The Unexpected Patents of Steve Jobs

Harry writes "It's no surprise that Steve Jobs' name is among those credited in Apple's patents for MacBooks, iPods, and other iconic gadgets galore. But the man holds patents for packaging, a staircase, iPod cases, and several intriguing products that Apple hasn't built to date. They all add up to an interesting portrait of the world's most famous tech CEO."

Comments

Don't Forget the Lanyard

[eldavojohn]

His name is also on a patent for the earphones/iPod lanyard and that patent references 47 other patents.

You can find a complete list of Steve's patents here. For what it's worth, I find Jobs listed on 100 patents or patent applications and Bill Gates listed on two as the inventor.

Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.

Wait, what? Did I miss the irony?

You think Jobs contributed in any technical way to any Apple product? Heritic! May the Woz have mercy on your soul.

And a patent that references 47 other patents is far less impressive than vice-versa.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[JCSoRocks]

Meh, you're never going to hear about the products because they're all like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGJuD9hVtTI

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[jonbryce]

Pretty much all Microsoft's products come from buying up small companies that have the technologies he wants.

Marketing certainly plays a part, but finding the right companies to buy up in the first place is also a very important skill.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[falcon5768]

While Jobs is certainly not technical minded, in terms of design he HAS been the main patent holder, and main developer on a lot of items. The iMac g4 in particular that the article cites was almost ALL Jobs, it was well known in the company he spend months working on the arm before handing it off to Ives and the Engineers to test and finalize.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Anonymous Monkey]

Yes, it seems like Jobs wants to have his name on stuff for the cool factor. 'Look what I did.' Even when he didn't do all that much.

Reminds me of a boss I once had that would openly take credit for anything and everything he gave advice on. We could spend weeks on a project, he would swoop in at the last second and say something like 'it should be blue' and then next week he would tell every one that he designed and built the whole thing from scratch with every one sitting cross legged on the floor in awe and worshiping him. I quit after not too long. The man is a jerk.

The thing is he was very charming, and the people who he could charm were very talented and were always doing amazing things. In the end they were so enamored of him that they just let him take credit.

I think that might be the secret of The Jobs in the end. People love him enough that they WANT him to take their ideas. Once he has a few super smart people like that (aka The Woz) and a few major stunningly great products on the market you can pick up more super smart people and the cycle repeats it self.

Don't get me wrong, Jobs is a brilliant engender and programmer, but I think he is not as brilliant as his patent portfolio suggests.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Anonymous Coward]

"You think Jobs contributed in any technical way to any Apple product?"

Actually, yes.

Jobs is nowhere near technically competent as Woz, but can hold his own. Probably better than most coders here. Woz would probably agree if asked.

I know in the project that ended up being OS X, he was one of five engineers developing the product and while his role was more along the lines of project manager, he would get his hands dirty occasionally and contribute code or fix others foul ups.

I know this goes against the heavily manicured image he likes to maintain...he wants to be seen as the inspiration and not the source, but he still has a lot of geek pride. Those that work closely with him know that he is as willing to tear a piece of hardware apart as look at it...or ask to see the source. Occasionally his 'revisions' are more zenlike reductions of the code (which goes along with the infamous ordering of the engineers to align resistors on the back of the iMac circuit board to be more aesthetic). Those not within his inner circle only get to see the superficial side of all of this.

Left anonymous for obvious reasons.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[amicusNYCL]

Probably a fair indication of what kind of leader you have on your hands ... definitely marketing/business for Gates.

I don't understand how you can come to a conclusion like that. All that shows is that Steve Jobs thinks that it's important to get his name on patents, and Bill Gates doesn't. I can't find definite numbers, but Apple has at least 2000 patents, and Microsoft had at least 5000 three years ago. Frankly, I think the fact that Steve Jobs is more interested in getting his name on patents means that he is the more business and marketing-oriented of the two, not Gates. Gates could have his name on several thousand patents, but apparently he didn't think that was important.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[geekoid]

Jobs isn't as technical minded as the Woz, he is smart.
However If I had the money and a team of lawyers I'd easily ahve 100 patents by now.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[dtml-try MyNick]

Frankly, I think the fact that Steve Jobs is more interested in getting his name on patents means that he is the more business and marketing-oriented of the two, not Gates. Gates could have his name on several thousand patents, but apparently he didn't think that was important.

Personally I think it's more of a ego thing.

