题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“______ case the seller is liab…”相关的问题
In general, economists complain about the costs of monopoly because they believe that the same industry could be organized competitively. A patent monopoly grant for 17 years presents a different problem. That is, the purpose of the patent system is to encourage invention. The issue is not monopoly versus competition but, more fundamentally, invention versus no invention. Is the world better off with the invention, even though it is monopolized for 17 years？ In other words, what are the costs and benefits of a patent？
Consider the simple case of a new consumer product with a positive demand, such as a camera utilizing a new exposure process. The costs of the patent monopoly are simply the deadweight costs of monopoly measured by the lost consumers' surplus from the 17-year patent monopoly. This cost must be assessed carefully in the context of an invention, however. What are the benefits of the patent system？ First, there is the increase in consumer well-being brought about immediately by a desirable invention. In 17 years, the patent monopoly ends, and a second source of benefits arises: The price of cameras will fall to a competitive level, and consumers will reap the benefits of the camera at a lower price. In sum, theory of monopoly helps us to assess the costs and benefits of the patent. One can quibble about patent monopolies, arguing, for example, that they are granted for too long a time.
In the end, the patent system creates goods and services and technologies that did not previously exist. In this respect it is a valuable System for the economy. The patent system also underscores the importance of property rights to ideas as a source of economic growth and progress.
The first paragraph mainly______.
A．focuses on business monopoly
B．tells us about the patent system in America
C．discusses a special form. of market organization
D．defines what a patent is and its function
A crucial battle ended this week with a ruling by America's Supreme Court in favour of copyright holder and against two companies that distribute peer-to-peer (P2P) software, which lets users share files online with others. The court's decision, though ostensibly a victory for content providers, is. nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing—much of which will continue from outside America—or stop the technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.
The court was asked to decide whether two firms, Grokster and StreamCast, were liable for copyright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were not liable, citing a 1984 ruling in favour of Sony's Betamax video recorder. This held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". The court did not reinterpret the 1984 decision in light of the Internet. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StreamCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simpie steps available to prevent it. Such behaviour would make the firms clearly liable for copyright infringement and end their immunity, even under the Betamax standard. The court reasoned that there were sufficient grounds to believe that inducement occurred, and sent the case back to lower courts for trial.
Although the Grokster decision will probably not squelch innovation as much as many tech firms fear, it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious about how they market their products—and quite right, too. But the Supreme Court's narrow ruling makes this unlikely—in deed, the justices noted the technology's widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely embolden the entertainment industry to pursue in court any firms that they can claim knowingly allow in fringement; This could kill off some small innovative start-ups. On the other hand, the ruling could also provide legal cover for tech firms with the wit to plaster their products with warnings not to violate the law.
But judged from a long-term perspective, this week's victory for copyright holders seems likely to prove a Pyrrhic one. The Internet and file sharing are disruptive technologies that give consumers vastly more ability to use all sorts of media content, copyrighted or not. Surely entertainment firms must devise ways to use this technology to sell their wares that will also allow copyright to be protected.
So long as technology continues to evolve in ways that enable legitimate content sharing, piracy will also probably continue to some degree. Happily, in this case the piracy seems to have prompted content firms to compete by offering better fee-based services. The challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it.
The ruling of America's Supreme Court
A．indeed hit the piracy industry hard.
B．has little impact on content sharing.
C．may prevent tech firms from innovating.
D．can lead to a flourish of entertainment industry.
Paras. 5-8
The first category consists of substantial payments made for political purposes or to secure major contracts. For example, one US corporation offered a large sum of money in support of a US presidential candidate at a time when the company was under investigation for possible violations of US business laws. This same company, it was revealed, was ready to finance secret US efforts to throw out the government of Chile.
In this category, we may also include large payments made to ruling families or their close advisers in order to secure arms sales or major petroleum or construction contracts. In a court case involving an arms deal with Iran, a witness claimed that ￡1 million had been paid by a British company to a "negotiator" who helped close a deal for the supply of tanks and other military equipment to that country. Other countries have also been known to put pressure on foreign companies to make donations to party bank accounts.
