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:
Under Case Law, in each period a Court of Law can, in principle, either take a forward looking, tough, or a myopic, weak decision. Under Statute Law, all Courts are constrained to behave in the same way
Explanation:
hope it help
A I believe is the correct answer
Answer:
States. In the forty-nine states that have a bicameral legislature, the highest leadership position in the lower house is usually called the "Speaker" and the upper house is usually the "President of the (State) Senate.
Explanation:
Please mark as brainliest
...................I’m sorry it maybe safe guard but I’m not sure