Steve Jobs is a excellent businessman, no doubt, but he's also a showman with a huge ego.. Apple == Steve Jobs == Apple. If there is a apple product, he wants his name attached to it somehow. Therefore all the patents apple claims should be in his name.

On the contrary to Bill Gates who doesnt care about his ego that much. (and why should he after all....) Bill Gates wanted the name Microsoft attached to everything, not his personal name. Everything he does is "Microsoft" not "GatesSoft" and therefore the patents belong to the company, not the person. He simply doesnt care about it.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[je ne sais quoi]

And just how do you know this? Or are you just making assumptions?

He doesn't. He's just trolling (otherwise, he would show us the proof, or at least back up his statements some sort of evidence). Unfortunately these days on slashdot it's fashionable to make totally unfounded deragatory assertions about Apple, but if you say one word about Vista or the Office ribbons really aren't all that great, you get modded flamebait or troll.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Jeremy Erwin]

The vast majority of Steve Jobs's patents are design patents. Bill Gates's patents are both utility patents. So, it's pretty much a tie.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[LKM]

You think Jobs contributed in any technical way to any Apple product?

He probably did. He did work as a technician at Atari before starting Apple. Clearly, Woz did most of the work, but Jobs has at least some basic knowledge of these things and probably has contributed something. The bigger picture is that he's very much involved in product development at Apple. The patents in question aren't very technical, they're more along the lines of user interaction design.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Sandbags]

He is that good. Every design, even in it;s most basic form, comes before him (or starts with him). He has very critical input, changes the direction of the deisgn, adds aesthetic charm to it, and has it redesigned at his orders to meet those specifications.

One of his programmers wrote a personal application for streamlining video editing. After seeing it, jobs gave him dozens of ideas how to make the app flow better, designed a more aesthetic interface, and commissioned a team to further the application based on his specs and ideas using the programmers initial work as a starting point. Although the idea was not his, the final product was very much shaped by him, and he was credited in the design of the current iMovie app.

jobs is not a coder, he's not a system engineer, but he's a design genious, and one of the singular most powerful infuencers of overall system design at Apple. Ideas like the lamp iMac, the apple remote design, how the apple store is staffed, software interface look and feel, and more all come from his mind.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[kelzer]

Jobs is nowhere near technically competent as Woz, but can hold his own. Probably better than most coders here. Woz would probably agree if asked.

But the more important question is "is Jobs the ballroom dancer that Woz is?"

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[networkBoy]

As to balmer I present the following evidence towards open mockery:
Monkey Dance:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc4MzqBFxZE
Windows 1.0 sales pitch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
Developers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_AP3SGMxxM
on google:

"At some point in the conversation, Mr. Ballmer said: 'Just tell me it's not Google,'' Lucovosky said in his statement. Lucovosky replied that he was joining Google. 'At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office,' Lucovosky recounted, adding that Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."

I rest my case...

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Hmmm so my two patents on fire and the wheel aren't as impressive as your 47 patents on lanyards? OK, good to know. ;)

BTW speaking as someone whose work has received more than one patent I can tell you that someone's name being on a patent doesn't necessarily mean they contributed in any intellectual way. They may simply have provided money. I'm not dismissing the importance of money to a design coming into existence but I'm not so sure that anyone should be listed as an inventor if they didn't make an intellectual contribution to the design.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Mister Whirly]

He should have paid more attention when he worked at Atari. Atari's computer line was superior and cheaper than Apple's offerings at the time.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[harlows_monkeys]

I don't know a lot about Gates' role, but Jobs had absolutely nothing to do with almost all of those patents other than being CEO at the time they were submitted, and in most cases having the opportunity to torpedo the invention but choosing not to do so.

You are almost certainly wrong, as the patent attorneys who drew up the patents would not have put Jobs on them unless he in fact made a significant inventive contribution. Patent law requires that a patent list all of the actual inventors, and only the actual inventors. List someone who wasn't a real inventor, or leave a real inventor out, and your patent is invalid.

If Apple ever has to sue someone over one of those patents, the defendant will get to depose Jobs, and will ask him under oath exactly what his contribution was, and if all he can say was "I was CEO", that suit will go nowhere.

He may not be the main inventory, or contributed to all the things claimed on the patents, but you can be sure there will be something in that patent that really was contributed by him.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[je ne sais quoi]

According to this, Jobs does more than just act as cheerleader, at least while he was at NeXT:

Just as with the Macintosh, Jobs devoted most of his attention to the user interface and physical design of the case, probably because he wasn't a trained engineer. Jobs designed the Macintosh as a personal information appliance.

