The zipper shows that patents do not hinder innovation
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 October 25, 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.
“Patents stifle innovation.”
It’s a persistent notion. As if a patent erects a wall that no one can get past. As if protection automatically means the market is locked down. The history of the zipper, however, shows exactly the opposite.
The first version came from Whitcomb L. Judson, who developed an early form of a fastening mechanism in 1893. The idea was interesting: being able to fasten clothing and shoes more quickly than with buttons or laces. But technically, the system was flawed. It wasn’t reliable enough, was difficult to manufacture, and proved virtually impossible to scale up.
In other words: the concept was promising, but the market wasn’t ready for it yet. The real breakthrough came later, thanks to Gideon Sundback. Around 1913, he developed a fundamentally better mechanism with interlocking teeth and a reliable slider. His patent for the “separable fastener,” granted in 1917, established the core principle of what we now recognize as the modern zipper.
And that’s where it gets interesting. Because that patent didn’t kill the zipper. On the contrary, it shaped the technology. Since the basic principle was legally defined, competitors couldn’t simply copy the same solution. They had to do something different. Think more carefully. Find other paths.
We often call this “working around the patent,” but really, it’s just innovation. When a direct copy isn’t possible, pressure builds to differentiate. Companies began to explore different tooth shapes, better materials, smarter production methods, and new applications. The zipper became lighter, stronger, cheaper, and more reliable. The slider was improved, the closing force was optimized, and its use expanded from clothing to suitcases, tents, boots, bags, and industrial products.
That is precisely what is often forgotten in discussions about patents. A patent prevents copying, but it does not prevent others from thinking further. In fact, it sometimes actually forces others to think further. As a result, the zipper did not become a static design that remained unchanged for twenty years. It became a technological ecosystem—a basic principle with countless variations, improvements, and applications.
There’s an important lesson in this for entrepreneurs. A good patent isn’t a lock on innovation. It’s a demarcation of territory. You’re saying: this is my solution, I’ve invested in it, and others can’t just run off with it. But everything around it remains open to new ideas.
So, anyone who’s smart doesn’t view someone else’s patent merely as an obstacle. You can also read it as a map. It shows what’s already been claimed, where the boundaries lie, and where there’s still room to build something better. That’s what makes patents so valuable—not only for the inventor who gains protection, but also for the market, which is challenged to keep searching.
The zipper is a great example of this. Without protection, it might have remained merely a matter of copying. With protection, evolution took place. A patent is therefore not the end of innovation. Often, it is actually the beginning of the next wave.
The World of Patents
With the help of Dutch and European patent attorney Marco Coolen (AOMB), we can better understand the world of patents. How do they work, why are they important, and when do they lose their usefulness?