GmatPrep: The system of patent-granting

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:31 am
GMAT Score:730

GmatPrep: The system of patent-granting

by russland » Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:13 am
A GmatPrep question

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 semiconductor 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 semiconductor 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 suites or as a means to block competitors' products.

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
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

Re: GmatPrep: The system of patent-granting

by DanaJ » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:21 am
russland wrote:A GmatPrep question

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 semiconductor 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 semiconductor 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 suites or as a means to block competitors' products.

The passage is primarily concerned with discussing

c) the connection between patenting and innovation in the semiconductor industry during the period from 1982 to 1992
IMHO, the outlined portions point to C.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:55 am
Can you please tell why A is wrong....A too looks to be in similar line...

is it because there is no study discussed as such ?

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:23 am
a) a study suggesting that the semiconductor industry's approach to patenting during the period from 1982 to 1992 yielded unanticipated results

IMHO, it's more about grammar here than about comprehension. A says that the approach yielded unanticipated results, which is not correct. The semiconductor industry did not anticipate any results! It's THE STUDY that yielded said unexpected results (the fact that patenting does not always lead to innovation).

Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:29 am
DanaJ wrote:a) a study suggesting that the semiconductor industry's approach to patenting during the period from 1982 to 1992 yielded unanticipated results

IMHO, it's more about grammar here than about comprehension. A says that the approach yielded unanticipated results, which is not correct. The semiconductor industry did not anticipate any results! It's THE STUDY that yielded said unexpected results (the fact that patenting does not always lead to innovation).
Hi Danaj,

Probably I am missing something here....but I looked at this pessage multiple times....but really could not figure out where it is said that study of "Ziedonis and Hall" said that results were unanticipated....it is rather author who quotes these guys in his claim that results are unanticipated......

Kindly tell if you concur with my view....if no then kindly tell what I am missing here....

Thanks
Mohit

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:44 am
IMHO: patenting was established to give the investors a reason to put money in research/innovation. However, as some studies have demonstrated it, this is not the case: patenting did not lead to more innovation in the semiconductor industry. This is all in the highlighted portion of the text, i.e. first few lines. The study yielded unexpected result because they discovered that while the initial goal of patenting was the advancement of technology, patenting in 1982-1992 did not achieve that goal.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:25 pm
DanaJ wrote:IMHO: patenting was established to give the investors a reason to put money in research/innovation. However, as some studies have demonstrated it, this is not the case: patenting did not lead to more innovation in the semiconductor industry. This is all in the highlighted portion of the text, i.e. first few lines. The study yielded unexpected result because they discovered that while the initial goal of patenting was the advancement of technology, patenting in 1982-1992 did not achieve that goal.
Yes, I agree with you DanaJ.....but IMO there is nowhere in the pessage author when author is "discussing" that study....note that primary purpose is what is author discussing as per question.....

IMO he is just quoting the study.....to support his claim....

Basically what I mean to say is that the author is not discussing a study that tells results were unexpected....

Infact it is the view point of the author himself.....that results were unexpected...that is unexpected as per author....other may have different opinion....it is author who think that results were unexpected.

Kindly tell what do you think about the same ? Kindly tell what I am missing here.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:31 am
GMAT Score:730

by russland » Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:47 pm
The OA is C.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:28 pm
Yes, you are right, he is the one who thinks the results are unexpected. THE STUDY yielded unanticipated results IN THE AUTHOR'S opinion.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:37 pm
DanaJ wrote:Yes, you are right, he is the one who thinks the results are unexpected. THE STUDY yielded unanticipated results IN THE AUTHOR'S opinion.
Hi DanaJ,

Probably I am misinterpreting you.....but IMO the following are two different interpretations:

1. Author thinks Study yielded unexpected results. Here both author and study agree that results were unexpected.

2. Author quotes an example study to say that results were unexpected. Here only author is of the opinion that results were unexpected. Please note that never ever pessage says that Study itself said that results were unexpected.

IMO you mean to say that #1 is correct as per pessage....but I think#2 is correct as per pessage.....

Can you please tell which one do you think is indeed correct....if you think that my interpretation is wrong...then please tell me what I am missing here.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:18 am
goelmohit2002 wrote:Can you please tell why A is wrong....A too looks to be in similar line...

is it because there is no study discussed as such ?

yes, A is not correct as the passage does not describe any study.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:57 am
goelmohit2002 wrote:
DanaJ wrote:Yes, you are right, he is the one who thinks the results are unexpected. THE STUDY yielded unanticipated results IN THE AUTHOR'S opinion.
Hi DanaJ,

Probably I am misinterpreting you.....but IMO the following are two different interpretations:

1. Author thinks Study yielded unexpected results. Here both author and study agree that results were unexpected.

2. Author quotes an example study to say that results were unexpected. Here only author is of the opinion that results were unexpected. Please note that never ever pessage says that Study itself said that results were unexpected.

IMO you mean to say that #1 is correct as per pessage....but I think#2 is correct as per pessage.....
To me, the fact that the author agrees with the study is sort of irrelevant to the point. Indeed, you never see any clear statement that the study concluded that the results are unexpected, but this is the impression I get from it all: why did they conduct the study? just to count the number of patents? IMHO there must be some underlying cause to the study and some results to it as well. IMHO, the author just states what the study has found and HE AGREES WITH THAT. Maybe this is just a personal/subjective opinion.

I really don't know how to help you more than this. I'm not sure why you are emphasizing this issue, it doesn't seem relevant to me. A is incorrect because it's not the semiconductor industry's approach that yielded unexpected results, it's the study that yielded such results. Whether or not it's only the author that thinks this (i.e. the unexpected results) is true or the study agrees, I honestly do not think it is of any importance.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:43 am
this is a main idea question, and, at that, one of the tougher ones i've seen.

still, i find the following to be helpful:
on MAIN IDEA QUESTIONS:
ALWAYS ANSWER THE QUESTION IN YOUR OWN WORDS BEFORE LOOKING AT THE ANSWER CHOICES.


when i do that on this question, i get
"the passage is primarily concerned with...
(i said)
...showing, with a study, that an increase in patents isn't necessarily linked to an increase in creative output"

of the five choices, this is definitely closest to (c).

--

(a) is wrong because of the word "unanticipated", which isn't justified at all. the passage doesn't mention whether the semiconductor firms had anticipated the consequences of any of their patenting policies.
for all we know, they knew perfectly well what would come of these policies.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by gmatdriller » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:45 am
"for all we know, they knew perfectly well what would come of these policies."

This statement links to why "unanticipated results" in (A) robs it off from
being the best response.

Thanks Ron. You are too much for GMAT.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:55 am
Thanked: 1 times

by kvitkod » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:39 am
Why E is wrong?
e) certain factors that made the period from 1982 to 1992 a time of intense patenting activity in the semiconductor industry