【悦读】拾忆月1125始阅读机经 (12月24日 已换库）

imiris

阅读12，裁缝那个，http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-433469-1-1.html，这个帖子里有原文和题目~可以参考

liuruanjia

整理君看到我看到我 12月11号 一直没突破650的人来攒人品 这一篇没人反馈过 就是manufacturing costs问题【结构比较清晰 较容易】

老观点 Technology发展 人们就认为科技最大影响cost 因此相同科技水平，equipment的公司必定成本组成都是差不多的【similar labor costs, material costs这种】
新观点 每个不同公司会根据自身情况 调整成本构成 并不是all companies have uniform cost 举例 美国VS 英国
In USA  price of per worker 购买的电力数量 大于 在UK 购买的电力【imply 美国人力贵】因此美国公司会减小在人力方面的成本投资 加大其他方面 in order to reduce production costs

还有一篇估计鱼数量不长 但是有点没读懂 题材是统计方面 开头介绍一种方法--根据捕到鱼的年龄来估计鱼的数量 第二段好像是详细介绍方法的细节 第三段说另一method 这个accuracy不太好 需要第一种纠正误差
其他二篇是cave animal 和adaptation

lululuna

liuruanjia 发表于 2015-12-12 18:45
整理君看到我看到我 12月11号 一直没突破650的人来攒人品 这一篇没人反馈过 就是manufacturing costs问题【 ...

谢谢~~~~~~~

Moo993

明天求分手！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！

Jennifer8Xu

48题找到一个背景阅读，大家可以参考
Which came first–the chicken or the European?

Popular history, and a familiar rhyme about Christopher Columbus, holds that Europeans made contact with the Americas in 1492, with some arguing that the explorer and his crew were the first outsiders to reach the New World.

But chicken bones recently unearthed on the coast of Chile—dating prior to Columbus’ “discovery” of America and resembling the DNA of a fowl species native to Polynesia—may challenge that notion, researchers say.

“Chickens could not have gotten to South America on their own—they had to be taken by humans,” said anthropologist Lisa Matisoo-Smith from the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Polynesians made contact with the west coast of South America as much as a century before any Spanish conquistadors, her findings imply.

DNA in bone

The chicken bones were discovered at an archaeological site called El Arenal, on the south coast of Chile, alongside other materials belonging to the indigenous population. While chickens aren’t native to the region, it was believed the local Araucana species found there now was brought to the Americas by Spanish settlers around 1500.

Tests on the bones, however, now indicate the birds arrived well before any European made landfall in South America, Matisoo-Smith and her colleague Alice Storey found.

“We had the chicken bone directly dated by radio carbon. The calibrated date was clearly prior to 1492,” Matisoo-Smith told LiveScience, noting that it could have ranged anywhere from 1304 to 1424. “This also fits with the other dates obtained from the site (on other materials), and it fits with the cultural period of the site.”

Did Polynesians continue eastwards?

DNA extracted from the bones also matched closely with a Polynesian breed of chicken, rather than any chickens found in Europe.

Polynesia was settled by sailors who migrated from mainland Southeast Asia, beginning about 3,000 years ago. They continued gradually eastwards, but were never thought to have journeyed further than Easter Island, about 2,000 miles off the coast of continental Chile.

The chicken DNA suggests at least one group did make the harrowing journey across the remaining stretch of Pacific, Matisoo-Smith said.

“We cannot say exactly which island the voyage came from. The DNA sequence is found in chickens from Tonga, Samoa, Niue, Easter Island and Hawaii,” Matisoo-Smith said. “If we had to guess, we would say it was unlikely to have come from West Polynesia and most likely to have come from Easter Island or some other East Polynesian source that we have not yet sampled.”

The results are detailed in the latest issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Kon-Tiki trip in reverse

It might be the most tangible, but this isn’t the first evidence that pre-Columbian voyages from the Pacific to South America were possible.

In 1947, Thor Heyerdahl, the famous Norwegian anthropologist, made the voyage from Peru to Polynesia aboard his Kon-Tiki raft to prove the trip was doable with a rudimentary vessel.

There are more scientific arguments, too, said Matisoo-Smith.

“There is increasing evidence of multiple contacts with the Americas,” she said, “based on linguistic evidence and similarities in fish hook styles.” Physical evidence of human DNA from Polynesia has yet to be found in South America, she added.

zoeyee

32 产权标准的背景资料
1995 the Federal Trademark Dilution Act
2006 the Trademark Dilution Revision Act
主要是加强了“商标淡化”的定义，由“实际淡化”变为“淡化的可能性”也可诉讼
First, the TDRA changes the very manner in which courts determine whether a mark qualifies as “famous.”  The FTDA previously set forth eight factors relevant to “fame,” and courts often deemed to be “famous” trademarks that were well known only in niche markets.  In contrast, the TDRA provides that “a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner.”  Courts now are directed to consider four factors in analyzing whether a mark is famous:  (1) the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark; (2) the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; (3) the extent of actual recognition of the mark; and (4) whether the mark was registered.  Thus, the TDRA’a standards generally appear to make it more difficult for a mark to qualify as “famous.”
2. FTDA只针对dilution by blurring，TDRA针对both dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment
Second, prior to the enactment of the TDRA, some courts held that the only actionable dilution was dilution by blurring; dilution by tarnishment was not actionable.  The TDRA provides that both dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment are actionable.  Dilution by blurring arises from a similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Dilution by tarnishment arises from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.
3.
Third, prior to the enactment of the TDRA, some courts held that the famous mark at issue must be inherently distinctive.  The TDRA clarifies that remedies for dilution are also available to the owners of marks with acquired (rather than inherent) distinctiveness.
4.FTDA不允许news reporting, noncommercial use等等情况，但是TDRA于允许这些fair use（ 跟整理稿相同）
Fourth, the FTDA stated that certain uses of famous marks, including news reporting, noncommercial use, and “fair use…in comparative commercial advertising,” were not actionable.  The TDRA expands these exceptions, retaining the references to news reporting and noncommercial use, but also protecting “any” fair use of a famous mark.

