Reading Comprehension

PT157 · S4 · P4 · Q24 Patenting Software

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

This passage was adapted from an article published in 1991.

Topic

Legal protection for computer software, specifically the debate over whether copyright or patent law is more appropriate.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

Patents should not be extended to software programs because software is better protected under copyright law, which already offers sufficient financial incentive for innovation; software algorithms represent general ideas, not inventive processes, and should not be patentable. (The "Most Valuable Sentence" expressing this appears at the start of Paragraph 3: )

P1: Introduction to the Problem and the Debate

Most people agree that software creators need some legal protection from copycats to keep innovation profitable, and while copyright is widely seen as effective, some argue that patent protection should also cover software.

P2: Explaining Algorithms and the Patent Argument

This paragraph explains what algorithms are, and notes that software encodes these algorithms. Proponents of software patents claim that encoding algorithms is like designing a patentable process—like inventing a new way to run a chemical reaction. However, the author argues that algorithms are generic principles, not inventions, and thus shouldn’t be patentable—just as physical laws or general principles aren’t.

P3: Arguing for Copyright, Not Patents

The author claims that granting patents to software would give developers extra protection they don’t really need; software is more suitably protected by copyright, which covers specific ways of expressing ideas, not the underlying concepts themselves. A slight change to copyright laws would be enough, maintaining incentives for innovation without overprotecting software creators.

24.

On the basis of the passage, which one of the following is most likely to be a view held by the author?

  1. Correct

    An algorithm is analogous to

    Why this is right

    This comports well with the author's thinking, since the author doesn't think that algorithms are the sort of thing that should be patentable, and her two previous examples of such a thing were laws of nature or logical axioms. In the 2nd half of the 2nd paragraph, the author is saying - in order to be patentable, it must be a genuine invention, not a law of nature or a logical axiom She gives an example that you couldn't patent the general natural principle of "harnessing wind to produce energy". Then she says - On similar grounds, algorithms should not be considered patenable. If she thinks algorithms are on similar grounds, they are similarly not patentable because they represent general principles, then she thinks they're analogous in some way.

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    60% picked this

  2. The discovery of an algorithm

    Wrong Viewpoint

    We'd have a hard time supporting the specific language that genuine inventive effort is required in at least 51% of cases. Also, the author thinks of algorithms more like laws of nature / logical axioms (can't be patented) than like genuine inventive effort (can be patented). This answer is the point of view of proponents of patent protection for algorithms.

    12% picked this

  3. Sequences of computer code should

    Unsupported

    This is a very harsh, limiting rule for what should / shouldn't be copyrightable. This author barely talks about copyrighting, other than to say it already provides pretty good protection and it covers unique expressions of encoded algorithms. She definitely never issued an extreme decree that "No code shall be copyrightable unless ____ !"

    12% picked this

  4. Proponents of software patents underestimate

    Contradicted

    The purpose of this passage is for the author to tamp down the concerns of these patent proponents. THEY are freaked out by the risk of copycat programming; they want to patent algorithms in order to thwart it. Our author is saying to them that they're overestimating the risk. The author thinks that adequate protection could be afforded "with only slight modification to existing copyright laws".

    5% picked this

  5. The encoding of algorithms is

    Contradicted

    The author thinks these two things are analogous. Both writing a novel and writing code are copyrightable intellectual property. She refers to the encoding of algorithms in the final paragraph as, "the expression of ideas in the form of specific texts", which sounds pretty analogous to composing a literary work.

    11% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free