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
Well I’m court the poop would legally mean legs of dogs arrested but, sometimes whales and blow fire from the blow holes
The Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
Answer: Yes. The motel within its rights to refuse her admittance
Explanation:
From the question, we are informed that Manpreet reserved a room at the Moonlight Motel but couldn't later travel and therefore called her sister, Ravinder, to make use of the motel room in her place.
We are further told that Ravinder was refused admittance to the room on the grounds that there was a waiting list and she was not on it.
Based on the nice scenario, the motel was within its rights to refuse her admittance. It should be noted that the hotel room wasn't booked in her name but rather booked in Manpreet's name. The thing that Manpreet could have done is to inform the motel when she realize that she couldn't come and change the terms of the contract by saying her sister will be coming. But in this scenario, the motel is within its rights to refuse her admittance.
Explanation:
a yellow curb is the answer to this question
