A screw as strategy – or just a fancy haircut?
In a series of blog posts, Marco Coolen offers a glimpse into his work as a Dutch and European patent attorney at AOMB.
Published on March 1, 2026
Marco, a patent attorney at AOMB since 2013, shares his expertise on IO+ about patents—how they work, why they matter, and when they lose their value.
BMW has filed a patent application for a screw with a striking head. Not Torx, not hex, but a shape that can only be operated with special tooling. On paper, sleek. In practice, you’re sidelined with your standard toolbox.
Smart? Maybe. New? Not really.
There are already dozens of screw heads that require a dedicated key. Without protection on the corresponding tool, it often amounts to little more than a different head on a familiar bolt. In that case, it’s mostly design, not strategy.
Marco Coolen, photo © Bart van Overbeeke
The game is in the system
It only becomes truly interesting when you protect not just the screw, but the tool as well. Then you decide who gets to tinker and who doesn’t. Then it becomes a closed system. Think plug and socket. Transmitter and receiver. Printer and cartridge.
That interplay can be perfectly captured in one or more patents. That’s where the power position lies.
Remarkably, BMW seems to have protected mainly the screw itself. Without exclusive control over the tool, the question is how much strategic value it really delivers. With a wink, it may be little more than a screw with a creative haircut.
Quality or lock-in?
Of course, there’s another side to the story. You could argue that special screws protect quality. They keep amateurs at bay. They ensure maintenance is carried out according to factory standards.
But you could also say: it’s lock-in.
In Europe, a private individual may replicate such a tool for personal use. As soon as commercial gain enters the picture, that changes. Then the balance of power shifts toward the manufacturer.
That makes it legally interesting, but not automatically valuable.
What really works? Look at Torx
The best patents solve a concrete problem. That’s where the value lies. Torx is a textbook example.
As long as production was small-scale, simplicity sufficed. But when the assembly line picked up speed, new demands emerged: faster fastening. Less slippage. Greater repeatability. Less wear.
Each new head solved something:
- Hex (Allen) brought compactness, but wore out relatively quickly.
- Robertson offered more grip.
- Phillips worked better on automated lines.
- Pozidriv could handle more torque.
And Torx? It did something fundamentally better.
More torque transfer. Hardly any slippage. Perfect for automation.
That wasn’t an aesthetic choice. It was a functional leap forward. And thanks to the patent, that advantage could also be monetized.
The lesson for entrepreneurs
A patent by itself is not a strategy. A unique shape isn’t either. The real question is always: what problem are you solving? And how does that fit into a larger system?
Protection works best when the technology makes sense and the commercial model moves with it. If it’s only about exclusion without clear functional gain, you’re skating on thin ice.
The best patents are visible not just in the design, but in the effect. They make something faster. Stronger. More reliable.
And that’s what ultimately makes you money.
The World of Patents
Marco Coolen shares his views on the world of patents every Sunday. Read all his prior 76 columns here.