use it to distinguish practicality from absurdity - as I showed in the case of "cost of patents" above.
-NK
You say :
""investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. "
The above can be interpret to say the companies spent less on R&D at the same time churned out more patents for bad reasons, so the quality of patent changed from 1982 to 1992 option C.."
Note the difference between "investment in research and development did not substantially increase" and what you say "companies spent less on R&D". The first statement means that R&D investment remained more or less same (may be increased but not substantially) AND NOT that R&D investment decreased as you interpret. This difference is critical, as if it were mentioned that R&D expenditure reduced, then your interpretation could be correct, but in this case, it is incorrect to intrepret the way you say.
Second, you say :
"......did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry’s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures....."
I do understand the author has a negative tone about the companies in passage who patent to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors’ products.
Again cant the above Bold can be interpret to say, for example
The companies churned out more products without increasing the expenditure (more efficiently) but these products turned out be bad in quality...
Option C
(C) Increased efficiencies allowed firms to derive more patents from existing research and development expenditures
Although I agree that "Increased efficiencies allowed firms to derive more patents" conveys a positive tone I'm not sure whether the words "Increased efficiencies" is alone sufficient to ding this ans choice!
Your contention that the above can be interpreted as "The companies churned out more products without increasing the expenditure (more efficiently) but these products turned out be bad in quality..." again is going too far in assuming.
First thing, "Patents" are different from "Products". Generally speaking, you can't degrade the quality of patents by reducing costs, like in the case of products. Patents are IDEAS, and how do you degrade quality of ideas by reducing cost ? I've myself got about 8 patents (filed + grants) in my name, so I sort of know how it works :) . For a product, you could reduce cost by using cheaper quality material, thereby reducing cost and degrading quality, but not so for patents. For patents, the cost comes from Attorney's fees, the USPTO charges and maintainence fees etc., and whatever one might do, there is no "quality"-"cost" tradeoff.
See, that is the thing. That is precisely why, even Manhattan guys prefer that a student read the passage first , rather than looking at question and searching for answer in the passage after that ("hunter" style).
1.)If you get a feel of the context, it is less likely that you will interpret the statements oppositte to the spirit of the passage.
2.) Refrain from assuming too far - if you get attracted towards an answer - put it on standby (don't discard it right away), but in case you find something which is more direct and requires lesser assumptions, go for it.
3.) Real life knowledge (contrary to how Manhattan says), does come handy. You don't want to bring in too much of it, but you still want to use it to distinguish practicality from absurdity - as I showed in the case of "cost of patents" above.
-NK
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
LazyNK Wrote:3.) Real life knowledge (contrary to how Manhattan says), does come handy. You don't want to bring in too much of it, but you still want to use it to distinguish practicality from absurdity - as I showed in the case of "cost of patents" above.[/b]
-NK
lazyNK,
be careful with this. when we say that real-life knowledge is irrelevant to the reading comp section, we are talking about real-life knowledge -- as in specific knowledge of facts.
here you are referring to the distinction between practicality and absurdity, which is NOT an example of knowledge in this sense. instead, that's an example of real-world common sense or intuition.
that sort of common sense/intuition is probably the single most important thing that you need to have for the verbal section. for reading comprehension and critical reasoning, at the end of the day, it's going to be the primary tool that you use to solve problems. it's also highly relevant to sentence correction, since most sentence errors have something to do with the meaning of the sentence -- and figuring out the meaning of a sentence, at heart, is another application of the same kind of common sense/intuition.
nevertheless, it is still true that you need essentially zero knowledge of specific facts -- and even, in some cases, that knowledge of those facts can be a hindrance. for instance, in the official guide passage about the theory of ice ages, there's a question on which one of the wrong answers deals with "a radioactive substance" (or something like that -- i don't have the source in front of me at the moment).
students who don't know any chemistry will be able to eliminate this answer choice fairly easily, because the passage doesn't mention radioactivity. however, ironically, students who do know chemistry may be tempted to take that choice, since the passage does, in fact, mention certain isotopes that happen to be radioactive. the issue is that the passage never mentions that those substances are radioactive.
--
JP --
in response to the original question on this thread, the point of the entire discussion of patenting activity between 1982 and 1992 is that patents themselves were becoming, in essence, less substantive and more frivolous. therefore, the idea of "increased efficiencies" -- which isn't supported by anything in the passage, anyway -- disqualifies this answer choice because it runs exactly counter to that kind of idea.
- LazyNK
- Students
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:25 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
You are right, Ron. I agree with your comment.
Thanks
-NK
P.S.- Big fan of "Thursdays with Ron"
Thanks
-NK
P.S.- Big fan of "Thursdays with Ron"
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
LazyNK Wrote:You are right, Ron. I agree with your comment.
Thanks
-NK
P.S.- Big fan of "Thursdays with Ron"
thanks.
- eybrj2
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:17 pm
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
I have a question regarding the second question.
I can see why A is correct but cannot see why B is not.
I picked B. My reasoning was like this.
Even though the number of patents increased, the quality of patents decreased.
Thus, the number of patents is not related with the quality of patents.
feel free to point out the flaws that the logic has.
I can see why A is correct but cannot see why B is not.
I picked B. My reasoning was like this.
Even though the number of patents increased, the quality of patents decreased.
Thus, the number of patents is not related with the quality of patents.
feel free to point out the flaws that the logic has.
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
eybrj2 Wrote:I have a question regarding the second question.
I can see why A is correct but cannot see why B is not.
I picked B. My reasoning was like this.
Even though the number of patents increased, the quality of patents decreased.
