Question Description
Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.Todays legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to thosewho invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industrys historically high rate of innovation. It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed, Fisher maintained. We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case. Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.Q.Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?a)Yes, as software does not require intellectual property.b)Yes, software growth is possible only through commercial monopoly.c)Yes, strong intellectual property regime is not a requirement for software innovation.d)Yes, software patents are required for giving impetus to innovation in this field.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.