Q21

[dagen.m.downard]

By process of elimination, I was left with answer choices D and E. E is a bit of a stretch because it is not supported by passage B at all, right? D just doesn't seem like it truly weakens the first paragraph of passage B regarding innovation. Just because something is less profitable does not prevent people from having the desire to be innovative... I don't know. Please explain D.

[maryadkins]

The first paragraph of Passage B says that software patents impede innovation. To weaken this claim, we'd want a reason why that may not be true. (D) provides one: if we lost the patents, software innovation would be less profitable.

To address your concern with (D): sure, there can be other reasons people are motivated to be innovative. But profit is sure a big one. If we tackle that one alone, it weakens this claim.

(E) is actually irrelevant. So what if corporations or individual innovators are the primary beneficiaries of innovation? The issue is whether patents are good for innovation or not, not whom innovation is benefiting.

(A) likewise is irrelevant. So they're mostly for 20 years or less. Do they impede innovation during those 20 years or not? And what about the rest of them?

(B) is also irrelevant, and (C) doesn't weaken.

[CarolineL560]

Can someone elaborate on why D is correct? "Less profitable" seemed out of scope to me; The position seemed more concern with the intrinsic benefits of opposing software patents like innovation and maintaining open source free software, not the instrumental benefits, like profits. It seemed to me that D could be correct and not cast doubt on the position that software patents impede innovation. Are we to make the leap that IF it could not be patented --> innovation less profitable --> No one would innovate without that monetary incentive --> patents actually increase software innovation??

I wasn't happy with any of them but eliminated D and went with C, thinking that supporting their vendors that opposed these patents was a reason for choosing this position and if it turned out they did so for other reasons unrelated to the fact that the patents impede innovation, then that would "cast doubt". Thoughts, anyone?

[snoopy]

Can someone elaborate on why D is correct? "Less profitable" seemed out of scope to me; The position seemed more concern with the intrinsic benefits of opposing software patents like innovation and maintaining open source free software, not the instrumental benefits, like profits. It seemed to me that D could be correct and not cast doubt on the position that software patents impede innovation. Are we to make the leap that IF it could not be patented --> innovation less profitable --> No one would innovate without that monetary incentive --> patents actually increase software innovation??

I wasn't happy with any of them but eliminated D and went with C, thinking that supporting their vendors that opposed these patents was a reason for choosing this position and if it turned out they did so for other reasons unrelated to the fact that the patents impede innovation, then that would "cast doubt". Thoughts, anyone?

C is wrong because saying "some" vendors oppose software patents for self-interest does not eliminate the possibility that "some" vendors oppose software patents because they impede innovation. Doesn't weaken because you still have vendors who oppose software patents for impeding innovation. Also, it attacks the motives of those vendors. However, those vendors can still oppose for self-interested reasons AND oppose because software patents impede innovation.

I also didn't like D because I thought "profitability" was out of scope. However, D gives us another reason why patents may help innovation. D is saying "If no software patents, then innovation would be less profitable." If there's less profit, that might incentivize companies to innovate less. So, lack of software patents might impede innovation.

I do think you have to make a "common sense" jump on this answer choice.

[HannahM495]

I think I understand why D weakens passage B's claim that patents inhibit innovation: without patents, folks make less profit, the assumption here being that a lack of profit would de-incentivize innovation.

But...why is E wrong? The passage states in line 48 that "a small number of very large companies have amassed large numbers of software patents." With this in mind, if large corporations are in fact the main beneficiaries of software innovations (AC E), wouldn't that necessitate their collection of patents DID NOT "impede innovation in software development," effectively disproving the argument?

How do I weaken the assertion that patents are harmful to innovation? Well, by proving that someone with a bunch of patents actually benefitted from innovation more than anybody else. The issue I see here is that "benefitting" from innovations is not necessarily the same thing as "promoting" innovation. Is that what discounts AC E as an option?