4 ms·

Fidget spinner craze inventor struggles to make ends meet

70 points by t_prakash 9y ago

thatBilly 9y ago
She launches a USA only kickstarter (all rewards ship to US only). I genuinely hope she does well but I don't understand why she would exclude the global audience and alienate potential customers.
- TillE 9y ago
  International shipping is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. It's expensive, slow, complicated, and not very reliable. If you're not a company with experience doing it, it's a completely understandable decision to not offer that.
unix 9y ago
some teachers believe that they can help children concentrate – especially those with ADHD.
- pwagland 9y ago
  And some believe that they are distracting to everyone else in the class: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/apr/29/secret-teacher-fidget-cubes-need-kicking-out-of-class https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/apr/29/secr... Also there is no evidence yet that they do help concentration, so it is only anecdotal evidence at this stage.
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    My brother was prescribed a fidget toy by an educational psychologist about 10 years ago. At that time, even though both of my parents were teachers, they'd never seen them before. His was a rubbery snake-like thing, which didn't make any noise. It should have been less distracting to the class than clicking a pen, or tapping fingers on the desk. Now that there are thousands of them on eBay, and they seem to have become a trend, I can well believe they're a distraction in class.
zeroer 9y ago
> Hettinger held the patent on finger spinners for eight years, but surrendered it in 2005 because she could not afford the $400 (£310) renewal fee. Isn't this bizarre? If she couldn't monetize it and make it profitable in eight years, maybe it's for the best that someone else gets a shot. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that intellectual property is like other forms of property. It's a trade where the people (mediated via the government) give a limited-time monopoly in exchange for promoting development. If the developer can't or won't keep up her end of the bargain, it's best for the patent to expire.
- Omnius 9y ago
  You're absolutely right but it still sucks. She has a great attitude about it but if i am honest and this kind of thing happened to me i would be seriously pissed, at myself more then anyone else.
  - zeroer 9y ago
    Agreed; still sucks.
  - tghw 9y ago
    Except that her device is completely different than the spinners of today. The child in the photo is holding one in her right hand.
    - Omnius 9y ago
      Yeah i read the article and missed the images or maybe a read it to quick.
- Lagged2Death 9y ago
  Isn't this bizarre? If she couldn't monetize it and make it profitable in eight years, maybe it's for the best that someone else gets a shot. I'm guessing the vast majority of modern patents are held by enormous multinationals which do not have renewal-fee problems. And which generally do not turn loose the patents they aren't monetizing. If you want to tut-tut about the public interest, this strikes me as a strange spot to start. Let's turn that "limited time" moralizing on the organizations that actually abuse the system.
scandox 9y ago
Napoleon said "never be a poor devil" on hearing that someone had missed a great political opportunity because they couldn't pay to fix the wheel of a carriage on their way to Paris. Tough lesson but sounds like she has a philosophical view.
huffmsa 9y ago
If she'd remained the patent holder, who's to say that the gadgets would have become popular?
- gambiting 9y ago
  No one. She could have spent another 8 years doing absolutely nothing with the patent. I don't think that's the main point of the article though, it's just trying to show how an inventor of something is not necessarily the person benefiting financially from their invention.
  - sosodaft 9y ago
    I'd love to know how it became popular, which the article doesn't really address. It seems like a fad, which would just be dumb (bad) luck. But if Hasbro, who had decided not to produce it, intentionally sat on it for eight years then manufactured and marketed it, that would be deplorable.
audunw 9y ago
I think this illustrates one of the catch-22's of patents. If you hold the patent, other companies does not have incentive to make and market the invention, making it harder to create market awareness. But if you let go of the patent, unless you have the resources to compete, you're unlikely to benefit from your invention. You do have an early mover advantage, but if you don't have the means to invest, it doesn't help. I think the interface between IP markets and the goods/services markets is deeply broken. The core of the problem is that we have to create artificial scarcity to balance the IP economy against the "real" economy. For example: in theory, you could have access to every movie ever created for free. It doesn't cost anything to make a copy. This is unlike things like bread or haircuts, where having an infinite supply is a physical impossibility. But the people making the movies have to pay for bread and haircuts, so you have to pay them something. And to get you to pay for it, you have to balance your desire to watch movies against your need to buy bread and haircuts. Previously we achieved this only through artificial scarcity. Now, with Spotify, you have another model which is: someone decides that everyone should pay $50-$99 a month for music, and then you have access to all the music. The problem is that this is a pretty inelastic market. It's hard to create competing services with different prices. It's also undemocratic. And the default is still artificial scarcity. You could imagine an IP tax. Through a democratic process, we decide that X% of our incomes should be spent on developing IP. All IP is free, but you have IP credits that you spend on the IPs that have value for you, in whatever ratio you want. The number of credits the inventor/designer/creator receives in a month is then used to fairly divide the fund generated from the IP tax. IP developers also have to pay IP tax, and receive IP credits, so it would be natural for them to forward credits to the IP they depend upon. Since you can't spend the IP credits on yourself, you have no incentive to not support the IPs that you benefited from. This solutions is just a thought experiment. It might not be feasible, and it's a government-based solution. I'm not ideologically opposed to government solutions, but it is inelegant. The point is just to think about how we could interface the IP markets with the "real" markets in a more efficient way. There must be better solutions than what we have today. Another option may be to introduce basic income, have everything be free, and just rely on donations, crowdfunding and merchandise for extra funding. Patreon seems to show that people are actually willing to simply give money to the things they like, as long as they get credit.
- 9y ago
cableshaft 9y ago
That's unfortunate she hasn't earned any money off of her invention. I've been enjoying my fidget spinner. It really helps while I'm out walking the dog to give my free hand something to do, so I've been using it pretty much every day since I've gotten it. I hope her Kickstarter goes well. I do sort of wonder if it would have gotten this popular if the patent was still active, though.
wlesieutre 9y ago
No one else has brought this up, but her "fidget spinner" is a totally different device than the ones that are popular. It's like a frisbee with a bump in the middle to center it on your finger, which I assume lets you get it moving it one handed by "hula hooping" it around. But you can't put it in your pocket and carry it everywhere, nor can you fidget inconspicuously. The popular fidget spinners are small, flat devices, comprised of a frame and one or more ball bearings. Google image results: http://i.imgur.com/33Qg5BU.jpg http://i.imgur.com/33Qg5BU.jpg The only things her invention has in common with these is that you fidget with it and it spins. Was her patent really broad enough to cover everything sharing those attributes? You might as well patent quarters. They're great for fidgeting.
- reneherse 9y ago
  You're correct, the claims of the article do not correspond to the claims of the patent, whatsoever. The inventor's patent contains no moving parts, is constructed from a single piece of plastic, and is supported by a single finger when spinning. While it might be an entertaining toy, it's a completely different product. Regarding the inventor's fundraising campaign, I think the Kickstarter platform is a poor choice given the circumstances. The current campaign is very poorly written, and gives a potential backer no confidence that the product would ever see the light of day. A different platform without the "all or nothing" constraint would have been a better choice, and the campaign would be better structured as a direct appeal to charity. The inventor is obviously dealing with some difficult personal issues, and a flat sum of money --without the strings of a demanding production schedule attached-- would likely be far more beneficial. (edited)
- noja 9y ago
  The photo in the article shows this.
  - jannotti 9y ago
    Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't even notice that weird frisbee looking thing on first read. Those are not, or at least should not, be covered by the same patent.
sschueller 9y ago
Those things are a cool thing but I am glad once this craze ends and not every second item on thingiverse is another spinner.
- hbosch 9y ago
  They've already evolved into cubes! https://www.thefidgetcube.co/ https://www.thefidgetcube.co/
jannotti 9y ago
Sure, I'm no lawyer, but I think I can state fairly confidently that this patent, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Hettinger.INNM.&s2=Catherine.INNM.&OS=IN/Hettinger+AND+IN/Catherine&RS=IN/Hettinger+AND+IN/Catherine http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H..., does NOT cover the popular spinners of today.
dahart 9y ago
This patent would have expired in any case in 2014, wouldn't it? It was filed in 92, and issued in 97, so the term would have been 17 years, I believe.

