Your comment is a little deflective when you know when people say sapphire on the iPhone they mean one thing and one thing only: a sapphire screen. The sapphire screen is the only thing anyone is talking about. The camera and home button, beyond pedanticism, are not even worth mentioning. The sapphire requirements for those two components are minuscule and tried and true tech.
Sapphire on the

watch doesn't require any new patents. Sapphire has been used in watches for decades. It's much much thicker and has tremendously smaller dimensions. Easy peasy, relatively speaking. If the technology and patents Apple has are courtesy of GTAT, then they don't have what it takes to get it done right. GTAT had more than a quantity problem. They had a quality problem as well trying to create super sized boules. Apple's lamination patent is also confusing. According to the patent MR posted, the 100% sapphire is the substrate with increasing quantities of glass topping out at 100% glass. If that's the case (IF I read it correctly) how would that help with scratch resistance?
Apple may have something cooking. Heck, the sapphire tested by DisplayMate could be from Apple... or Corning, or Asahi Glass Co. (they make dragontail, an alternative to Gorilla Glass). I just think your optimism is a little outside of reality based on the known facts. Based on the unknown facts? You could be right on the money.