Answer:
the answer would be... A I believe.
Explanation:
Because the framers of the United States Constitution (written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation’s economic growth, they gave Congress—the national legislature—a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers’ goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “anticipate” and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders (“patentees”) brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee. The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to these scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.
To learn more about protecting property rights visit here ; brainly.com/question/28388414?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
Answer:
i dont but i can look them up why
Explanation:
Answer:
The Constitution provides a system of checks and balances designed to avoid the tyranny of any one branch. Most important actions require the participation of more than once branch of government. Another important function of the Constitution is to divide power between the national government and the state governments.
Explanation:
Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
Ozzy recently started working at a new company. He has been solicited several times to join the union of the company, but he would prefer not to. The union officials tell Ozzy that he won’t be allowed to keep working unless he joins the union. Which of the following is true?
-The union officials are pretending they have a closed shop and can't influence Ozzy's decision.
-The union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.
-Ozzy must now join the union because union shops are always legal.
-Ozzy's requirement to join the union depends on his state of employment.
Answer:
-The union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.
Explanation:
There is a law called the National Labor Relations Act that states that no employee should be required to be part of the union and that membership in the union should not be placed as a requirement for the occupation of a particular labor function. However, some states and some companies may adopt different approaches to their employees and the union.
In some states in the country, although an employee is not required to become a member of a union, they allow an obligation for all employees to be required to pay at least part of the union's dues. In this case, we can say that in relation to the case shown in the question above, the union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.