Thus, the number of patents is not related with the quality of patents.
feel free to point out the flaws that the logic has.
choice (b) says "independent".
if X decreases when Y increases, then X and Y are *not* "independent"; they are correlated.
the only difference is that the correlation is a "negative correlation" (when one goes up, the other goes down) instead of a "positive correlation" (both go up or down together).
"independent" means that there is no relationship at all. if two things X and Y are independent, then, in general, Y will not change at all in response to changes in X, nor will X respond to changes in Y.
- Khush
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:12 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
one more question from this passage:
Which of the following, if true, would most clearly serve to weaken the author's claim about what constitutes a reasonable yardstick for measuring patent quality?
A) It is more difficult to have an article accepted for publication in the technical literature of the semiconductor industry than it is in the technical literature of most other industries
B) Many of the highest quality semiconductor patents are cited numerous times in the technical literature
C) It is difficult for someone not familiar with the technical literature to recognize what constitutes an innovative semiconductor patent
D) There were more citations made per semiconductor patent in the technical literature in the 1970's than in the 1980's
E) Low-quality patents tend to be discussed in the technical literature as frequently as high-quality patents
OA: E
I chose B
relevant portion of the passage:
"Though patent quality is a difficult notion to measure, the number of times a patent is cited in the technical literature is a reasonable yardstick, and citations per semiconductor patent did decline during the 1980’s"
I chose B as i thought B means to say that it is the other way round i.e actually " existing higher quality patents are being picked and are cited in the technical literature". hence the number of citations may no more decide the patent quality.
what's wrong with my reasoning?
could you please point out?
On the other hand, E means to say that both types of patents (of higher quality and of lower quality) are cited equal number of times in the technical literature.
I could not choose E because of my aforesaid understanding of choice B.
Which of the following, if true, would most clearly serve to weaken the author's claim about what constitutes a reasonable yardstick for measuring patent quality?
A) It is more difficult to have an article accepted for publication in the technical literature of the semiconductor industry than it is in the technical literature of most other industries
B) Many of the highest quality semiconductor patents are cited numerous times in the technical literature
C) It is difficult for someone not familiar with the technical literature to recognize what constitutes an innovative semiconductor patent
D) There were more citations made per semiconductor patent in the technical literature in the 1970's than in the 1980's
E) Low-quality patents tend to be discussed in the technical literature as frequently as high-quality patents
OA: E
I chose B
relevant portion of the passage:
"Though patent quality is a difficult notion to measure, the number of times a patent is cited in the technical literature is a reasonable yardstick, and citations per semiconductor patent did decline during the 1980’s"
I chose B as i thought B means to say that it is the other way round i.e actually " existing higher quality patents are being picked and are cited in the technical literature". hence the number of citations may no more decide the patent quality.
what's wrong with my reasoning?
could you please point out?
On the other hand, E means to say that both types of patents (of higher quality and of lower quality) are cited equal number of times in the technical literature.
I could not choose E because of my aforesaid understanding of choice B.
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
Choice B means there's a correlation between quality and repeated publication. Therefore, choice B strengthens the idea that repeated publication is a decent proxy for quality.
Choice E suggests that there's no relationship between the two, thus implying that repeated publication is useless as a proxy/measurement of quality.
Choice E suggests that there's no relationship between the two, thus implying that repeated publication is useless as a proxy/measurement of quality.
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
Khush Wrote:I chose B as i thought B means to say that it is the other way round i.e actually " existing higher quality patents are being picked and are cited in the technical literature"
Yeah. That's exactly what it means.
With what are you trying to contrast it?
The direction of causation is clearly a non-issue here; i.e., it's pretty much obvious that citations will not increase the quality of a patent!
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
Maybe you're misunderstanding the term "yardstick".
"Yardstick" doesn't mean "cause". It just means that you can use one thing as a way of measuring or approximating another.
In other words, "A is a yardstick of B" means that "A" lets you make a good educated guess about "B".
In other words, it's the same as a correlation. Causation is a non-issue.
E.g., if I say "The size of someone's house is a yardstick of that person's wealth", that just means that, on the whole, richer people should have bigger houses. I don't care about causation at all.
* If I find out that, yes, people with bigger houses do tend to be richer (or vice versa), then that strengthens the notion that "big house" is a proxy of "rich".
* If I find out that people with small houses are just as likely to be rich as people with big houses, then, clearly, I've chosen a bad way to measure wealth.
Hope that makes sense.
"Yardstick" doesn't mean "cause". It just means that you can use one thing as a way of measuring or approximating another.
In other words, "A is a yardstick of B" means that "A" lets you make a good educated guess about "B".
In other words, it's the same as a correlation. Causation is a non-issue.
E.g., if I say "The size of someone's house is a yardstick of that person's wealth", that just means that, on the whole, richer people should have bigger houses. I don't care about causation at all.
* If I find out that, yes, people with bigger houses do tend to be richer (or vice versa), then that strengthens the notion that "big house" is a proxy of "rich".
* If I find out that people with small houses are just as likely to be rich as people with big houses, then, clearly, I've chosen a bad way to measure wealth.
Hope that makes sense.
- Khush
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:12 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
got it..
Much Thanks for your help Ron!
Much Thanks for your help Ron!
- Khush
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:12 am
Re: The system of patent-granting, which confers
RonPurewal Wrote:Khush Wrote:I chose B as i thought B means to say that it is the other way round i.e actually " existing higher quality patents are being picked and are cited in the technical literature"
Yeah. That's exactly what it means.
With what are you trying to contrast it?The direction of causation is clearly a non-issue here; i.e., it's pretty much obvious that citations will not increase the quality of a patent!
you caught me here.
Exactly! this is what i was thinking about.
I thought X caused Y ..hence, Y caused X will weaken it. However, i got from your post that this is a correlation and not a causation.
I was so wrong.