passage2

注解：標(biāo)題為紅色，翻譯為藍(lán)色，分析為綠色。

????????Over 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(asset allocation?strategy分資產(chǎn)分配策略) . One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.

????????Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back(scale back規(guī)模衰減)?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(嗡嗡的,嘁嘁喳喳。指律師們議論紛紛。) the U.S. court of Appeals for the federal circuit美國聯(lián)邦巡回 said it would use a particular(特定的,格外的,特別的) case to conduct a broad review(復(fù)看，復(fù)習(xí)，檢查，審查(本文取這個(gè)意思))?of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known , is "a very big deal(deal在商業(yè)中指交易或者協(xié)議，在問題中指處理，在法律中指法案，在案件中指案子。本文是指“case案例”中的deal案子。)", says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law. It?has the potential to eliminate(剔除，根除) an entire(整個(gè)) class(這里不翻譯成：類。翻譯成：系列)?of patents."

????????Curbs on(curb on在某上的控制,抑制) business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face(about-face(思想、態(tài)度、行為等)徹底改變。about有轉(zhuǎn)變的意思。about+face就是變臉。臉色都變了，肯定就是思想、態(tài)度、行為等徹底改變了), because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with is 1998 decision in the so-called(這個(gè)前面文章多次出現(xiàn)了，意為"所謂的")?state Street Bank case, approving(approve贊成) a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund(池共同基金) assets. That ruling(rule在法律中指“裁決”) produced an explosion(這里不翻譯成：爆炸。翻譯成：浪潮。指的是爆炸式的激增)?in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies(emerging company新興公司。多篇文章多次出現(xiàn)。)?trying to stake out(stake股本，股份/stake out壟斷)? exclusive(這個(gè)雖然是exclude“排除”變過來的，但是形容詞意思變了，exclusive獨(dú)家的，獨(dú)有的。)?rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, move established companies raced to(race to相互競技得去做) add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch(一拳,一擊,力量). 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 films armed themselves with(arm?with用..武裝) patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice【盡管他們對這些法案持反對態(tài)度】.

????????The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging(防備(尤指金錢損失)) 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(in the wake of緊隨其后)?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(支持) for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are "reacting to(reacting to對...做出反應(yīng)) the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court", says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

一、文章結(jié)構(gòu)分析

本文是一篇關(guān)于法律案例的時(shí)文。主要內(nèi)容涉及美國聯(lián)邦巡回法院對營業(yè)方法專利的態(tài)度轉(zhuǎn)變。

第一段：指出在過去的 10 年，大量的營業(yè)方式專利獲得批準(zhǔn)，本段主要起到引出話題的作用。

第二段：指出目前國家最高專利法庭準(zhǔn)備對該專利權(quán)進(jìn)行限制，本段中提出了本文論述的中心話題。

第三段：起到鋪墊及背景交代的作用，介紹了對營業(yè)方式專利權(quán)進(jìn)行限制產(chǎn)生重大影響的原因：自聯(lián)邦巡回法院批準(zhǔn)商業(yè)方法以來引起了對營業(yè)方式專利申請的熱潮。

第四段：以Bilski case 為例，說明限制營業(yè)方式專利權(quán)帶來的影響——可能改變美國的法律慣例。

第五段以法官的立場說明了法院對營業(yè)方法專利的態(tài)度轉(zhuǎn)變的原因。

26. Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of .

[A] their limited value to business

[B] their connection with asset allocation

[C] the possible restriction on their granting

[D] the controversy over authorization

26．營業(yè)方法專利最近引起了關(guān)注是因?yàn)? 。

[A] 它們有限的商業(yè)價(jià)值

[B] 它們與資產(chǎn)分配的關(guān)系

[C] 它們的授權(quán)可能受到限制

[D] 對授權(quán)的爭議

27. Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?

[A] Its ruling complies with the court decisions.

[B] 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..

27．關(guān)于 Bilski 訟案下面哪個(gè)選項(xiàng)是正確的？

[A] 它的裁決遵循法庭的決議。

[B] 它涉及一項(xiàng)很大的營業(yè)交易。

[C] 它已經(jīng)被聯(lián)邦巡回法院駁回了。

[D] 它可能會改變美國的立法慣例。

28. The word “about-face” (Line 1, Para 3) most probably means .

[A] loss of good will

[B] increase of hostility

[C] change of attitude

[D] enhancement of dignity

28．三段一行的“about-face”最可能的意思是

[A] 失去善意

[B] 增加敵意

[C] 改變態(tài)度

[D] 增強(qiáng)尊嚴(yán)

29. We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents.

[A] are immune to legal challenges

[B] are often unnecessarily issued

[C] lower the esteem for patent holders

[D] increase the incidence of risks

29．由最后兩個(gè)自然段我們可以得知營業(yè)方式專利________.?

