The patent system poses particular problems for developers of computer software. First, in order to avoid developing a computer process...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
The patent system poses particular problems for developers of computer software. First, in order to avoid developing a computer process that has been previously patented, each developer needs to know about all the existing patents within the field. This is difficult because there are thousands of separately patentable processes in every software package and, because of confidentiality regulations affecting patent applications, patent searches do not reveal all currently existing patents. Thus, a developer may find that a process he or she has incorporated into a finished and marketed product was already patented by someone else. At that point, because of the interdependent nature of software functions, it may be difficult to excise the process from the finished product.
Second, software patents may be granted for elementary processes. Since the Patent Office does not require computer science as a qualifying degree for software patent examiners, many developers suspect that these examiners lack the knowledge to differentiate between basic processes and inventive techniques and may thus grant patents for obvious processes.
Finally, there are likely to be hundreds, even thousands, of competing developers working simultaneously on the same process. Unfortunately, a patent is only granted to one individual. Thus, competing developers run the risk of being deprived of the fruits of their independent labor and investments.
It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following is true about the software development industry?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "The patent system poses particular problems for developers of computer software." | What it says: Patents cause special difficulties for people who make software. What it does: Opens the passage with a clear thesis statement - establishes the main topic and argument direction. Source/Type: Author's analytical claim/opinion Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the opening sentence - no prior context available. Visualization: Think of software developers facing unique challenges that other inventors don't encounter. Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect opening sentence - tells us exactly what the passage will be about. No confusion here! What We Know So Far: Patents create problems specifically for software developers What We Don't Know Yet: What these specific problems are |
| "First, in order to avoid developing a computer process that has been previously patented, each developer needs to know about all the existing patents within the field." | What it says: Software developers must research all existing patents to avoid accidentally copying someone else's work. What it does: Introduces the first specific problem (following the "First" signal) Source/Type: Author's explanation of factual requirements Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on the opening by providing the FIRST specific example of the "particular problems" mentioned. The word "First" signals we're getting organized examples. Visualization: Before writing any code, a software developer must search through thousands of existing patents like checking a massive library catalog. Reading Strategy Insight: The author is helping us with clear organization using "First" - this reduces complexity by showing structure. What We Know So Far: Patents create problems for software developers, specifically: Problem #1 is the burden of researching existing patents What We Don't Know Yet: Why this research requirement is particularly difficult, and what other problems exist |
| "This is difficult because there are thousands of separately patentable processes in every software package and, because of confidentiality regulations affecting patent applications, patent searches do not reveal all currently existing patents." | What it says: The research requirement is hard because: (1) each software program contains thousands of patentable parts, and (2) some patents are kept secret during the application process. What it does: Explains WHY the previous sentence's requirement is problematic Source/Type: Author's factual explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly elaborates on the previous sentence. "This is difficult" refers back to the research requirement just mentioned. This is NOT a new problem - it's explaining why Problem #1 is so challenging. Visualization: Imagine trying to research 5,000 individual processes in one software program, but half the existing patents are hidden from your search. Reading Strategy Insight: The word "This" signals continuation, not new information. Feel relieved - we're still on the same problem, just getting details. |
| "Thus, a developer may find that a process he or she has incorporated into a finished and marketed product was already patented by someone else." | What it says: As a result, developers might accidentally use someone else's patented process in their final product. What it does: Shows the consequence/outcome of the difficulty just described Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: "Thus" signals this is the logical result of the research difficulties. This completes the chain: research requirement → why it's difficult → what happens as a result. Still elaborating on Problem #1! Visualization: A developer launches their app, then gets a legal notice: "You used our patented process without permission." Reading Strategy Insight: "Thus" means consequence - we're seeing the end result of Problem #1, not starting a new problem. |
| "At that point, because of the interdependent nature of software functions, it may be difficult to excise the process from the finished product." | What it says: Once the product is finished, it's hard to remove the problematic process because software parts depend on each other. What it does: Adds a final complicating detail to Problem #1 Source/Type: Author's technical explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: "At that point" refers to the situation described in the previous sentence (discovering the patent conflict). This adds one more layer to why Problem #1 is serious - not only do you accidentally infringe, but fixing it is also difficult. Visualization: Like discovering one support beam in a finished house belongs to someone else - you can't just remove it without the whole structure collapsing. Reading Strategy Insight: Still finishing up Problem #1 - showing why the consequences are particularly severe. What We Know So Far: Problem #1 fully explained: research burden → why it's hard → accidental infringement → difficulty fixing it What We Don't Know Yet: What Problem #2 and subsequent problems are |
