4 ms·

So basically this kid made money by selling cheap knockoffs before the original designers could launch a patent lawsuit? Seems like the moral of the story is th

So basically this kid made money by selling cheap knockoffs before the original designers could launch a patent lawsuit? Seems like the moral of the story is that you can make some money before the slow gears of our patent system kick in. Also, links to those stupid inflatable bags on alibaba were everywhere once the kickstarter went viral. The article makes it sound like the kid magically found it.

iaw 10y ago
> selling cheap knockoffs I'm not sure how you define a cheap knockoff, but in this case it seems like he's using the same supply chain that the kickstarter campaigners did > before the original designers I fear that you reveal you didn't read the article. The first product he ordered and sold was five years old, paraphrasing the article "the only thing new was the buzz from the indiegogo campaign" > launch a patent lawsuit Woah now there skipper. You're assuming that the people creating the campaigns are the original inventors, that their inventions are patent eligible, that they have filed a patent, and that they can afford to protect them.
- raesene6 10y ago
  In the case of the main example (fidget cube) that's pretty much what's happening, from what I've seen. As their kickstarter campaign went viral, several clones started being offered on aliexpress and the like. They are flat out clones, look just like the original and (AFAIK) there's not some common ancestor here that they're both copying, it's a case of Antsy labs had the original design and that got cloned. Antsy labs have been aware of the knockoffs and have actively been trying to prevent them (to little effect from what I've seen) and as it mentions in the article there is a patent pending on Fidget cube. The problem for the Kickstarter creators is that they're basically slower to market than the clones, and in many cases the consumer doesn't really recognise the difference (if you look at twitter etc you can see quite a few people angry about "bad quality" fidget cubes they've received which turn out to be knockoffs)
  - iaw 10y ago
    >that they're basically slower to market than the clones This raises an important question about economics, free markets, and what it is for a product to be a 'clone.' Is it only necessary to have an idea for a product and market that idea or must one also bring it to market quickly? Apple wasn't successful because of the ideas but because of the implementation behind them, is it wrong if another market participant moves faster? What does this say about the crowdsourcing model for inexperienced manufacturers/designers?
Cyph0n 10y ago
Would something like a Stress Cube even be eligible for a patent? I don't see the technological novelty to be honest. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how patents work.
- takingflac 10y ago
  Considering that the magic 8-ball has a patient, why not? (Granted it is actually an interesting patent since it solved the problem of air bubbles obscuring the answers on the answer die) https://www.google.com/patents/US3119621 https://www.google.com/patents/US3119621
- arkem 10y ago
  It'd probably be eligible for a design patent or trade dress protection.

iaw 10y ago

> selling cheap knockoffs I'm not sure how you define a cheap knockoff, but in this case it seems like he's using the same supply chain that the kickstarter campaigners did > before the original designers I fear that you reveal you didn't read the article. The first product he ordered and sold was five years old, paraphrasing the article "the only thing new was the buzz from the indiegogo campaign" > launch a patent lawsuit Woah now there skipper. You're assuming that the people creating the campaigns are the original inventors, that their inventions are patent eligible, that they have filed a patent, and that they can afford to protect them.

raesene6 10y ago
In the case of the main example (fidget cube) that's pretty much what's happening, from what I've seen. As their kickstarter campaign went viral, several clones started being offered on aliexpress and the like. They are flat out clones, look just like the original and (AFAIK) there's not some common ancestor here that they're both copying, it's a case of Antsy labs had the original design and that got cloned. Antsy labs have been aware of the knockoffs and have actively been trying to prevent them (to little effect from what I've seen) and as it mentions in the article there is a patent pending on Fidget cube. The problem for the Kickstarter creators is that they're basically slower to market than the clones, and in many cases the consumer doesn't really recognise the difference (if you look at twitter etc you can see quite a few people angry about "bad quality" fidget cubes they've received which turn out to be knockoffs)
- iaw 10y ago
  >that they're basically slower to market than the clones This raises an important question about economics, free markets, and what it is for a product to be a 'clone.' Is it only necessary to have an idea for a product and market that idea or must one also bring it to market quickly? Apple wasn't successful because of the ideas but because of the implementation behind them, is it wrong if another market participant moves faster? What does this say about the crowdsourcing model for inexperienced manufacturers/designers?

Cyph0n 10y ago

Would something like a Stress Cube even be eligible for a patent? I don't see the technological novelty to be honest. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how patents work.

takingflac 10y ago
Considering that the magic 8-ball has a patient, why not? (Granted it is actually an interesting patent since it solved the problem of air bubbles obscuring the answers on the answer die) https://www.google.com/patents/US3119621 https://www.google.com/patents/US3119621
arkem 10y ago
It'd probably be eligible for a design patent or trade dress protection.