If you look at those patents in TFA, they're mostly related to design. It is not stretch of the imagination that Jobs actually designed the cases for those patents while working at Apple the second time.

Jobs might charm smart people, etc., but there is substantial evidence that Jobs does more than that. Yes, it actually looks like he works for a living sometimes.

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Lars T.]

I'm not sure about that. I don't know a lot about Gates' role, but Jobs had absolutely nothing to do with almost all of those patents other than being CEO at the time they were submitted, and in most cases having the opportunity to torpedo the invention but choosing not to do so.

So why isn't his name on all Apple patents since he became CEO?

Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard

[Satanboy]

if you read the article, you would know that the answer is yes, he does hold the patent on the hockeypuck mouse

Really? The *infamous*?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Steve Jobs is not the world's most famous tech CEO.

Bill Gates has better name recognition than Jobs, if only because his philanthropy reaches so many more people than Jobs' work does.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[Red Flayer]

Bill Gates has better name recognition than Jobs, if only because his philanthropy reaches so many more people than Jobs' work does.

And yet Bill Gates is no longer a tech CEO, so he is removed from consideration.

Jobs' status is currently "in limbo" AFAIK, but he is technically still CEO of Apple per their regulatory filings.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[apodyopsis]

His philanthropic accomplishments are certainly praiseworthy, but it's worth remembering that his vast wealth was mainly accumulated with some really unpleasent business tactics.

See "A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

Whilst I congratulate the man for subsidising research and giving to worthy causes I have to wonder if he would do so much if he was not one of the worlds richest man.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[TheRealMindChild]

So spending money to save lives is a PR stunt? Maybe. Regardless, he is still saving lives. Give the man some bloody credit.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[Colonel Korn]

His philanthropic accomplishments are certainly praiseworthy, but it's worth remembering that his vast wealth was mainly accumulated with some really unpleasent business tactics.

See "A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"

http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
 

Jobs has led his company through fewer, but still not close to zero, unpleasant business tactics. On a personal note, he goes out of his way to make his employees unhappy. He's also fabulously wealthy, and he doesn't give significant money to charity, where Gates has so far given half of his wealth away. Gates seems like the rather bad for some other businesses and good for the people he's affected, where Jobs is moderately bad for other businesses (or perhaps much worse, considering the inability of other companies to produce make clones) and terrible for the people he directly affects.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[Speck'sBacon]

Whilst I congratulate the man for subsidising research and giving to worthy causes I have to wonder if he would do so much if he was not one of the worlds richest man [sic].

This is some twisted logic.. Of course he wouldn't do so much if he weren't so rich! He would be incapable of doing so. While Microsoft's business practices are deserving of scrutiny, I fear most of the vitriol aimed at Microsoft and Gates is motivated by envy, or "tall poppy syndrome," or some variant. In the final analysis, the man is a successful business person who's earned his money, and can do with it as he pleases.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[Hatta]

I'm sure Bill Gates has excellent credit already.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[LandDolphin]

Why is he removed from consideration? He was a CEO. Lee Iacocca is still remembered as a great CEO, even thought he's dead now. The phrase, "most famous tech CEO" does not limit itself to current CEO's. If you were to have a lsit of most Famous X's, you'd expect to see some retired/dead people on that list, no?

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[LandDolphin]

More Companies make money because of Microsoft then Apple. If Apple had Microsofts market share with their current business model, how many other companies would not exsist?

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[harryandthehenderson]

Who's the most famous baseball player?

Define the time context we are talking about. If you are talking about both past and present players one would ask, and in most such polls that cover topics like this it is asked this way, "Who is the most famous baseball player of all time?" or "Who is the most famous baseball player ever?". But hey, you can win this stupid little nitpick game when as anyone who wasn't trying to be overly pedantic knows that the article was clearly only talking about current CEOs.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[Abreu]

Didn't he get killed in the Watchmen movie?

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[NatasRevol]

Wait, you're deleting thumbnails & metadata?

If you were my server admin, I'd punch you in the face for deleting those.

Ever think they might be useful and/or necessary for your users? If nothing else, so they don't have to recreate them every time they access the data.

And again you show ignorance of the tools - these tools are used at shops that have tens of thousands of client machines -large newspapers, Disney & Pixar studios, large ad firms. They don't worry about compliance or policies any more than an AD installation does.