Fifth, the TDRA clarifies the conditions under which monetary damages are available.  Monetary damages are now available when the junior user’s first use in commerce occurred after October 6, 2006, and the user willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark (in blurring cases) or willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark (in tarnishment cases).

2006年，FTDA被修改，新法律保护likely dilution，剔除掉了要提供actual dilution proof的要求 （跟整理稿相反）
Amendments to the FTDA took effect on October 6, 2006. The Act still protects only famous marks. However, Congress amended the act so that it expressly provides protection against a use of a mark that is "likely" to cause dilution. The new statute thus eliminates the requirement of proving "actual dilution."

The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 clarifies the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Most important for owners of famous marks, TDRA makes clear that mark owners can act to stop diluting uses without showing that the diluting use is actually causing harm.

dding7

找到第32篇阅读考古：
1. 专利法案

　　【V1】

　　1995年和2006年关于owner of trademark的

　　【考古待确定…】

　　专利保护法

　　关于美国1995年和2006年的两个关于trademark还是patent的专利保护法案的，就一个F法案通过了以后怎样怎样保护专利所有人，但是说这个法案不利于法官判，后来又有个更保守T法案通过了，能先剔除一些case先缩小了到法庭打官司的范围，然后judges就很高兴。

　　Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995

　　Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA)

　　Trademark dilution theory 商标稀释理论is one of the most contentious aspects of trademark law.Although Congress enacted the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) in 1996, courts struggle to interpret the statutory language.The definition of dilution is unclear, and the appropriate standard for injunctive relief is hotly contested.激辩申请禁止侵权

　　Additionally, no uniform framework for litigating dilution claims exists.The Supreme Court’s 2003 edict on trademark dilution in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. did little to quell disputes because the Court only addressed the standard of harm necessary for injunctive relief.Recently, in response to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the FTDA in Moseley, Congress proposed an overhaul of the trademark anti-dilution law.Presently, Congress appears close to enacting the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (“TDRA”).

　　This note evaluates whether the proposed TDRA provides beneficial alternatives to the current definition of dilution, methodologies for analyzing claims, and standard of harm necessary for injunctive relief. Part I provides an overview of trademark law and historical highlights of trademark dilution, including the emergence of blurring and tarnishment theories. Part II investigates the inherent weaknesses of the FTDA definition of dilution, explores courts’various methodologies for analysis of dilution claims, and explains the interpretations of the standard of harm necessary for injunctive relief. Part III explains the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the FTDA and identifies statutory language changes made by the TDRA in the three areas of dilution law explored in Part II. Part IV discusses the prospective impact of the TDRA in the three areas highlighted in Part II. Part V concludes the TDRA effectively addresses the need for a clear definition of dilution and analytical framework, and presents a pragmatic standard for injunctive relief.

　　Until 2006, the FTDA was distinguished from most state trademark dilution laws in several ways: (1) The FTDA protects only "famous" trademarks; most state statutes do not explicitly require trademarks to be "famous" to be protected against dilution. (2) The FTDA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protected only against "actual" dilution of a trademark, whereas most state statutes provided trademark owners with a remedy whenever they could show a "likelihood" of dilution. (3) The Supreme Court suggested (although it did not have occasion to hold) that the FTDA protected only against dilution by "blurring" and not against dilution by "tarnishment" (see below).

　　Amendments to the FTDA took effect on October 6, 2006. The Act still protects only famous marks. However, Congress amended the act so that it expressly provides protection against a use of a mark that is "likely" to cause dilution. The new statute thus eliminates the requirement of proving "actual dilution."新的法案不要求提供actual dilution的证据，因此变得容易

　　问题：

　　1、主旨题

　　2、法官为何喜欢修改过的法案，对于dilution的释义更明确

　　一、 关于专利法案。【考古确认】

　　V1.

　　1995年有一个专利法案，为了更好保护专利拥有者。但事实却不是这样的(没弄很懂原因)。2006年出了个新的法案，更为保守。

　　V2:

　　专利法案，三题，一屏整。考了法官为什么喜欢新法案(or不喜欢旧法案= =)，非常确定选的是因为1996 Act serve better public policy(楼主学的就是这个，结合文章秒懂!)

　　V3：

　　FTDA商标题。内容就不说了。寂静都很全面。直接分享题目和我的答案吧。

　　文章主旨?我选择了disuss the development of trademark. 其他都过于侧面，这个比较靠谱。

　　高亮了第一段最后两个句子，问作用：第一句是说出key ways，第二句是illustrate how the key ways can be applied.

　　还有一题好像跟法官有关，我记得我选择了有说good public policy的选项。

xtm123456

谢谢分享了哈~~~

dding7

阅读46篇：找到一个CR的寂静：

发现一个古代民族在千年前就食用cocao（应该是），讲但是呢，他们不是天天吃，因为当时跟其他地方交易是很贵的，————（题目要求补充画线部分）
记得正确选项是在当地遗址发现不能种植或者是 有cocao这种树。（确定）

Richardzeng

Mark一下！