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:
A: True
Explanation:
Ex. If you check the weather and it says its supposed to rain in about 15 minutes, you would want a jacket or even an umbrella right? It would be smart to bring both of those items along with you.
Answer:
Imagine that you are an administrator at a public university and the Christian Fellowship has petitioned to use university facilities. According to Supreme Court decisions on the matter of religion and public schools, you <u>must allow the Christian Fellowship to use the facilities, just like the Political Science Club and other student organizations.</u>
Answer:
The Case of the Supreme Court Worcester v. Georgia was a small victory for the Cherokee nation in Georgia because it was decided that Georgia laws did not apply to Cherokee territory.
Explanation:
In the Worcester case v. Georgia, the Supreme Court denied Georgia jurisdiction and state authority over the Cherokee community. In other words, this meant that Georgia law and authority did not apply to Cherokee territory. Although this decision was a small victory for the Cherokee people, the decision was not very helpful as the state of Georgia totally ignored the Supreme Court decision and forced the Cherokee community to march west.
Congress was unable to regulate interstate and foreign commerce; some states refused to pay for goods they purchased from abroad. Congress was unable to impose taxes; it could only borrow money on credit. No national court system was established to protect the rights of U.S. citizens.