And back to my original point - if you use MS's tools, they still cost a shitload more than any of the tools I mentioned. You HAVE to buy AD, you HAVE to buy CALs, you HAVE to buy SUS, you HAVE to buy AV, and it costs, and costs, and costs.

Re:Really? The *infamous*?

[hkmwbz]

In the final analysis, the man is a successful business person who's earned his money, and can do with it as he pleases.

Actually, it turns out that he violated several laws, both in the US, EU, Korea and other places. He earned his money by breaking the law. Can he still do with it as he pleases?

I read that as...

[ciderVisor]

"unexpected parents".

I thought TFA was surprised to find that he wasn't a product of the immaculate conception.

Re:I read that as...

[bennomatic]

Well, SJ *was* adopted, you insensitive clod.

Re:*cough*

[harryandthehenderson]

I'm pretty sure they were referring to only those people who are currently CEOs. Not people who haven't held the position of CEO of a company for 9 years.

Apple Staircase

[ardor]

Hmm ..

A shiny staircase with Carrara marble steps and sides covered with quartz glass, but one needs special apple iShoes to use it.

Re:Apple Staircase

[gubers33]

That would be the iStaircase, not the Apple Staircase.

Re:Apple Staircase

[SchizoStatic]

Don't give them more ideas. I am waiting for the official iBed which lets me plug all apple products into to control my dreams and tell me to buy more apple products.

iStairs!

[AioKits]

Finally, a sectioned inclined surface for ascent and descent, for the rest of us!

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if im entitled to my own computer, why can't I edit my iTunes source code? I chose Linux.

Clarity for you

[SuperKendall]

*cough* Bill Gates*cough*

He said famous, not infamous.

Gosh, I almost misread that...

[idontgno]

"The Unexpected Pants of Steve Jobs"

Like he inadvertently wore Hawaiian-print Bermuda shorts with his mock turtleneck.

The weird thing is that we'd probably never notice, with the RDF making us see what we expect.

That made no sense

[SuperKendall]

So, if im entitled to my own computer, why can't I edit my iTunes source code? I chose Linux.

Neverwinter Nights runs on Linux and I can't edit that source either... you probably should not have chosen an application for your example.

What about Dave?

[Zashi]

What about Dave Thomas? Arguably a much more famous CEO considering how many commercials he starred in.

And that Bill Gates guy might be a tad more famous, though I worry about mentioning this since it seems like flamebait. Also, he's not a CEO anymore.

So ...

[nitroyogi]

All of a sudden patents are all cool and nice and nicer!
Just because Steve has few!?

Re:So ...

[morgan_greywolf]

I don't think anybody around here ever said patents were bad. And if they did, they certainly don't represent the majority opinion. Most of feel that software patents are bad, and that the patent system, particularly in the U.S., is just really screwed up because the USPTO awards patents for ideas that are clearly either non-novel (prior art exists) or are obvious to those in the field(s) of study in question. Many of us also feel that patents are granted for too long a period of time, especially in the realms of IT and consumer electronics.

On the contrary, I think that patents are a useful way to encourage inventors to invent things by enabling them to reap benefits for their inventions, both monetary and non-monetary.

Pardon me, but...

[denzacar]

How do you "almost misread" something?

P..P-a... (OMG! PANTS!)...P-a-t... (OMG! SOMEONE MISSPELLED PANTS!)...P-a-t-e... P-a-t-e-n... (OMG! SOMEONE HAS NO CLUE HOW TO SPELL PANTS!)... P-a-t-e-n-t... (OH! Not really pants... OMG! I ALMOST MISREAD IT AS PANTS!)... P-a-t-e-n-t-S... Patents...

Re:Pardon me, but...

[yascha]

It's 5:45 in the afternoon and you have no appointments.

I almost misread that as a-pants-ments.

Absolute Bullshit

[somethingwicked]

Ok, I looked at the patent on this before posting this because I initially thought, was "BULLSHIT, you can't patent a fucking staircase. There has to be something being left out."

But, I was wrong wrong wrong.

About the only descriptive text in the patent.

"We claim the ornamental design for a staircase, substantially as shown and described."

I know he has made some cool tech contributions, but this is absurd!!!
 

Re:Absolute Bullshit

[tkohler]

It's called a design patent and they are almost worthless except for stopping exact knock-offs. Design claims have no bearing on function so he didn't "patent a staircase", he patented "that particular look of a staircase".

Suprise

[geekoid]

The most surprising patent is the one for the Woz.