题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A．might cause greater scarcity of farm products
B．didn' t give the Secretary of Agriculture enough power
C．would benefit neither the government not the farmers
D．benefited one group of citizens at the expense of others
简答题官方参考答案
（由简答题聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
更多“The Supreme Court rejected the Agricultural Adjustment Act because it believed that the Ac”相关的问题
By opting not to take the case, the high court effectively endorsed a lower court's decision that a Colorado company that posts ratings of health plans on the Internet could be sued for defamation in a Washington court. The lower court ruling is one of several that makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue Web site operators in their own jurisdictions, rather than where the operators maintain a physical presence.
The case involved a defamation suit filed by Chehalis, Wash-based Northwest Healthcare Alliance against Lakewood, Colo-based Healthgrades.com. The Alliance sued in Washington federal court after Healthgrades.com posted a negative ranking of Northwest Healthcare's home health services on the Internet. Healthgrades.com argued that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Washington because its publishing operation is in Colorado.
Observers said the fact that the Supreme Court opted not to hear the case only clouds the legal situation for Web site operators.
Geoff Stewart, a partner at Jones Day in Washington, D.C., said that the Supreme Court eventually must act on the issue, as Internet sites that rate everything from automobile dealerships to credit offers could scale back their offerings to avoid lawsuits originating numerous jurisdictions.
Online publishers also might have to worry about being dragged into lawsuits in foreign courts, said Dow Lohnes ＆ Albertson attorney Jon Hart, who has represented the Online News Association.
"The much more difficult problems for U.S. media companies arise when claims are brought in foreign countries over content published in the United States", Hart said. Hart cited a recent case in which an Australian court ruled that Dow Jones must appear in a Victoria, Australia court to defend its publication of an article on the U.S.-based Watt Street Journal Web site.
According to Hart, the potential chilling effect of those sorts of jurisdictional decisions is substantial. "I have not yet seen publishers holding back on what they otherwise publish because they're afraid they're going to get sued in another country, but that doesn't mean it Won't happen if we see a rash of U.S. libel cases against U.S. media companies being brought in foreign countries", he said.
Until the high court decides to weigh in directly on this issue, Web site operators that offer information and services to users located outside of their home states must deal with a thorny legal landscape, said John Morgan, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and an expert in Internet law.
The author seems to believe that the Supreme Court's decision
A．can cause operators to issue balanced health plan ratings.
B．renders correct legal decisions in other cases impossible.
C．might put Web site operators at a legal disadvantage.
D．brings about a series of debates on Internet operations.
By opting not to take the case, the high court effectively endorsed a lower court's decision that a Colorado company that posts ratings of health plans on the Internet could be sued for defamation in a Washington court. The lower court ruling is one of several that makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue Web site operators in their own jurisdictions, rather than where the operators maintain a physical presence.
The case involved a defamation suit filed by Chehalis, Wash.-based Northwest Healthcare Alliance against Lakewood, Colo.-based Healthgrades.com The Alliance sued in Washington federal court after Healthgrades.com posted a negative ranking of Northwest Healthcare's home health services on the Internet. Healthgrades.com argued that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Washington because its publishing operation is in Colorado.
Observers said the fact that the Supreme Court opted not to hear the case only clouds the legal situation for Web site operators.
Geoff Stewart, a partner at Jones Day in Washington, D.C., said that the Supreme Court eventually must act on the issue, as Internet sites that rate everything from automobile dealerships to credit offers could scale back their offerings to avoid lawsuits originating numerous jurisdictions.
Online publishers also might have to worry about being dragged into lawsuits in foreign courts, said Dow Lohnes & Albertson attorney Jon Hart, who has represented the Online News Association.
"The much more difficult problems for U.S. media companies arise when claims are brought in foreign countries over content published in the United States", Hart said. Hart cited a recent case in which an Australian court ruled that Dow Jones must appear in a Victoria, Australia court to defend its publication of an article on the U.S.—based Walt Street Journal Web site.
According to Hart, the potential chilling effect of those sorts of jurisdictional decisions is substantial. "I have not yet seen publishers holding back on what they otherwise publish because they're afraid they're going to get sued in another country, but that doesn't mean it won't happen if we see a rash of U.S. libel cases against U.S. media companies being brought in foreign countries", he said.
Until the high court decides to weigh in directly on this issue, Web site operators that offer information and services to users located outside of their home states must deal with a thorny legal landscape, said John Morgan, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and an expert in Internet law.
The author seems to believe that the Supreme Court's decision ______.
A．can cause operators to issue balanced health plan ratings.
B．renders correct legal decisions in other cases impossible.
C．might put Web site operators at a legal disadvantage.
D．brings about a series of debates on Internet operations.
The Supreme Court ______ the judgement of the lower court in that case last week.
A．amplified
B．affirmed
C．ascended
D．applauded
A.Vital
B.Thunder
C.Reverse
D.Supreme
A．the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Presidency
B．the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Presidency
C．the Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court
D．the Presidency, the Congress, the Supreme Court
A.the Supreme Court
B.the House
C.Congress
D.the Senate
The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by American Supreme Court in 1882.
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case 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.
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-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.
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 court's 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.
The Federal Circuit's 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.
Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of ______.
A．their limited value to businesses.
B．their connection with asset allocation.
C．the possible restriction on their granting.
D．the controversy over their authorization.
Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case 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.
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-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.
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 court's 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.
The Federal Circuit's 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.
Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of ______.
A．their limited value to businesses.
B．their connection with asset allocation.
C．the possible restriction on their granting.
D．the controversy over their authorization.
警告：系统检测到您的账号存在安全风险
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
