大家赶紧去找错啊，前10名有钱的！！
大家版2010年考研英语最终试题、答案及解析--唯一可能全对的权威答案！
准确的文字，精确的答案、优美的排版、令人信服的解析，闪烁着思维思维艺术的光芒！
使用说明
1、 本文档于2010年1月11日定稿，定稿之日，我们目之所及，未曾见任何机构之答案与本文档完全相同。本文档自今日定稿之时，答案不会变更，一错千金答案以此为最终标准；
2、 本大家版答案是一错千金级的，如果我们做错了一个题目，我们愿意付出1000元奖励。如果您觉得哪个答案有问题，请在本文档发布帖跟帖，等官方答案公布之后，即可能领取奖励；
3、 每个答案错误，奖励一千元给前10名指正的网友（每人100啊，不是每人一千元，呵呵，若不足10人指正，则以千元除以指正人数），对于10名后看法正确的网友，我们也将给予一定的大家论坛积分等奖励！指正先后座次的排定，以在本文档发布帖跟帖时间为准。指正帖将于官方答案公布前约一个月左右锁定，不再接受新的指正；
4、 奖励的支付。答案如有错误，奖励将在官方答案公布后一周内支付。大家网信誉卓著，不必顾虑能否兑现；
5、 完型填空因为已经找到原文，答案基本确定。阅读Part B也很明朗，请大家把指正重点放在阅读Part A上，大家网的答案只在这里存在一点点非常非常小的不确定性；
6、 免责条款。本文档是所能获得的最准确的文档，但因为我们没有原始试卷，如果最后公布的试卷，与本文档有比较大的出入，对正确答案的确定有严重误导或影响，那么我们将不支付奖励。
作者：阁明俊
大家学习网
Text 2Over 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 Dennis D. 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 firms 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 Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
26. Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of
[A] their limited value to business.
their connection with asset allocation.
[C] the possible restriction on their granting.
[D] the controversy over authorization.
［答案解析］本文是通过一个案例(The Bilski case)来说明业务方法专利所面对的法律困境。这种专利自10年前授予的时候，就存在争议，主要是这种专利有无必要，很多公司虽然被授予了各种此类专利，有些拥有众多此类专利，可他们自己也对这种专利的法律基础等提出质疑，Federal Circuit的法官们也对高法在反此专利方面的趋势予以了回应，这个案子虽未判决，可似乎大势于它不利。这是整个文章的主题，本TEXT的任何正确选项，都不能与此主旨背离。本题问业务方法专利最近引发关注，是由于什么原因？根据刚才概括的文章主线，该专利在10年前引入的时候，就引起争议，而且争议不断，这不是最近的事情，故D逻辑明显不对，排除。A也不能选，首先，该专利商业价值如何，先不用管，但最近肯定没有任何变化，所以肯定不能构成原因，而且，文章中是说了“too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious”，但这只能说明专利被不当授予，但这个对专利对被授予的人是不是就没有价值呢？这是两回事。B根本文不对题，只是某种专利具备这个属性，它当然不具有普遍的意义，容易排除。正确答案是C，依据在第二段中的：Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents，也就是最高专利法庭似乎将相应缩减此类专利，这与本文的主旨是相符的。
［信心指数］99.9％
27. Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?
[A] Its ruling complies with the Court decisions.
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.
［答案解析］A错，因为此文到行文结束，也没判决的任何线索，还没宣判呢，哪来的判决符合法庭的决定了？B错，这个案例，在文中根本就没有涉及金额大小，何以知道是个大交易？干扰出现在这里：In re Bilski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D. Crouch…但这句话的意思是此案例的影响重大：It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."，不可曲解原文意思。C中的dismiss在这里是法律术语，“不予受理”的意思，这肯定错了，文中哪句话表达了这层意思？而且，这个案例作为一个可能产生重要影响的典型，那应该是一定要受理的呀。D与本文主题相符，这个案例的判决，可能会对美国的司法实践产生影响。影响是什么呢？就是在此之前，商业业务专利可能会得到很好的支持和保护，而在这之后，可能会比较难了。
［信心指数］99.9％
28. The word "about-face" (Line 1, Para. 3) most probably means
[A] loss of good will.
increase of hostility.
[C] change of attitude.
[D] enhancement of destiny.
［答案解析］此题容易，不管从词语的意思，还是从文章的上下文，都容易锁定正确答案C，彻底改变之意，态度的180度转弯。
［信心指数］100％
29. We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents
[A] are immune to legal challenges.
are often unnecessarily issued.
[C] lower the esteem for patent holders.
[D] increase the incidence of risks.
［答案解析］B为正确答案，文中根据是many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious，既然很多专利授予给了显而易见的“发明”，那么，这种专利的授予就是unnecessary的。A选项，免受法律挑战？有这么牛？哪儿说到这层意思了？C有一定的干扰性，但专利被不必要地授予持有人，跟其威望受损，似乎没有必然联系，而且，一般也没那么严重，最多被视作无聊之人而已了。D，增加风险，那更是危言耸听了，增加谁的风险？对持有人而言，一般还是有些好处的，能起到一定的保护作用；对大众而言，风险谈不上，最多有一定的不便或不公正而已了；对竞争对手而言，可能会有那么点意思吧！如果D是正确答案，你还要让我来猜是对谁而言的么？！
［信心指数］99.9％
30. Which of the following would be the subject of the text?
[A] A looming threat to business-method patents.
Protection for business-method patent holders.
[C] A legal case regarding business-method patents.
[D] A prevailing trend against business-method patents.
［答案解析］B首先排除，本文不是要谈对业务专利持有人的保护，相反，是谈可能得不到保护了。D也容易排除，本文探讨的这个案例，可能会对专利判决造成影响，但这个事情还没有发生，只是有这个苗头，而且，是否肯定会造成预想的影响，也还不是十分肯定的事情。所以谈不上已经形成了流行的趋势。C也不对，本文重点在谈一个案例将产生的法律影响，而不是讨论这个案例本身。A正确，与本文主旨相符，一旦此案例确立，那么从此以后，业务方法专利将可能不再受到很好的法律保护，也就是说，对业务方法专利而言，一个即将到来的危险正逼近！另外，我们从互联网上找到了这篇文章，该文章的题目是：A Pending Threat to Patents，我们可爱的出题人，不过是用looming同义替换了pending而已。本文标题正是主题，所以本题答案可以100%确定。原文的副标题：A case before an appeals court could make it harder to win legal protection for business methods也让我们对26、27题答案增添了信心！
［信心指数］100％ |
收藏
点赞!
反对!