The system of patent-granting, which confers temporary monopolies for the exploitation of new technologies, was originally established as an incentive...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
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. 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.
Ques. 1/5
The passage is primarily concerned with discussing
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 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. | What it says: Patents were created to encourage innovation by giving inventors temporary exclusive rights. What it does: Sets up the traditional understanding/expectation about how patents should work Source/Type: Factual background about patent system's intended purpose Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - establishes the baseline expectation Visualization: Traditional Patent Logic: Patent → Temporary Monopoly → Innovation Incentive → More Risky Ideas What We Know So Far: Patents are supposed to encourage innovation What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this actually works in practice Reading Strategy Insight: This sets up what SHOULD happen - watch for whether reality matches this expectation |
| 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. | What it says: Research shows that in the semiconductor industry, more patents doesn't equal more innovation What it does: Directly contrasts with the expectation set in sentence 1 Source/Type: Author's interpretation of research studies Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1 told us: Patents should incentivize innovation - NOW Sentence 2: But studies show this ISN'T happening in semiconductor industry - This is a direct challenge to the traditional assumption Visualization: Expected: More Patents → More Innovation Reality in Semiconductors: More Patents ≠ More Innovation What We Know So Far: Patents should encourage innovation, but semiconductor evidence suggests they don't What We Don't Know Yet: Specific evidence for this claim Reading Strategy Insight: The author has set up a clear contrast - expect evidence to support this contradiction |
| 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. | What it says: Specific researchers found that R&D spending stayed flat during the period when semiconductor companies filed the most patents What it does: Provides concrete evidence supporting the claim in sentence 2 Source/Type: Specific research findings from named researchers Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 2 told us: Studies suggest more patents ≠ more innovation - NOW Sentence 3: Here's the specific evidence - R&D spending didn't increase during peak patenting - This is NOT new information! It's proof of what was already claimed Visualization: 1982-1992 Semiconductor Industry: Patenting Activity: ???? ("most feverish period") R&D Investment: ➡️ ("did not substantially increase") Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is evidence, not a new complex idea. The author is supporting what they already told us. |
| Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. | What it says: Companies got more patents from the same amount of R&D spending, rather than doing more R&D What it does: Explains HOW the previous sentence's finding happened Source/Type: Continuation of Ziedonis and Hall's research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 3 told us: R&D didn't increase while patenting increased - NOW Sentence 4: Here's the simple explanation - they got more patents per R&D dollar - This fills in the logical gap and makes the previous finding make sense Visualization: Same R&D Budget ($100 million) in 1982 vs 1992: 1982: $100M → 50 patents 1992: $100M → 100 patents (More patents from same innovation investment) Reading Strategy Insight: This simplifies and explains - not new complexity! The word "simply" is your clue that this is straightforward. |
| 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. | What it says: The same researchers found that workers believed patent quality got worse as patent quantity increased What it does: Adds a second piece of evidence reinforcing that more patents ≠ better innovation Source/Type: Additional research findings from same researchers (employee consensus) Connection to Previous Sentences: - Previous sentences established: More patents didn't come from more R&D - NOW: More patents also meant lower quality patents - This builds the case that patents aren't serving their innovation purpose Visualization: 1980s Semiconductor Pattern: Patent Quantity: ⬆️ Patent Quality: ⬇️ R&D Investment: ➡️ What We Know So Far: More patents didn't increase R&D and decreased quality What We Don't Know Yet: How we measure quality, why this happened Reading Strategy Insight: "Moreover" signals additional supporting evidence - this reinforces rather than complicates the argument |
| 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. | What it says: While quality is hard to measure, citation counts are a good measure, and citations per patent did go down What it does: Provides objective support for the subjective "employee consensus" claim Source/Type: Methodological explanation + objective data confirmation Connection to Previous Sentences: - Previous sentence: Employees felt quality declined - NOW: Here's objective evidence that confirms their feeling was correct - This validates the employee perception with hard data Visualization: Patent Quality Measurement: Subjective (employee opinion): Quality ⬇️ Objective (citations per patent): Citations ⬇️ Both measures agree! Reading Strategy Insight: This confirms what we already learned - not new information! The author is being thorough by showing both subjective and objective evidence align. |
| 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. | What it says: Quality declined because companies changed WHY they file patents - from protecting valuable innovations to strategic business purposes What it does: Provides the root cause explanation for everything we've observed Source/Type: Author's explanatory analysis ("may be related") Connection to Previous Sentences: - All previous sentences showed: More patents, same R&D, lower quality - NOW: Here's WHY this happened - patents became business tools rather than innovation protection - This explains the entire pattern we've been building Visualization: Traditional Patent Use: Innovation → Patent → Protect Valuable Technology New Strategic Use: Business Need → Patent → Bargaining Chip/Competitor Blocking Overall Passage Structure: 1. What patents should do (encourage innovation) 2. What actually happened (more patents ≠ more innovation) 3-6. Evidence supporting #2 7. Why this happened (strategic shift) Reading Strategy Insight: This final sentence ties everything together - it's the "aha" moment that explains all the evidence. Feel confident that you understand the complete argument now. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge the common belief that patent systems effectively encourage innovation by showing how they can actually work against their intended purpose in real-world business settings.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by contrasting expectations with reality:
- First, the author establishes the traditional understanding that patents were created to encourage risky new innovations by giving inventors temporary monopolies.
