The system of patent-granting, which confers temporary monopolies for

1. The passage is primarily concerned with discussing

(A) a study suggesting that the semiconductor industry’s approach to patenting during the period from 1982 to 1992 yielded unanticipated results
(B) a study of the semiconductor industry during the period from 1982 to 1992 that advocates certain changes in the industry’s management of the patenting process
(C) the connection between patenting and innovation in the semiconductor industry during the period from 1982 to 1992
(D) reasons that investment in research and development in the semiconductor industry did not increase significantly during the period from 1982 to 1992
(E) certain factors that made the period from 1982 to 1992 a time of intense patenting activity in the semiconductor industry

Fallen for A. Wasn't t unanticipated results.

4. 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.

Fell for the trap answer B. E it is since it weakens the quality aspect.

hi GMATNinja or other experts, SajjadAhmad, u1983, GMATNinjaTwo, workout, Gnpth

I didn't picked up A because of my interpretation.

"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."

because in 1980's, the activity increased, and the average quality of patent also declined in 1980, then I can infer that the quality is lower in 1980's than pre 1980's, but have no idea about the later evade. that's why I picked up D

Remember that Ziedonis and Hall studied the period from 1982 to 1992, "the industry's most feverish period of patenting." And once the author has set up this 10-year-span as the the period being studied, the author tells us that average patent quality declined during the 1980's. So according to the author, quality was higher in early 1980s than it was when the early 1990s began.

Now, did quality suddenly make a huge turnaround in 1990 and 1991, even as patent activity continued to increase? I suppose that's possible, since we aren't explicitly told anything about the years 1990-1992. But it would be a huge stretch, and would go against the reason the author's reason for discussing the quality of patents during the 1980's in the first place.

I hope that helps!

Could you please explain why E is not correct?
2. 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 existing research and development expenditures may have contributed to a decline in infringement suites.

Question 2

Take another look at the portion of the passage that mentions infringement suits:

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, the purpose of squeezing more patents out of existing research and development was to use those patents to turn away infringement suits and to block competitors products. But we don’t know whether this strategy was ultimately successful.

Now here’s (E):


(E) suggests two things: there WAS a decline in infringement suits from 1982 to 1992, and firms’ attempts to derive more patents MAY HAVE contributed to that decline. The passage does suggest that the attempt to derive more patents COULD be used to ward off infringement suits. The problem is that (E) assumes that infringement suits DID, in fact, decline. We simply don’t know that infringement suits ACTUALLY declined. Maybe companies were successful in warding off suits, and maybe they weren’t.

The passage does not indicate one way or another, so (E) is not supported by the passage. Eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja
According to your analyzing, I saw there is an imbalance structure in the passage if the primary concern is “connection between innovation and patenting”, because Author shifted the flow to another topic-decline in quality- and discussed it
almost a haft of passage. I do not see the rest haft of passage support for “connection patenting and innovation”.

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, 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. This decline in quality may be related to changes in the way semi-conductor 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.

Please help.



Posted from my mobile device

See the structure of passage again:
1st Part
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 semi-conductor industry—suggest that firms do not necessarily become more innovative as they increase their patenting activity.

2nd part
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, 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. This decline in quality may be related to changes in the way semi-conductor 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.

1st part is core of this passage. 2nd part refers to findings. findings of a study ( mentioned in 1st part). findings of what study?- a study ( innovative vs patenting activity)
this summarizes the primary purpose of passage.

(A) a study suggesting that the semiconductor industry’s approach to patenting during the period from 1982 to 1992 yielded unanticipated results- what was the anticipation?
(B) a study of the semiconductor industry during the period from 1982 to 1992 that advocates certain changes in the industry’s management of the patenting process- not advocating
(C) the connection between patenting and innovation in the semiconductor industry during the period from 1982 to 1992- study showing connection between innovation and patenting - core of passage. ( 2nd line of passage)
(D) reasons that investment in research and development in the semiconductor industry did not increase significantly during the period from 1982 to 1992- just some part of 2nd part of passage
(E) certain factors that made the period from 1982 to 1992 a time of intense patenting activity in the semiconductor industry
mentioned in 2nd part- can not be primary. we want to know findings of what study ( thats core of 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.

Citations per semiconductor patent in technical literature is a measurable quantity.

We need to weaken conclusion based on this claim.

What if people who count these citations are not clear about what citations refers to patent .
As counting citations per semiconductor patent was not standardized then it was prone to error .

C says : if someone is not familiar with technical literature , he may come up with wrong number and that may give wrong results.
Since this counting is prone to risk, it is quite possible that results based on this counting may not be true
Hence C also tends to weaken the claim.

