For intangible assets — such as brands and intellectual property — this process of allocating costs over time is called .

Some critics believe that the very concept of intellectual property is mistaken. Unlike physical property, ideas are non-rivalrous goods that can be used by many people at the same time without making them any less useful. The term "intellectual property" was widely adopted only in the 1960s, as a way to bundle trademarks, copyrights and patents. Those critics argue that today's rights are too strict and make the sharing of knowledge too expensive.

The paradox about intellectual property in IT and telecommunications is that it eases the exchange of technology and acts as a bottleneck for innovation at the same time. The whole system is in a stage of transformation. "Markets require institutions, and institutions take a long time to develop. Today, the institutions for a 'market for technology' are not well developed, and it is costly to use this market," says a specialist.

Ideas are to the information age what the physical environment was to the industrial one: the raw material of economic progress. Just as pollution or an irresponsible use of property rights threatens land and climate, so an overly stringent system of intellectual-property rights risks holding back technological progress. Disruptive innovation that threatens the existing order must be encouraged, but the need to protect ideas must not be used as an excuse for greed. Finding the fight balance will test the industry, policymakers and the public in the years ahead.

Intellectual Property

The phrase intellectual property (IP) refers to the bundle of legal rights that arise from the creative genius of the human mind. IP rights play an important role in the economic prosperity of a country and serve as a motivating force for creative individuals to share their genius with society. Like real and personal property rights protect one's ownership interest in tangible(有形的)objects, such as land and automobiles, IP rights protect one's ownership interest in intangible objects, such as the idea behind an invention, the music score for a Broadway play and the name or logo used to brand a product. Without enforcement of these rights in the law, it would be difficult for society to prosper and grow. In this article, you will learn what intellectual property rights are and the differences between its various forms.

General Introduction

When most people think of intellectual property rights, patents, trademarks and copyrights come to mind. This core set of IP rights reward and protect the creative works of inventors, authors, owners and sellers of goods and services in the marketplace. While the legal principles that underlie each of these rights are distinct, they each share a common set of principles.

An award of patent, trademark or copyright protection requires a delicate balance between the interests of the inventor or author and the interest of society as a whole. This balance is very much like the tradeoff(折衷) required by zoning laws, which attempt to protect the ownership interest and exclusive right to use that a land owner has with society’s interest in the limited use of the owner's land for society's greater good, Public utility easements and right of ways are examples of this balance.

The grant of a patent on an important invention of a lifesaving drug represents a similar set of tradeoffs. Is it fair to the inventor to allow society free access to the patented drug? Is it fair to society to be denied access for its greater good? It is the role of intellectual Property law to harmonize these seemingly conflicting interests,

Intellectual property rights also foster a competitive marketplace. They do so by encouraging disclosure of innovation through protecting the fruits of that innovation for a period of time. Disclosure allows others to build and improve upon prior innovation so that the state of the art continues to evolve and develop. Without the benefits provided by intellectual property protection, the market place would not operate as effectively. Imagine what the world would be like if every competitor had to continuously "reinvent the wheel" rather than being able to refine and improve upon the works of others.

Finally, intellectual property rights are regional in nature and the conditions of their grant and enforceability are governed by the laws of each jurisdiction(权限). A U.S. patent can be only granted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States. A trademark can only be registered and enforced in Canada in accordance with the laws of Canada, and a copyright can only be registered and enforced in Mexico in accordance with its laws. While there is a desire to be somewhat uniform. and consistent, countries have different approaches to intellectual property rights protection. Variations in the procedure for obtaining IP rights account for a large percentage of these difference, rather than the differences in the substantive(永久的) rights granted in each country.

The words "patent" and "trademark" are often used interchangeably. Many times, we hear that a patent is used to protect a logo and that a trademark is used to protect an invention, and vice versa. While patents and trademarks may be associated with the same product, the two words have very different meanings and refer to very different forms of intellectual property rights. They can s

A．Y

B．N

C．NG

Focus on what you do best. This age-old strategy has worked well for RealNetworks, Microsoft's main competitor in multimedia software for the Internet. Now, the smaller Seattle-based firm is trying a novel way to contain the software giant. On October 29th, it released the underlying recipe, or source-code, of its RealPlayer software and will soon do the same for its other programs — giving away a big chunk of its intellectual property.

This may sound like a desperate echo of 1998, when Netscape, struggling in Microsoft's choke holding, published the source-code of its web browser (an initiative that yielded few real results until this June, when the first serious new version of the open-source browser, Mozilla, was released). Yet RealNetworks is not playing defense. It is trying to encourage the creation of a common multimedia software structure for every kind of file format and device, thus defeating Microsoft's ambitions in this promising market.

The firm hopes that others in the industry (volunteer programmers, media firms and hardware makers) will take the code, called Helix DNA, improve it and make it run on new devices, such as mobile phones and home stereos, turning RealNetworks' software into an industry standard. Clever licensing terms are supposed to ensure that this standard does not split and that the firm still makes money.