70 points by t_prakash 9y ago

She launches a USA only kickstarter (all rewards ship to US only). I genuinely hope she does well but I don't understand why she would exclude the global audience and alienate potential customers.

TillE 9y ago
International shipping is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. It's expensive, slow, complicated, and not very reliable. If you're not a company with experience doing it, it's a completely understandable decision to not offer that.

unix 9y ago

some teachers believe that they can help children concentrate – especially those with ADHD.

pwagland 9y ago
And some believe that they are distracting to everyone else in the class: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/apr/29/secret-teacher-fidget-cubes-need-kicking-out-of-class https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/apr/29/secr... Also there is no evidence yet that they do help concentration, so it is only anecdotal evidence at this stage.
- Symbiote 9y ago
  My brother was prescribed a fidget toy by an educational psychologist about 10 years ago. At that time, even though both of my parents were teachers, they'd never seen them before. His was a rubbery snake-like thing, which didn't make any noise. It should have been less distracting to the class than clicking a pen, or tapping fingers on the desk. Now that there are thousands of them on eBay, and they seem to have become a trend, I can well believe they're a distraction in class.

zeroer 9y ago

> Hettinger held the patent on finger spinners for eight years, but surrendered it in 2005 because she could not afford the $400 (£310) renewal fee. Isn't this bizarre? If she couldn't monetize it and make it profitable in eight years, maybe it's for the best that someone else gets a shot. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that intellectual property is like other forms of property. It's a trade where the people (mediated via the government) give a limited-time monopoly in exchange for promoting development. If the developer can't or won't keep up her end of the bargain, it's best for the patent to expire.