Note: I understand E weakens more strongly . E is best answer. But C also tends to weaken to some extend, is not it?

Please suggest your opinion on C option
GMATNinja AndrewN

Your interpretation of (C) takes a major liberty, mSKR. Counting is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in that answer choice. Rather, the focus is more qualitative, specifically on what constitutes an innovative semiconductor patent, not on how many times a patent is cited. You seem to have taken information from the passage—you did single out the correct line for the task—and shaped (C) into something that would fit that information. What (C) actually says is that someone outside the industry would have trouble judging how innovative a semiconductor patent would be, nothing more. It takes your mind to fill in the gap and say that this means the counting would be thrown off. Choice (E) is much harder to debate, since it speaks directly to the frequency or the number of times semiconductor patents of different quality are discussed in the literature. (If you find yourself bending over backwards to justify an answer, it is probably incorrect. The answer should ease the mental burden for you.)

- Andrew

can anyone explain q4 reasoning in detail?

Hi Manoj1998,

Please refer the below replies by experts for Question 4:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-system-of-patent-granting-which-confers-temporary-monopolies-for-176226.html#p1892734
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-system-of-patent-granting-which-confers-temporary-monopolies-for-176226-20.html#p2349013
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-system-of-patent-granting-which-confers-temporary-monopolies-for-176226-20.html#p2729923



Let us know if you still have doubts.
Thanks.

AndrewN,

Question-4 ( Option-A)

Author's claim:- The number of times a patent is cited in the technical literature is a reasonable yardstick. We have to weaken this claim by saying that number of citations is not a reasonable yardstick.

Option A:- mentions that it is difficult to publish an article in Technical Literature.:- Doesn't this weaken the claim? It is difficult to publish and hence the number of citations is not a reasonable yardstick.

Please evaluate where am I going wrong.

Thanks

Hello, krndatta. I think GMATNinja addressed this exact line of reasoning in an earlier post, here. Please let me know if it does not clarify the matter (and specify why), and I will take a stab at answering your query myself. If, on the other hand, the Ninja has spoken to your satisfaction, I will not be offended. (It looks like a fine response to me.)

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

AndrewN,
I did read his post before posting a query to you. Actually I didn't get that explanation.
We have to weaken the claim that number of citations is not a reasonable yardstick. Am I right in this?
So option A does this by saying that publishing is difficult. Hence, citations are not a reasonable yardstick.
I guess I have understood the question wrong or my understanding of passage is incorrect.
Can you give a shot at this please?

That is fair, krndatta. Yes, question 4 is asking us to find an answer choice that would most weaken the author’s claim about what constitutes a reasonable yardstick for measuring patent quality. And again, the pertinent line is found closer to the end of the passage:


I think that what you are missing in answer choice (A) is that the comparison does not allow us to judge what to make of the pertinent information. For reference:


Specifically, more difficult runs into less meaningful territory, because we have no idea just how difficult it may for an article to be published in any other industry. For the sake of argument, assume that 95 percent of articles are published in the technical literature of, say, the fashion industry, while 75 percent of articles are published in the technical literature of the semiconductor industry. We have gone from 1 in 20 rejections to 1 to 4, so we can say with certainty that it is more difficult, in our hypothetical scenario, for someone to publish in the literature of the semiconductor industry. But what does that fact indicate about patent quality within the semiconductor industry, or about the number of patent citations in the literature, which are not discussed? How does the comparison shed light on the point the author was making? I cannot see any connection.

Your assumption that option A [weakens the claim] by saying that publishing is difficult is a step removed from what the answer choice actually says: more difficult should not necessarily be interpreted to mean difficult. And, of course, if a claim about quality is based on citations, then you should look for information centered on citations to weaken that claim, not on publications (the content of which we are not made aware in answer choice (A)). That is GMAT™ straight-arrow logic at its best, and if you look at answer choice (E) again, you might see it in a different light.

Thank you for following up.

- Andrew

hi GMATNinja,

I am having a tough time in understanding this solution on how is E a weakener?
Can you please explain this more?

Thanks much.

Question 4

Question 4 asks which answer choice would weaken the author’s claim about what constitutes a reasonable yardstick for measuring patent quality.

That yardstick is discussed near the end 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."

Here, the author is using the number of citations as a way to measure patent quality. He/she argues that the number of citations declining shows that patent quality declined.

Take a look at (E):

This completely breaks the link between the number of citations and patent quality. If low-quality patents are cited just as frequently as high-quality patents, then the number of citations tells us nothing at all about the quality of the patent. This weakens the argument that the number of citations can be used as a yardstick for patent quality.

(E) is the correct answer to question 4.

I hope that helps!