Individual developers, universities and other non-profit organizations can modify the software as they please, and even redistribute it for free, so long as they also publish the source-code for their changes. This is a sort of payment in kind, for RealNetworks is then allowed to use these contributions. Firms, on the other hand, must pay royalty fees if they distribute more than lm copies of the code. They also have to make sure that their software works with other Helix DNA products. The software's development community already has 2,000 members. And several hardware makers hack the effort. But there are risks. Afraid of piracy (盗版), media groups are suspicious of anything that might be related to hackers (although they also do not want to depend on, and pay for, technology controlled by Microsoft). The self-created competition could also hurt RealNetworks if customers decide its commercial products, which will ha based on the open source-cede but with extra features, are not worth paying extra for.

RealNetworks' move is another sign that the software industry is going hybrid. Mixing elements of proprietary software, where the source-code is tightly controlled, with open-source programs enables firms to expand a market, harvest the ideas of others and, they hope, still make money. Even Microsoft is edging this way: it recently announced that partners can now look at — but not modify or re-use — the source-code for Passport, its controversial digital-identity service.

By what way does RealNetworks attempt to prevent Microsoft's ambitions?

A．Publishing the source code.

B．Using RealNetworks' achievements.

C．Protecting intellectual property.

D．Accusing of Microsoft.

Focus on what you do best. This age-old strategy has worked well for RealNetworks, Microsoft's main competitor in multimedia software for the Internet. Now, the smaller Seattle-based firm is trying a novel way to contain the software giant. On October 29th, it released the underlying recipe, or source-code, of its RealPlayer software and will soon do the same for its other programs-- giving away a big chunk of its intellectual property.

This may sound like a desperate echo of 1998, when Netscape, struggling in Microsoft's choke holding, published the source-code of its web browser (an initiative that yielded few real results until this June, when the first serious new version of the open-source browser, Mozilla, was released). Yet RealNetworks is not playing defense. It is trying to encourage the creation of a common multimedia software structure for every kind of file format and device, thus defeating Microsoft's ambitions in this promising market.

The firm hopes that others in the industry (volunteer programmers, media firms and hardware makers) will take the code, called Helix DNA, improve it and make it run on new devices, such as mobile phones and home stereos, turning RealNetworks' software into an industry standard. Clever licensing terms are supposed to ensure that this standard does not split and that the firm still makes money.

Individual developers, universities and other non-profit organizations can modify the software as they please, and even redistribute it for free, so long as they also publish the source-code for their changes. This is a sort of payment in kind, for RealNetworks is then allowed to use these contributions. Finns, on the other hand, must pay royalty fees if they distribute mom than lm copies of the code. They also have to make sure that their software works with other Helix DNA products. The software's development community already has 2,000 members. And several hardware makers back the effort. But there are risks. Afraid of piracy(盗版), media groups are suspicious of anything that might be related to hackers (although they also do not want to depend on, and pay for, technology controlled by Microsoft). The self-created competition could also hurt RealNetworks if customers decide its commercial products, which will be based on the open source-code but with extra features, are not worth paying extra for.

RealNetworks' move is another sign that the software industry is going hybrid. Mixing elements of proprietary software, where the source-code is tightly controlled, with open-source programs enables firms to expand a market, harvest the ideas of others and, they hope, still make money. Even Microsoft is edging this way: it recently announced that partners can now look at-- but not modify or re-use-- the source-code for Passport, its controversial digital-identity service.

By what way does RealNetworks attempt to prevent Microsoft's ambitions?

A．Publishing the source code.

B．Using RealNetworks' achievements.

C．Protecting intellectual property.

D．Accusing of Microsoft.

A Risky Try

A Focus on what you do best. This age-old strategy has worked well for RealNetworks, Microsofts main competitor in multimedia software for the Internet. Now, the smaller Seattle-based firm is trying a novel way to contain the software giant. On October 29th, it released the underlying recipe, or source-code, of its RealPlayer software and will soon do the same for its other programs — giving away a big chunk of its intellectual property.

B This may sound like a desperate echo of 1998, when Netscape, struggling in Microsofts chokehold, published the source-code of its web browser(an initiative that yielded few real results until this June, when the first serious new version of the open-source browser, Mozilla, was released). Yet RealNetworks is not playing defense. It is trying to encourage the creation of a common multimedia software infrastructure for every kind of file format and device, thus thwarting Microsofts ambitions in this promising market. The firm hopes that others in the industry(volunteer programmers, media firms and hardware makers)will take the code, called Helix DNA, improve it and make it run on new devices, such as mobile phones and home stereos, turning RealNetworks software into an industry standard. Clever licensing terms are supposed to ensure that this standard does not splinter and that the firm still makes money.

C Individual developers, universities and other non-profit organisations can modify the software as they please and even redistribute it for free, so long as they also publish the source-code for their changes. This is a sort of payment in kind, for RealNetworks is then allowed to use these contributions. Firms, on the other hand, must pay royalty fees if they distribute more than 1 m copies of the code. They also have to make sure that their software works with other Helix DNA products. The softwares development community already has 2, 000 members. And several hardware makers back the effort. But there are risks. Afraid of piracy, media groups are suspicious of anything that might be related to hackers(although they also do not want to depend on, and pay for, technology controlled by Microsoft). The self-created competition could also hurt RealNetworks if customers decide its commercial products, which will be based on the open source-code but with extra features, are not worth paying extra for.

