Historians of science and technology and STS practitioners have always taken intellectual property very seriously but, with some notable exceptions, they have typically refrained from looking “into” it. There is mounting evidence, however, that they can open up the black box of IP as effectively as they have done for the technosciences, enriching their discipline while making significant contributions to legal studies. One approach is to look at the technologies through which patent law construes its object – the invention – in specific settings and periods by examining procedures, classifications, archives, models, repositories, patent specifications (in both their linguistic and pictorial dimensions), and the highly specialized language of patent claims. More ambitiously, we could treat intellectual property as a technology itself. Patent law does not evolve either by merely articulating its doctrine in response to technological developments. The line between what does and does not count as invention may be redrawn with the emergence of new objects and technologies, but is not determined by them. It is this constructive feature of the law that we are trying to capture with the notion of law as technology. We hope that thinking about the technologies of the law and the law as technology will bring into question what we mean by both “technology” and “law”.

中文翻译：

---

“法律技术/法律作为技术”

科技史学家和 STS 从业者一直非常重视知识产权，但除了一些显着的例外，他们通常避免“调查”它。然而，越来越多的证据表明，他们可以像在技术科学领域一样有效地打开知识产权的黑匣子，丰富他们的学科，同时为法律研究做出重大贡献。一种方法是通过检查程序、分类、档案、模型、存储库、专利说明书（在语言和图像方面）以及专利法在特定环境和时期解释其目标（发明）的技术，以及专利权利要求的高度专业化语言。更雄心勃勃的是，我们可以将知识产权视为一种技术本身。专利法也不会仅仅通过阐明其原则来响应技术发展而发展。什么算作发明和什么不算发明之间的界限可能会随着新物体和技术的出现而重新划定，但不是由它们决定的。我们试图用法律作为技术的概念来捕捉法律的这种建设性特征。我们希望将法律的技术和法律作为技术来思考，这将使我们对“技术”和“法律”的含义产生疑问。我们试图用法律作为技术的概念来捕捉法律的这种建设性特征。我们希望将法律的技术和法律作为技术来思考，这将使我们对“技术”和“法律”的含义产生疑问。我们试图用法律作为技术的概念来捕捉法律的这种建设性特征。我们希望将法律的技术和法律作为技术来思考，这将使我们对“技术”和“法律”的含义产生疑问。