The second category covers payments made to obtain quicker official approval of some project, to speed up the wheels of government. An interesting example of this kind of payment is provided by the story of a sales manager who had been trying for some months to sell road machinery to the Minister of Works of a Caribbean country. Finally, he hit upon the answer. Discovering that the minister collected rare books, he bought a rare edition of a book, slipped $20,000 within its pages, then presented it to the minister. This man examined its contents, then said, "I understand there is a two-volume edition of this work." The sales manager, who was quick-witted, replied, "My company cannot afford a two- volume edition, sir, but we could offer you a copy with a preface!" A short time later, the deal was approved.
The third category involves payments made in countries where it is traditional to pay people to help with the passage of a business deal. Some Middle East countries would be included on this list, as well as certain Asian countries.
Three broad categories of bribery or questionable payments
The first category consists of substantial payments made for political purposes or to secure major contracts.
Example 1: A US company offered a large sum of money to support a US presidential candidate when it was being investigated for possibly breaking the laws.
Example 2: ____________
Example 3: ____________
Example 4: There are countries putting pressure on foreign companies to make donations to party bank accounts. (Paras. 5-6)
The second category covers ____________.
Example: A sales manager tries to sell road machinery to the Minister of Works of a Caribbean country. ____________
A short time later, the deal was approved. (Para. 7)
The third category involves ____________.
For example, some Middle East countries as well as certain Asian countries would pay such money. (Para. 8)
Instead of encouraging the industry to restructure, the long-term protection has sustained inefficient companies and cost U.S. consumers dearly. As Anne O. Krueger, now deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said in a report on Big Steel: "The American Big Steel industry has been the champion lobbyist and seeker of protection. It provides a key and disillusioning example of the ability special interests to lobby in Washington for measures which hurt the general public and help a very small group.
Since 1950s, Big Steel has been reluctant to make the investments needed to match the new technologies introduced elsewhere. It agreed to high wages for its unionized labor force. Hence, the companies have difficulty in competing not only with more efficient producers in Asia and Europe but also with technologically advanced U.S. mini mills, which rely on scrap metal as an input. Led by Nucor Cot., these mills now capture about half of overall U.S. sales.
The profitability of U.S. steel companies depends also on steel prices, which, despite attempts at protection by the U.S. and other governments, are determined primarily in world markets. These prices are relatively high as recently as early 2000 but have since declined with the world recession to reach the lowest dollar values of the last 20 years. Although these low prices are unfortunate for U.S. producers, they are beneficial for the overall U.S. economy. The low prices are also signal that the inefficient Big Steel companies should go out of business even faster than they have been.
Instead of leaving or modernizing, the dying Big Steel industry complains that foreigners dump steels by selling at low prices. However, it is hard to see why it is bad for the overall U.S. economy if foreign producers wish to sell us their goods at low prices. After all, the extreme case of dumping is one where foreigners give us their steel for free and why would that be a bad thing？
According to Anne Krueger, long-term government protection given to steel companies
A．will increase the state wealth.
B．will threaten trade monopoly.
C．will raise their competitiveness.
D．will ultimately hurt consumers.
His purpose is settled and decided. He knows what he wants and he just finds it and buys it, but cares little about the price. All men simply walk into a shop and ask the assistant for what they want. If the shop has it, the salesman quickly takes it out, and the business of trying it on follows at once. If all is well, the deal(买卖) can be and is often completed in less than five minutes, with hard any chat and to everyone's satisfaction.
For a man, small problems may begin when the shop does not have what he wants, or does not have exactly what he wants. In that case the salesman tries to sell the customer something else—he offers the nearest he can to the thing asked for. He would say, "I know this jacket is not the style. you want, Sir, but would you like to try it on for size？ It happens to be the color you mentioned." Few men have patience (耐心 ) with this treatment, and the usual answer is, "This is the right color and may be the right size, but I should be wasting my time and yours by trying it on."