[A] 不受法律挑戰(zhàn)的影響

[B] 經(jīng)常是沒必要地發(fā)布

[C] 降低了對專利持有者的尊重

[D] 增加了風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的幾率

30. Which of the following would be the subject of the text?

[A] A looming threat to business-method patents

[B] Protection for business-method patent holders

[C] A legal case regarding business-method patents

[D] A prevailing trend against business-method patents

30．下面哪項(xiàng)是文章的主題？

[A] 營業(yè)方法受到隱約的威脅

[B] 對營業(yè)方法專利持有者的保護(hù)

[C] 一項(xiàng)關(guān)于營業(yè)方法的法律訟案

[D] 反營業(yè)方法的流行趨勢

二、核心詞匯與超綱詞匯

1.asset n. 資產(chǎn)，有用的東西

2.allocation n. 分配，配置

3.curb n. 抑制，路邊；vt. 拘束；勒住

4.eliminate vt. 消除，排除

5.scale back 按比例縮減，相應(yīng)縮減

6.stake out 壟斷

7.in the wake of 尾隨，緊跟，仿效

三、閱讀答案：C D C B A

四、全文翻譯：?

????????在過去的10 年，數(shù)以千計(jì)的被稱為營業(yè)方法的專利獲得批準(zhǔn)。Amazon.com 因自己的“一鍵式”在線支付系統(tǒng)也獲得了一項(xiàng)專利。Merrill Lynch 的資產(chǎn)分配策略得到了法律保護(hù)。一位發(fā)明家因其發(fā)明了舉起箱子的技術(shù)而獲得專利。

????????營業(yè)方法專利從十年前獲得批準(zhǔn)以來就一直受到了爭議，如今，國家最高專利法庭似乎準(zhǔn)備對該專利權(quán)進(jìn)行規(guī)模縮減。在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)律師們對此舉的喋喋熱議中，美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院聲稱他將用一個(gè)特別的案例對營業(yè)方法進(jìn)行廣泛的審查。美國密蘇里大學(xué)法學(xué)院的Dennis D. Crouch 說，正如人們所知道的Bilski 案例就是一件大案子，它有可能取消整個(gè)系列的專利。

????????對營業(yè)方法的限制將會是一次巨大的轉(zhuǎn)變，因?yàn)檫@項(xiàng)專利是聯(lián)邦巡回法院在1998 年對所謂的美國道富銀行案件做出裁決時(shí)推出的，該裁決批準(zhǔn)了一項(xiàng)共同基金財(cái)產(chǎn)集資方法的專利。這一裁決引起了對經(jīng)營方法專利申請的熱潮，最初是新興網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司試圖壟斷對一些特別的網(wǎng)上交易方式的專有權(quán)。隨后，越來越多的公司競相申請自己的專利權(quán)，以此防范競爭對手“先下手為強(qiáng)”的舉動(dòng)。2005 年，IBM 在一項(xiàng)立案中指出，它已被授予了300 多項(xiàng)營業(yè)方式專利，盡管事實(shí)是它也質(zhì)疑授予這些專利的合法性。同樣地，一些華爾街投資公司也通過對一些金融產(chǎn)品申請專利來武裝自己，盡管它們對這些法案持反對態(tài)度。

????????Bilski 案例涉及了一項(xiàng)在能源市場風(fēng)險(xiǎn)保值專利的申請。聯(lián)邦巡回法院發(fā)布了一項(xiàng)不同尋常的命令，該命令聲稱這一案例將由12 名法院法官集體聽審，而不是由三人組成的典型陪審團(tuán)聽審，并且他們想評估一下聯(lián)邦巡回法院是否該重新審查他們對美國道富銀行的判決。

????????最高法庭最近發(fā)布了一系列對專利持有者的保護(hù)范圍進(jìn)行限制和縮小的判決，緊隨其后，聯(lián)邦巡回法院做出了以上判決。比如，去年四月法官們就傳遞出太多的專利被授予了那些明顯的發(fā)明。專利律師兼喬治·華盛頓大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授Harole C.Wegner 說，聯(lián)邦巡回法院的法官正在對最高法院的反專利趨勢做出反應(yīng)。