近10年考研英语阅读真题精选背诵文章目录:2010年

考研网

近10年考研英语阅读真题精选背诵文章目录
    　　Text 2
    　　Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its “one-click” online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.
    　　Now the nation’s top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S. court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski , as the case is known , is “a very big deal”, says Dennis’D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”
    　　Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with is 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive pinhts to specific types of online transactions. Later, move established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
    　　The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court’s judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should” reconsider” its state street Bank ruling.
    　　The Federal Circuit’s action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Count that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are “reacting to the anti_ patent trend at the supreme court” ,says Harole C.wegner, a partend attorney and professor at aeorge Washington University Law School.
    　　26. Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of
    　　[A] their limited value to business
    　　[B] their connection with asset allocation
    　　[C] the possible restriction on their granting
    　　[D] the controversy over authorization
    　　27. Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?
    　　[A] Its ruling complies with the court decisions
    　　[B] It involves a very big business transaction
    　　[C] It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit
    　　[D] It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
    　　28. The word “about-face” (Line 1, Paro 3) most probably means
    　　[A] loss of good will
    　　[B] increase of hostility
    　　[C] change of attitude
    　　[D] enhancement of dignity
    　　29. We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents
    　　[A] are immune to legal challenges
    　　[B] are often unnecessarily issued
    　　[C] lower the esteem for patent holders
    　　[D] increase the incidence of risks
    　　30. Which of the following would be the subject of the text?
    　　[A] A looming threat to business-method patents
    　　[B] Protection for business-method patent holders
    　　[C] A legal case regarding business-method patents
    　　[D] A prevailing trend against business-method patents
    　　答案：

26. C

27. D

28. C

29. B

30. A

   

kytwo

    　　Text 4
    　　Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it’s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.
    　　Unfortunately, banks’ lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.
    　　After a bruising encounter with Congress, America’s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls “the use of judgment by management.”
    　　European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real word” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.
    　　It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But bank’s shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.
    　　To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America’s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility form special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.
    　　36. Bankers complained that they were forced to
    　　[A] follow unfavorable asset evaluation rules
    　　[B]collect payments from third parties
    　　[C]cooperate with the price managers
    　　[D]reevaluate some of their assets.
    　　37.According to the author , the rule changes of the FASB may result in
    　　[A]the diminishing role of management
    　　[B]the revival of the banking system
    　　[C]the banks’ long-term asset losses
    　　[D]the weakening of its independence
    　　38.According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB’s attempt to
    　　[A]keep away from political influences.
    　　[B]evade the pressure from their peers.
    　　[C]act on their own in rule-setting.
    　　[D]take gradual measures in reform.
    　　39.The author thinks the banks were “on the wrong planet ”in that they
    　　[A]misinterpreted market price indicators
    　　[B]exaggerated the real value of their assets
    　　[C]neglected the likely existence of bad debts.
    　　[D]denied booking losses in their sale of assets.
    　　40.The author’s attitude towards standard-setters is one of
    　　[A]satisfaction.
    　　[B]skepticism.
    　　[C]objectiveness
    　　[D]sympathy
    　　答案：

36. A

37. D

38. C

39. B

40. D