Now how docs a woman go about buying clothes？ In almost every respect (方面) she does so quite differently. Her shopping is not often based on need. She has never fully made up her mind about what she wants, and she is only "having a look around". She is always open to what the salesman tells her, even to what her friends tell her. She will try on any number of things. What is most important in her mind is the thought of finding something that everyone thinks suits her. Besides, most women have an excellent sense of value when they boy clothes. The), are always ready for the unexpected bargain (便宜货). Faced with a roomful of dresses, a woman may easily spend an hour going from one counter to another before selecting the dresses she wants to try on. It takes time, but surely it is enjoyable to women shoppers. Most dress shops provide chairs for the waiting husbands.
When a man is buying clothes, ______.
A．he buys cheap things and does not care about the quality
B．he chooses things that others recommend
C．he does not mind how much he has to pay for the right things
D．he buys good quality things, so long as they are not too expensive
Instead of encouraging the industry to restructure, the long-term protection has sustained inefficient companies and cost U.S. consumers dearly. As Anne O. Krueger, now deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said in a report on Big Steel: "The American Big Steel industry has been the champion lobbyist and seeker of protection....It provides a key and disillusioning example of the ability special interests to lobby in Washington for measures which hurt the general public and help a very small group."
Since 1950s, Big Steel has been reluctant to make the investments needed to match the new technologies introduced elsewhere. It agreed to high wages for its unionized labor force. Hence, the companies have difficulty in competing not only with more efficient producers in Asia and Europe but also with technologically advanced U.S. mini-mills, which rely on scrap metal as an input. Led by Nucor Cor., these mills now capture about half of overall U.S. sales.
The profitability of U.S. steel companies depends also on steel prices, which, despite attempts at protection by the U.S. and other governments, are determined primarily in world markets. These prices are relatively high as recently as early 2000 but have since declined with the world recession to reach the lowest dollar values of the last 20 years. Although these low prices are unfortunate for U.S. producers, they are beneficial for the overall U.S. economy. The low prices are also signal that the inefficient Big Steel companies should go out of business even faster than they have been.
Instead of leaving or modernizing, the dying Big Steel industry complains that foreigners dump steels by selling at low prices. However, it is hard to see why it is bad for the overall U.S. economy if foreign producers wish to sell us their goods at low prices. After all, the extreme case of dumping is one where foreigners give us their steel for free and why would that be a bad thing？
According to Anne Krueger, long-term government protection given to steel companies
A．will increase the state wealth.
B．will threaten trade monopoly.
C．will raise their competitiveness.
D．will ultimately hurt consumers.
At the core of this debate is Chairman Gerald Levin, 56, who took over for the late Steve Ross in 1992. On the financial front, Levin is under pressure to raise the stock price and reduce the company's mountainous debt, which will increase to $17.3 billion after two new cable deals close. He has promised to sell off some of the property and restructure the company, but investors are waiting impatiently.
The flap over rap is not making life any easier for him. Levin has consistently defended the company's rap music on the grounds of expression. In 1992, when Time Warner was under fire for releasing Ice-T's violent rap song Cop Killer, Levin described rap as a lawful expression of street culture, which deserves an outlet. "The test of any democratic society", he wrote in a Wall Street Journal column, "lies not in how well it can control expression but in whether it gives freedom of thought and expression the widest possible latitude, however disputable or irritating the results may sometimes be. We won't retreat in the face of any threats".
Levin would not comment on the debate last week, but there were signs' that the chairman was backing off his hard-line stand, at least to some extent, During the discussion of rock singing verses at last month's stockholders' meeting, Levin asserted that "music is not the cause of society's ills" and even cited his son, a teacher in the Bronx, New York, who uses rap to communicate with students. But he talked as well about the "balanced struggle" between creative freedom and social responsibility, and he announced that the company would launch a drive to develop standards for distribution and labeling of potentially objectionable music.
The 15-member Time Warner board is generally supportive of Levin and his corporate strategy. But insiders say several of them have shown their concerns in this matter. "Some of us have known for many, many years that the freedoms under the First Amendment are not totally unlimited", says Luce, "I think it is perhaps the case that some people associated with the company have only recently come to realize this".
Senator Robert Dole criticized Time Warner for ______.
A．its raising of the corporate stock price
B．its self-examination of soul
C．its neglect of social responsibility
D．its emphasis on creative freedom
The real estate agent has the _____ right to sell thehouse.
A) single
B) overall
C) alone
D) exclusive