D RealNetworks move is another sign that the software industry is going hybrid. Mixing elements of proprietary software, where the source-code is tightly controlled, with open-source programs enable firms to expand a market, harvest the ideas of others and, they hope, still make money. Even Microsoft is edging this way: it recently announced that partners can now look at — but not modify or reuse — the source-code for Passport, its controversial digital-identity service.

In 1998, Netscape made a dangerous copy.

A.

B.

C.

D.

The universities have trained the intellectual pioneers of our civilization—the priests, the lawyers, the statesmen, the doctors, the men of science, and the men of letters. The conduct of business now requires intellectual imagination of the same type as that which in former times has mainly passed into those other occupations.

There is one great difficulty which hinders all the higher types of human effort. In modern times this difficulty has even increased in its possibilities for evil. In any large organization the younger men, who are novices. must be set to jobs which consist in carrying out fixed duties in obedience to orders. No president of a large corporation meets his youngest employee at his office door with the offer of the most responsible job which the work of that corporation includes. The young men are set to work at a fixed routine, and only occasionally even see the president as he passes in and out of the building. Such work is a great discipline. It imparts knowledge, and it produces reliability of character; also it is the only work for which the young men, In that novice stage, are fit, and it is the work for which they are hired. There can be no criticism of the custom. but there may be an unfortunate effect: prolonged routine work dulls the imagination.

The way in which a university should function in the preparation for an intellectual career, is by promoting the imaginative consideration of the various general principles underlying that career. Its students thus pass tutu their period of technical apprenticeship with their imaginations already practiced in connecting details with general principles.

Thus the proper function of a university is the imaginative acquisition of knowledge. Apart from this importance of the imagination, there is no reason why businessmen, and other professional men, should not pick up their facts bit by hit as they want them for particular occasions. A university is imaginative or it is nothing—at least nothing useful.

What is a basic requirement for work in all professions according to the passage?

A．Imagination.

B．Reliability of character.

C．Discipline.

D．Obedience to orders,

While the roots of social psychology lie in the intellectual soil of the whole western tradition, its present flowering is recognized to be characteristically an American phenomenon. One reason for the striking upsurge of social psychology in the United States lies in the pragmatic tradition of this country. National emergencies and conditions of social disruption provide special incentive to invent new techniques, and to strike out boldly for solutions to practical social problems. Social psychology began to flourish soon after the First World War. This event, followed by the great depression of the 1930s, by the rise of Hitler, the genocide of Jews, race riots, the Second World War and the atomic threat, stimulated all branches of social science. A special challenge fell to social psychology. The question was asked: How is it possible to preserve the values of freedom and individual rights under condition of mounting social strain and regimentation? Can science help provide an answer? This challenging question led to a burst of creative effort that added much to our understanding of the phenomena of leadership, public opinion, rumour, propaganda, prejudice, attitude change, morale, communication, decision- making, race relations, and conflicts of war.

Reviewing the decade that followed World War Il, Cartwright speaks of the "excitement and optimism" of American social psychologists, and notes "the tremendous increase in the total number of people calling themselves social psychologists." Most of these, we may add, show little awareness of the history of their field.

Practical and humanitarian motives have always played an important part in the development of social psychology, not only in America but in other lands as well. Yet there have been discordant and dissenting voices. In the opinion of Herbert Spencer in England, of Ludwig Gumplowicz in Austria, and of William Graham .Sumner in the United States, it is both futile and dangerous for man to attempt to steer or to speed social change. Social evolution, they argue, requires time and obeys laws beyond the control of man. The only practical service of social science is to warn man not to interfere with the course of nature (or society). But these authors are in a minority. Most social psychologists share with Comte an optimistic view of man's chances to better his way of life. Has he not already improved his health via biological sciences7 Why should he not better his social relationships via social sciences? For the past century this optimistic outlook has persisted in the face of slender accomplishment to date. Human relations seem stubbornly set. Wars have not been abolished, labour troubles have not abated, and racial tensions are still with us. Give us time and give us money for research, the optimists say.

Social psychology developed in the USA

A．because its roots are intellectually western in origin.

B．as a direct response to the great depression.

C．to meet the threat of Adolf Hitler and his policy of mass genocide.

D．because of its pragmatic traditions for dealing with social problems.

What effect is it claimed the mass media can have on our intellectual and imaginative development?

A．They are likely to frustrate this development.

B．They can form. a basis for it.

C．They can distort our judgment.

D．They can stimulate too much mental activity.

What effect is it claimed the mass media can have on our intellectual and imaginative development?

A．They are likely to frustrate this development.

B．They can form. a basis for it.

C．They can distort our judgment.

D．They can stimulate too much mental activity.

What effect is it claimed the mass media can have on our intellectual and imaginative development?

A．They are likely to frustrate this development.

B．They can form. a basis for it.

C．They can distort our judgment.

D．They can stimulate too much mental activity.