| "Second, software patents may be granted for elementary processes." | What it says: Patents might be given for basic, simple processes in software. What it does: Introduces Problem #2 (following the "Second" signal) Source/Type: Author's claim about patent office practices Connection to Previous Sentences: "Second" clearly indicates we're moving to a new problem, parallel to the "First" problem discussed earlier. Clean transition - the author is maintaining the organized structure. Visualization: Patents being granted for processes as basic as "clicking a button" or "displaying text on screen." Reading Strategy Insight: Clear structure continues - we're getting organized problems, not random complaints. |
| "Since the Patent Office does not require computer science as a qualifying degree for software patent examiners, many developers suspect that these examiners lack the knowledge to differentiate between basic processes and inventive techniques and may thus grant patents for obvious processes." | What it says: Patent examiners don't need computer science degrees, so developers think these examiners can't tell the difference between obvious and truly innovative processes. What it does: Explains the cause of Problem #2 Source/Type: Author reporting developers' suspicions about institutional facts Connection to Previous Sentences: "Since" indicates this explains WHY the elementary processes get patented. This follows the same pattern as Problem #1: state the problem → explain why it happens. Familiar pattern - we're getting the reasoning behind Problem #2. Visualization: A literature major evaluating whether a complex algorithm deserves a patent, unable to recognize it's actually a basic sorting method taught in introductory courses. Reading Strategy Insight: Same explanatory pattern as before - the author is being consistent and helpful with structure. |
| "Finally, there are likely to be hundreds, even thousands, of competing developers working simultaneously on the same process." | What it says: Many developers often work on identical processes at the same time. What it does: Introduces Problem #3 (following the "Finally" signal) Source/Type: Author's factual observation Connection to Previous Sentences: "Finally" signals the last in the series of problems, maintaining the "First... Second... Finally" structure. Predictable organization continues - this is the final problem. Visualization: Picture 500 different software companies all independently developing the same type of search algorithm during the same time period. Reading Strategy Insight: "Finally" tells us this is the last problem - we're near the end of the list, not getting lost in complexity. |
| "Unfortunately, a patent is only granted to one individual." | What it says: Only one person can receive a patent for any given process. What it does: States the relevant patent rule that creates the problem Source/Type: Factual statement about patent law Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains the relevant legal rule that makes the simultaneous development situation problematic. Sets up the logical problem: many people working → only one can win. Visualization: Like a race where 1,000 people run the same course simultaneously, but only the first person to finish gets ANY recognition. Reading Strategy Insight: Building toward the obvious conclusion - we can see where this is heading. |
| "Thus, competing developers run the risk of being deprived of the fruits of their independent labor and investments." | What it says: As a result, developers who worked independently might get nothing for their efforts and money. What it does: States the consequence/conclusion of Problem #3 Source/Type: Author's conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: "Thus" signals this is the logical conclusion of Problem #3, following the same pattern as Problem #1: simultaneous development → only one winner → others lose everything. Completing the final problem with the same structure used throughout. Visualization: A developer spends 2 years and $100,000 developing a process, only to discover someone else filed the patent application one day earlier - all work and investment lost. Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect conclusion - the author has systematically walked us through three distinct, well-organized problems. The passage structure was our friend, not our enemy! What We Know So Far: Complete argument: Three specific problems with software patents: (1) research burden and accidental infringement, (2) patents granted for obvious processes, (3) multiple developers losing independent work What We Don't Know Yet: Nothing - the argument is complete |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain why the patent system creates specific difficulties for software developers that make their work more challenging and risky than other types of invention.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by systematically walking through three distinct problems:
- First, the author states their main claim that patents cause special problems for software developers
- Next, the author presents the first problem - developers must research existing patents but this research is nearly impossible due to the huge number of processes and secret applications
- Then, the author explains the second problem - patents are given out for basic processes because patent examiners lack computer science knowledge
- Finally, the author describes the third problem - many developers work on the same processes simultaneously but only one person can get the patent, leaving others with nothing
Main Point:
The patent system is poorly suited for software development because it creates three major problems: it forces developers to do impossible research, allows patents on obvious processes, and punishes independent developers who happen to work on similar ideas.
