The Unexpected Patents of Steve Jobs 198
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."
Really? The *infamous*? (Score:5, Insightful)
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*? (Score:3, Insightful)
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*? (Score:5, Insightful)
See "A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf [www.ecis.eu]
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*? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple Staircase (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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:*cough* (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Really? The *infamous*? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Don't Forget the Lanyard (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Really? The *infamous*? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So ... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Really? The *infamous*? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? The *infamous*? (Score:3, Insightful)
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*? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because it costs a shitload more to support MS infrastructure. Thus there are a lot of consulting/support businesses, and they do make money because of MS. Money that could be spent on growing the company's business.
All Contributors Need Credit on Patent (Score:1, Insightful)
... but it is expected that contributors to an invention appear on the patent. A contributor could be someone who offered suggestions or other ideas that are material to the invention.
With Steve's penchant for hands-on review of product designs, he could very easily have contributed ideas (even not the one implementing them) that were material to the invention.
Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard (Score:2, Insightful)
Okaaayyy.... all those who were founding partners of a computer company that has captured 10% usage share [hitslink.com], please raise their hands. Those people are allowed to make snarky comments about how little Steve Jobs knows. Everyone else, STFU. Unless you have worked with the man personally or have a reasonable assurance that he acts this way, what you've asserted is completely unfounded. The same goes for Ballmer and Gates (even though Ballmer didn't get in until 1980).
Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Forget the Lanyard (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Really? The *infamous*? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?