• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Steve Jobs: A Legacy In Patents

October 13, 2011 by Philip Goldbach

Phil Goldbach is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School, and is currently enrolled in Professor Ikechi Mgbeoji’s Patents class, in Fall 2011. As part of the course requirements, students are asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

Steve Jobs, co-founder and former CEO of Apple Inc., died on October 5, 2011, after a lengthy and well-publicized battle with cancer.  He was 56.  Over the past week, the media has been abuzz with stories of Jobs’ life and accomplishments, heaping much praise and providing a few critiques.  A small but sizable number of recent news stories have focused on one particular aspect of Jobs’ professional career – his personal involvement in his company’s intellectual property, in general, and its patents, more specifically.
According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Steve Jobs is listed as an inventor on an astonishing 313 patents.  Throw in additional patent applications currently undergoing prosecution and the number reaches 342.  To put this into perspective, Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has his name on a mere 9 patents, while Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin appear on just over a dozen.

As laid out on this categorized New York Times website, Steve Jobs’ patents cover many of the products that are seemingly ubiquitous in today’s culture, including the Macintosh personal computer, the iPhone, the iPod and the iPad.  Most are categorized as design patents, which are defined by the USPTO as consisting of “the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture.” (In Canada, these would not be considered patents but, rather, industrial designs.)  Some of Jobs’ notable design patents include those for the original Macintosh 128K computer (filed in 1983), the “hockey puck” mouse, the original iPod and even a staircase.

Not all of Jobs’ patents were for designs.  His name also appears on multiple utility patents relating to the Macintosh operating system with titles such as: “Method and system for providing an embedded application toolbar”.  On that particular invention, Jobs is listed as first inventor.  Additionally, the aforementioned staircase design patent has an accompanying utility patent for the structure itself.  In combination, these patents provide legal protection for the glass staircases that appear in many Apple Stores, suggesting Jobs’ personal involvement in widely diverse facets of his company.

So what are we to make of this impressive collection of patents?  How involved was Steve Jobs, personally, in these designs and inventions?  Alternatively, was his name added to the lists of inventors simply as a PR stunt?  In answer to the last of these questions: almost assuredly not.  As Microsoft Researcher Bill Buxton points out, “[d]oing so would not only invalidate the patent, it would expose the company and its brand to serious damage when revealed.”  Thus, Jobs almost certainly made some level of material contribution to all 313 patents.  According to Buxton, this intimate relationship to design and invention is what made Jobs a great manager.  Whether this strategy is a requirement for successful tech company CEOs is certainly up for debate.

Finally, any discussion of Steve Jobs and patents would be incomplete without at least mentioning the larger context of Apple Inc. and the technology patents it holds.  Over the last few years, this has been the focus of several prominent news stories, many of which were commented on in this blog.  For example, in July of this year, a consortium of companies that included Apple and Microsoft was the highest bidder for a number of Nortel patents at an unexpectedly high price of $4.5 billion.  This has largely been seen as a defensive move against Google’s rapid growth in the mobile device arena.  Apple has also been involved in several high-profile patent litigation suits, including ones against major cell phone producers, Samsung and HTC.  The suit against HTC, launched by Apple in 2010, included allegations that HTC infringed some 20 patents held by Apple.  As discussed previously in this blog, lawsuits such as Apple v. HTC raise complex issues such as: should software be patentable and does the current regime of patent protection stifle rather than promote innovation?

Thus, conversations about Steve Jobs and the technology patents he and his company held may be useful jumping off points for wider discussions about the state of modern patent law.  Moving further afield, we may wish to ask additional questions.  For example, was Jobs a “true inventor” or merely a popularizer of others’ ideas?  Or, what are the moral and environmental implications of our culture’s increasing obsession with disposal gadgets?  These are conversations that are undoubtedly worth having.  At the moment, though, it feels appropriate to simply focus on Steve Jobs’ impressive accomplishments and to think about the appreciation and glee he clearly felt for technology and design.

Posted in Commercialization, Design, Feature Post, Innovation, Patent Practice, Patent Trolls, Patents, Patents Course Topic, Smartphones

One Response to “Steve Jobs: A Legacy In Patents”

  1. Brian Chau (IPilogue Editor), on October 15, 2011 at 11:36 pm Said:

    Thanks for posting this – it’s definitely inspiring to see evidence that Steve took an active role in innovation despite his executive role at Apple.

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Call For Evidence: The Re-Emergence Of Design Rights In The UK? | Reminder To RSVP For “European Perspectives On Copyright Law” »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736