考研英語(yǔ)閱讀翻譯1.doc

ase to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known, is “a very big deal,” says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of Law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”現(xiàn)在，該國(guó)最高專利法院似乎完全準(zhǔn)備好要縮減商業(yè)方法專利，因?yàn)樯虡I(yè)方法專利自從十年前第一次批準(zhǔn)授予以來(lái)一直有爭(zhēng)議。在一項(xiàng)使得知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)律師們議論紛紛的提議中，美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院聲稱它將利用某個(gè)具體案件來(lái)對(duì)商業(yè)方法專利進(jìn)行廣泛的復(fù)審。密蘇里大學(xué)法學(xué)院Dennis D. Crouch說(shuō)，“正如人們所知道的那樣，Bilski案例是一件非常大的事情”它可能將消除整個(gè)專利類別”。Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramaticabout-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging Internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.對(duì)于商業(yè)方法訴求的限制是個(gè)戲劇性的徹底變化，因?yàn)檎锹?lián)邦巡回法院自己引進(jìn)了這種專利。那是在1998年，對(duì)于所謂的美國(guó)道富銀行的案件中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院做出了判決，批準(zhǔn)了籌集共同基金資產(chǎn)的方法具有專利權(quán)。這一裁決使得商業(yè)方法專利文件以幾何數(shù)級(jí)增加，起初只是一些自己，即使是在他們出席反對(duì)此類專利的法案中，他們也以此專利維權(quán)。注：to the punch的英文解釋為 to the first blow or to decisive action usually used with beat所以這里翻譯為“先下手為強(qiáng)”或“搶占先機(jī)”。The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the courts judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should “reconsider” its State Street Bank ruling.前面提到的Bilski案例涉及到一份已申請(qǐng)的方法專利，即關(guān)于能源市場(chǎng)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避方The Federal Circuits action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are “reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court,” says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.聯(lián)邦巡回法院的這一裁決效仿了最高法院。最高法院最近做出了一系列的判決，縮小了專利持有者的受保范圍。例如，去年四月，法官們認(rèn)定太多的專利授予了一些顯而易見(jiàn)的“發(fā)明”。喬治華盛頓大學(xué)法律學(xué)院的專利法律師Harold C. Wegner教授表示，“聯(lián)邦巡回法院的法官The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the “two-step flow of communication”: Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends.人們之所以認(rèn)為影響者很重要，是因?yàn)槭艿搅恕皟杉?jí)傳播”理論的影響，即信息先從媒體流向影響者，然后再?gòu)挠绊懻吡飨蚱渌?。這一理論看似合理，但未經(jīng)驗(yàn)證。營(yíng)銷人員接受兩級(jí)傳播理論是因?yàn)樵摾碚撜J(rèn)為，如果他們能夠找到影響者，并對(duì)他們施加影響，這些精英們就會(huì)替他們完成大部分的營(yíng)銷傳播工作。這一理論似乎還可以解釋某些裝扮、品牌或社區(qū)為何ervation about social influence: With the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influence even the most influential members of a population simply dont interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each ofthese peoplehas little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change wont propagate very far or affect many people.研究者的觀點(diǎn)源于對(duì)社會(huì)影響力的簡(jiǎn)單觀察：除了少數(shù)像Oprah Winfrey 這樣的名人之外（她強(qiáng)大的人氣影響力主要來(lái)自媒體影響力，而非她與觀眾互動(dòng)的人際影響力），即使人群中最有影響力的人也無(wú)法與那么多的“其他人”互動(dòng)，從而引領(lǐng)潮流。然而，根據(jù)兩級(jí)傳播理論，正是這些非名人影響者直接影響了他們的朋友和同事，從而推動(dòng)了社會(huì)流行潮流。但是，要讓一種社會(huì)流行潮流真正發(fā)生，每個(gè)受影響的人還必須影響他的熟人，而他的熟人又必須影響其他熟人，依此類推；但是會(huì)有多少人去關(guān)注這些熟人中的每個(gè)人，與最初的影響者幾乎沒(méi)有關(guān)系。舉個(gè)例子來(lái)說(shuō)，在這個(gè)人際影響的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，如果第一個(gè)影響者受到兩次抵制，那么他的連鎖影響范圍就不會(huì)繼續(xù)擴(kuò)大，或者說(shuō)影響的人不會(huì)很多。Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to peoples ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. They found that the principal requirement for what is called “global cascades” the widespread propagation of influence through networks is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people.基于這一人際影響力的基本事實(shí)，研究者們研究了社會(huì)影響的動(dòng)力機(jī)制。我們對(duì)不同人群進(jìn)行了成千上萬(wàn)次計(jì)算機(jī)模擬，不斷調(diào)整人們影響他人和受他人影響的各種變量。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，人們所說(shuō)的“全球連鎖反應(yīng)” 影響力通過(guò)（人際）網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)行廣泛傳播 發(fā)生的主要前提，并不取決于是否存在著那么幾個(gè)影響者，而主要取決于易受影響的人們是否達(dá)到了臨界數(shù)量。注：從上下文的角度來(lái)看，插入成分中的networks應(yīng)該指“人際關(guān)系網(wǎng)”。2010年Text4Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and its just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.臺(tái)面上，銀行家們將他們的麻煩歸咎于己身。（但）臺(tái)面下，他們卻一直把目標(biāo)對(duì)準(zhǔn)他人：會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定者。銀行業(yè)抱怨會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則迫使他們報(bào)告巨大損失，認(rèn)為這不公平。規(guī)則規(guī)定他們必須以第三方愿意收購(gòu)的價(jià)格，而非按照管理者和監(jiān)管者期望它們能夠賣得的價(jià)格來(lái)評(píng)估部分資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值。Unfortunately, banks lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.不幸的是，銀行的游說(shuō)活動(dòng)看來(lái)已顯成效。其中細(xì)節(jié)可能無(wú)法獲知，但是準(zhǔn)則制定者在獨(dú)立性方面這正是資產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)正常運(yùn)行的關(guān)鍵已經(jīng)做出妥協(xié)了。銀行如果不以能夠吸引買家的價(jià)格計(jì)量有毒資產(chǎn)，銀行系統(tǒng)的復(fù)蘇將會(huì)非常困難。After a bruising encounter with Congress, Americas Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASBs chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls “the use of judgment by management.”美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)(FASB）在與國(guó)會(huì)一場(chǎng)激烈交鋒之后，匆匆通過(guò)了準(zhǔn)則的修改。這些修改使得銀行在使用模型評(píng)估非流動(dòng)資產(chǎn)方面用有更大的自由，同時(shí)使得它們確認(rèn)收益表中長(zhǎng)期資產(chǎn)損失時(shí)更為靈活。FASB主席Bob Herz大聲反對(duì)那些“懷疑我們的動(dòng)機(jī)”的人們。然而銀行股票上漲了，這些修改強(qiáng)化了“管理層使用理性判斷”的說(shuō)法，這種說(shuō)法是一個(gè)游說(shuō)團(tuán)的客氣之言。European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.歐洲的部長(zhǎng)們立刻要求國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)(IASB)也這么做。IASB表示它不想沒(méi)有完整計(jì)劃就冒然行動(dòng)，但它在今年下半年完成規(guī)則修訂時(shí)必須屈服的壓力十分巨大。歐洲委員會(huì)委員Charlie McCreevy警告IASB說(shuō)：它不是“處在政治真空中”而是“在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界里”，并表示歐洲可能最終會(huì)發(fā)展出不同的會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則。It was banks that wereon the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for