- Next, the author directly challenges this assumption by stating that research in the semiconductor industry shows more patents don't lead to more innovation.
- Then, the author provides detailed evidence from specific researchers showing that during the biggest patenting boom, companies didn't increase research spending but simply filed more patents from the same research, and that patent quality actually declined.
- Finally, the author explains why this happened by revealing that companies shifted from using patents to protect valuable innovations to using them as strategic business tools for blocking competitors and avoiding lawsuits.
Main Point:
Patent systems may not work as intended because companies can use patents for strategic business purposes rather than to protect genuine innovations, leading to more patents of lower quality without any increase in actual innovative activity.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary concern or main focus of the entire passage. We need to find what the passage is fundamentally about, not just specific details or secondary points.
Main Point:
Patent systems may not work as intended because companies can use patents for strategic business purposes rather than to protect genuine innovations, leading to more patents of lower quality without any increase in actual innovative activity.
Answer Choices Explained
A
a study suggesting that the semiconductor industry's approach to patenting during the period from 1982 to 1992 yielded unanticipated results
Why It's Wrong:
• This choice focuses only on "unanticipated results" but the passage doesn't emphasize surprise or unexpected outcomes
• The passage is broader than just discussing one study - it discusses the overall relationship between patenting and innovation
• "Unanticipated" suggests the results were surprising to researchers, but the passage doesn't indicate this
• This choice focuses only on "unanticipated results" but the passage doesn't emphasize surprise or unexpected outcomes
• The passage is broader than just discussing one study - it discusses the overall relationship between patenting and innovation
• "Unanticipated" suggests the results were surprising to researchers, but the passage doesn't indicate this
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
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage does not advocate for any changes - it presents research findings without making recommendations
• The word "advocates" means the passage is pushing for specific reforms, but the author remains analytical rather than prescriptive
• The passage describes what happened but doesn't suggest what should be done about it
• The passage does not advocate for any changes - it presents research findings without making recommendations
• The word "advocates" means the passage is pushing for specific reforms, but the author remains analytical rather than prescriptive
• The passage describes what happened but doesn't suggest what should be done about it
C
the connection between patenting and innovation in the semiconductor industry during the period from 1982 to 1992
Why It's Right:
• This directly captures the passage's main focus: examining how patenting relates to innovation
• It correctly identifies the specific industry (semiconductor) and time period (1982-1992) that provides the evidence
• It matches the passage structure which establishes expected connection, then examines actual connection
Key Evidence: "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."
• This directly captures the passage's main focus: examining how patenting relates to innovation
• It correctly identifies the specific industry (semiconductor) and time period (1982-1992) that provides the evidence
• It matches the passage structure which establishes expected connection, then examines actual connection
Key Evidence: "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."
D
reasons that investment in research and development in the semiconductor industry did not increase significantly during the period from 1982 to 1992
Why It's Wrong:
• This is too narrow - R&D investment is just one piece of evidence, not the main focus
• The passage discusses R&D as a "reasonable proxy for innovation" but the broader point is about the patent-innovation relationship
• This choice misses the strategic shift in patenting practices, which is a key part of the explanation
• This is too narrow - R&D investment is just one piece of evidence, not the main focus
• The passage discusses R&D as a "reasonable proxy for innovation" but the broader point is about the patent-innovation relationship
• This choice misses the strategic shift in patenting practices, which is a key part of the explanation
E
certain factors that made the period from 1982 to 1992 a time of intense patenting activity in the semiconductor industry
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't focus on what caused the intense patenting activity - it focuses on the consequences of that activity
• The time period is mentioned as context, but understanding why patenting increased isn't the passage's concern
• The passage takes the increased patenting as a given and examines its relationship to innovation
• The passage doesn't focus on what caused the intense patenting activity - it focuses on the consequences of that activity
• The time period is mentioned as context, but understanding why patenting increased isn't the passage's concern
• The passage takes the increased patenting as a given and examines its relationship to innovation
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More