Premium
Gendered ‘Objective’ Patent Law: Of Binaries and a Singularity
Author(s) -
Lai Jessica C.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of law and society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.263
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1467-6478
pISSN - 0263-323X
DOI - 10.1111/jols.12241
Subject(s) - terminology , patent law , interpretation (philosophy) , law , singularity , sociology , point (geometry) , law and economics , political science , intellectual property , philosophy , mathematics , linguistics , mathematical analysis , geometry
Patent law protects the technical. It is seemingly objective in terminology and application. Yet studies show that males are significantly more likely than females to be the inventors of patented inventions. Patenting is not objective, it is gendered. The reasons for this are multiple and include the fact that patent law itself, including its presumptions and interpretation, is gendered. This article examines how patent law reflects multiple gendered binaries, despite being drafted in ostensibly neutral terms. These serve to favour masculine modes and fields of creation, while ignoring and devaluing feminine knowledge and ways of knowing. We should be concerned that patent law is gendered because patents affect wealth distribution, what is invented and commercialized, and what information and knowledge is disseminated, built upon, and viewed as valuable. Thus, instead of embodying gendered binaries, the law should reflect a singularity – a unique point, where the system degenerates or diverges to recognize and encourage the multiplicity of ways in which invention and innovation can and do occur, beyond socially constructed binaries.