3. Question Analysis:
This inference question asks us to determine what can be concluded about the software development industry based on the information provided in the passage. We need to find an answer choice that is directly supported by evidence from the passage, not something that requires outside knowledge or unsupported assumptions.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
Our passage analysis reveals several key insights about the software development industry:
- The research burden is enormous - "thousands of separately patentable processes in every software package"
- Multiple developers work simultaneously on identical processes - "hundreds, even thousands, of competing developers working simultaneously on the same process"
- The winner-takes-all patent system means independent work can be "deprived of the fruits of their independent labor and investments"
- The industry faces unique challenges that create risk and unfairness
The passage structure systematically builds a case that software development is particularly challenging and competitive, with developers facing risks that may not reward their efforts.
Prethinking:
Based on our analysis, the correct answer should reflect the competitive nature of software development and the fact that developers face significant risks of not being rewarded for their work. The passage emphasizes competition ("hundreds, even thousands, of competing developers") and unfair outcomes (developers being "deprived of the fruits of their independent labor"). Any answer about competitiveness and lack of guaranteed rewards should align well with the passage's main arguments.
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage only discusses problems that software poses for the Patent Office, not problems it poses compared to other industries
• No comparative information is provided about other industries' relationships with the Patent Office
• The passage focuses on problems the patent system creates for developers, not problems developers create for the Patent Office
Common Student Mistakes:
- Does mentioning problems with patent examiners mean software causes the most problems for the Patent Office?
→ No, the passage discusses how patent office practices harm software developers, not how software developers burden the Patent Office more than others - If there are "particular problems," doesn't that mean they're the worst problems?
→ "Particular" means "specific" or "distinct," not "most severe" or "most numerous"
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage provides no information about development cycle length in software versus other industries
• The problems discussed (patent research, obvious patents, simultaneous development) don't necessarily indicate longer development cycles
• No temporal comparisons are made with other industries
Common Student Mistakes:
- Doesn't the need to research thousands of patents make development take longer?
→ While patent research might add time, the passage doesn't compare software development cycles to other industries - If products are "finished and marketed" when problems are discovered, doesn't that show long cycles?
→ This describes when patent conflicts are discovered, not how long development takes compared to other fields
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage discusses thousands of processes within software packages, not collaboration between multiple firms
• "Thousands of separately patentable processes in every software package" refers to components within one product, not cooperation between companies
• The passage actually emphasizes competition between developers, not collaboration
Common Student Mistakes:
- If there are thousands of processes in each package, don't multiple companies have to work together?
→ The processes are components within a single software package, not contributions from different firms - Doesn't "competing developers" imply they work together on the same projects?
→ "Competing" means they work against each other, not together - they independently develop similar processes
Why It's Wrong:
• The confidentiality regulations mentioned affect patent applications at the Patent Office, not developer-to-developer information sharing
• The passage states "confidentiality regulations affecting patent applications" - this is about patent office procedures, not industry practices
• No evidence suggests developers have strict rules preventing them from sharing project information with each other
Common Student Mistakes:
- Doesn't "confidentiality regulations" mean developers can't share information?
→ These regulations affect patent applications during government review, not communication between developers - If patent searches don't reveal all patents due to confidentiality, isn't that because developers keep secrets?
→ This confidentiality comes from Patent Office procedures during application review, not from developers hiding information from each other
Why It's Right:
• The passage explicitly states there are "hundreds, even thousands, of competing developers working simultaneously on the same process"
• Developers "run the risk of being deprived of the fruits of their independent labor and investments" - clear evidence they're not always rewarded
• The winner-takes-all patent system means multiple people can do the same work but only one gets credit
• The entire passage structure demonstrates how competitive pressures and systemic problems create unfair outcomes
Key Evidence: "Finally, there are likely to be hundreds, even thousands, of competing developers working simultaneously on the same process. Unfortunately, a patent is only granted to one individual. Thus, competing developers run the risk of being deprived of the fruits of their independent labor and investments."