ChaseDream

标题: OG CR90 坛子上没搜到的疑问，求讨论~造福后人 [打印本页]

作者: dreamscream 时间: 2014-7-19 09:47
标题: OG CR90 坛子上没搜到的疑问，求讨论~造福后人
OG CR 90 如下：

A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching.

Which of the following, if true, would cast most doubt on the viability of the college administrators’ plan described above?

(A) Profit-making corporations interested in developing products based on patents held by universities are likely to try to serve as exclusive sponsors of ongoing university research projects.
(B) Corporate sponsors of research in university facilities are entitled to tax credits under new federal tax-code guidelines.
(C) Research scientists at Logos University have few or no teaching responsibilities and participate little if at all in the undergraduate programs in their field.
(D) Government-sponsored research conducted at Logos University for the most part duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations.
(E) Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship of its scientific research.

文章最后的结论是：L要把专利权卖给公司来fund programs to improve teaching, 我纠结于A和D之间。
D：书后的解释说，如果L的这些专利是duplicate research，即公司可能已经有了，所以L的专利就卖不出去了，这样plan成不了。
A：profit-making corporations 对这些专利感兴趣，但是他们更可能serve as research projects的 sponsor。
我的问题在于，如A选项，如果这些公司成为research projects的 sponsor，说明他们即使买了专利，也会去serve for research projects, 也不太可能去fund 学校programs，这样学校的目的也达不到了，这也是一种weaken啊~不知道我的思路哪里不对了，想讨论一下~

不知道我表达清楚我的思路没，在国外一个坛子上看到的一个思路和我很相似的解释，如下：

Whenever I looked at this problem I thought along the lines of, what would make the university not able to allocate funds towards undergraduate programs by not selling their patents.

I eliminated answer D last because it said that a lot of the research they perform is just a duplicate of work performed and completed by for-profit corporations. If it is duplicate research then they would never be awarded a patent which means that this option is irrelevant to the question. All this option states is that most of their research won't result in a patent which is 100% irrelevant (in my mind) to the argument.

I selected A because if the corporations are only willing to allocate their money as a sponsorship and not as outright buying the patents for cash, then the school would not be able to allocate money to their undergraduate program. All you would have is the government and corporations sponsoring additional research but that would not translate in to more money for undergraduate studies.

作者: dreamscream 时间: 2014-7-19 10:21

zxeagleflag 发表于 2014-7-19 10:16
我觉得OG的解释可以说的过去。
A的意思是这些profit-making公司对这个专利感兴趣是为了作为唯一的赞助商。 ...

谢谢亲~
还是有点疑惑，我觉得原文没有说：学校的目的是要卖出去专利，而是说学校的目的是通过卖专利来fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching. 因为原文后面有一个in order to，所以我觉得这个才是学校的目的~
所以如果这样的话，是不是A更有道理一些~~~

作者: Aislingling 时间: 2014-7-19 10:42
看了半天，好好一想觉得LZ说得有道理。不过后面又一想...（>.<我好啰嗦....) A项是说：对于有兴趣在学校研发的专利基础上开发产品的公司更倾向于独家资助（exclusive ）学校正在进行的research。而题目中的方案是：学校（为了to fund a program to improve teaching而）打算跟企业卖government-sponsored research出来的发明专利。我知道LZ想的是，企业是更倾向于资助而不是给cash，但事实上A选项没有讲到这个点（没有说不买只资助），也就是说跟题目中的方案没有什么关系，A项讲的是企业更愿意怎样资助（跟政府一起或者自己单独），而方案讲的是学校为了自己能够提供资金而卖专利。题目要求的是去评估这个方案的可行性（ viability），那么D项中，直接说到企业自己研发了=>那么就是说学校没什么市场=>专利卖不掉，不能fund=>达不到目标，方案没有可行性。
个人见解，不知道讲清楚没有~LZ参考：）
等更好的解释

作者: flhuihui1001 时间: 2014-7-21 11:53
就是楼上解释的这个意思。
A是无关选项。

作者: dreamscream 时间: 2014-7-23 11:23

zxeagleflag 发表于 2014-7-19 10:33
我明白你的意思了，你是说结论是：学校卖专利为了fund programs to improve...
但问题问的是削弱学校的pl ...

谢谢亲~~你可以看看楼下的解释，我觉得非常棒！

作者: dreamscream 时间: 2014-7-23 11:24

Aislingling 发表于 2014-7-19 10:42
看了半天，好好一想觉得LZ说得有道理。不过后面又一想...（>.那么就是说学校没什么市场=>专利卖不掉，不能f ...

我懂了！！谢谢~~~
A选项主要focus在exclusive sponsor上，其实也并没有提到fund undergraduate program，无关选项~~
一百个赞！！

作者: Aislingling 时间: 2014-7-24 16:22

dreamscream 发表于 2014-7-23 11:24
我懂了！！谢谢~~~
A选项主要focus在exclusive sponsor上，其实也并没有提到fund undergraduate program ...

不客气~~~加油儿！！！！

作者: rockorange 时间: 2015-11-5 22:15
我纠结A项的点居然在于“ corporation是对patents held by university感兴趣，所以卖掉的话就没戏了...” = =

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)