Reading Comprehension

PT157 · S4 · P4 · Q27 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.

27.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the passage?

  1. Correct

    General scientific principles currently qualify

    Why this is right

    The author talks about an example of something that wouldn't get patent protection at the end of the 2nd paragraph. He says although a windmill design could get patent protection. the underlying concept of being able to harness the wind for energy would not be a patentable thing. Why not? Because no one is inventing the idea that wind can be used for energy. That's just a general scientific principle. No one can patent the idea that "the sun's heat can be used to warm something up". What about copyright protection? Do we know whether general scientific principles get copyright protection? Here, we just have to use our common sense. Copyright is about intellectual property: stories, songs, movies, broadcasts. Do any of those things seem like general scientific principles? Could someone copyright the idea that wind can be harnessed to produce energy? No, not the principle. You could copyright a slogan, "Harness the Wind!" but not the underlying scientific principle.

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

    39% picked this

  2. The value of patents lies

    Contradicted

    Can we support that the #1 reason patents have value is that they protect generic principles? Not only is this language too strong for us to find available support text, it also goes against what we discuss in (A), for the correct answer. Patents would not protect some generic principle. That's why this author rejects the idea of patenting algorithms. She thinks they qualify as one of these generic principles.

    20% picked this

  3. Items that qualify for patent

    Unsupported

    We wouldn't be able to say whether things that get patented can also get copyright protection at least 51% of the time. And there's so suggestion anywhere that the overlap is substantial.

    15% picked this

  4. The algorithm underlying a copyrighted

    Contradicted

    The logic of this answer is that one company would have a copyright for a certain algorithm, so others aren't allowed to use that algorithm without that company's permission. But the passage never says that algorithms can be copyrighted. The passage discusses and rejects the possibility of letting algorithms be patented. But we have no support that for this idea that algorithms are protected by copyright. Only the unique expressions of code that accomplish an algorithm are copyrighted.

    22% picked this

  5. The majority of commercially available

    Out of Scope

    The passage doesn't have any info that would help us prove that at least 51% of computer apps have some illegal code.

    4% 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