Omnius 9y ago
You're absolutely right but it still sucks. She has a great attitude about it but if i am honest and this kind of thing happened to me i would be seriously pissed, at myself more then anyone else.
- zeroer 9y ago
  Agreed; still sucks.
- tghw 9y ago
  Except that her device is completely different than the spinners of today. The child in the photo is holding one in her right hand.
  - Omnius 9y ago
    Yeah i read the article and missed the images or maybe a read it to quick.
Lagged2Death 9y ago
Isn't this bizarre? If she couldn't monetize it and make it profitable in eight years, maybe it's for the best that someone else gets a shot. I'm guessing the vast majority of modern patents are held by enormous multinationals which do not have renewal-fee problems. And which generally do not turn loose the patents they aren't monetizing. If you want to tut-tut about the public interest, this strikes me as a strange spot to start. Let's turn that "limited time" moralizing on the organizations that actually abuse the system.

scandox 9y ago

Napoleon said "never be a poor devil" on hearing that someone had missed a great political opportunity because they couldn't pay to fix the wheel of a carriage on their way to Paris. Tough lesson but sounds like she has a philosophical view.

huffmsa 9y ago

If she'd remained the patent holder, who's to say that the gadgets would have become popular?

gambiting 9y ago
No one. She could have spent another 8 years doing absolutely nothing with the patent. I don't think that's the main point of the article though, it's just trying to show how an inventor of something is not necessarily the person benefiting financially from their invention.
- sosodaft 9y ago
  I'd love to know how it became popular, which the article doesn't really address. It seems like a fad, which would just be dumb (bad) luck. But if Hasbro, who had decided not to produce it, intentionally sat on it for eight years then manufactured and marketed it, that would be deplorable.

audunw 9y ago

I think this illustrates one of the catch-22's of patents. If you hold the patent, other companies does not have incentive to make and market the invention, making it harder to create market awareness. But if you let go of the patent, unless you have the resources to compete, you're unlikely to benefit from your invention. You do have an early mover advantage, but if you don't have the means to invest, it doesn't help. I think the interface between IP markets and the goods/services markets is deeply broken. The core of the problem is that we have to create artificial scarcity to balance the IP economy against the "real" economy. For example: in theory, you could have access to every movie ever created for free. It doesn't cost anything to make a copy. This is unlike things like bread or haircuts, where having an infinite supply is a physical impossibility. But the people making the movies have to pay for bread and haircuts, so you have to pay them something. And to get you to pay for it, you have to balance your desire to watch movies against your need to buy bread and haircuts. Previously we achieved this only through artificial scarcity. Now, with Spotify, you have another model which is: someone decides that everyone should pay $50-$99 a month for music, and then you have access to all the music. The problem is that this is a pretty inelastic market. It's hard to create competing services with different prices. It's also undemocratic. And the default is still artificial scarcity. You could imagine an IP tax. Through a democratic process, we decide that X% of our incomes should be spent on developing IP. All IP is free, but you have IP credits that you spend on the IPs that have value for you, in whatever ratio you want. The number of credits the inventor/designer/creator receives in a month is then used to fairly divide the fund generated from the IP tax. IP developers also have to pay IP tax, and receive IP credits, so it would be natural for them to forward credits to the IP they depend upon. Since you can't spend the IP credits on yourself, you have no incentive to not support the IPs that you benefited from. This solutions is just a thought experiment. It might not be feasible, and it's a government-based solution. I'm not ideologically opposed to government solutions, but it is inelegant. The point is just to think about how we could interface the IP markets with the "real" markets in a more efficient way. There must be better solutions than what we have today. Another option may be to introduce basic income, have everything be free, and just rely on donations, crowdfunding and merchandise for extra funding. Patreon seems to show that people are actually willing to simply give money to the things they like, as long as they get credit.

9y ago

cableshaft 9y ago

That's unfortunate she hasn't earned any money off of her invention. I've been enjoying my fidget spinner. It really helps while I'm out walking the dog to give my free hand something to do, so I've been using it pretty much every day since I've gotten it. I hope her Kickstarter goes well. I do sort of wonder if it would have gotten this popular if the patent was still active, though.

wlesieutre 9y ago

No one else has brought this up, but her "fidget spinner" is a totally different device than the ones that are popular. It's like a frisbee with a bump in the middle to center it on your finger, which I assume lets you get it moving it one handed by "hula hooping" it around. But you can't put it in your pocket and carry it everywhere, nor can you fidget inconspicuously. The popular fidget spinners are small, flat devices, comprised of a frame and one or more ball bearings. Google image results: http://i.imgur.com/33Qg5BU.jpg http://i.imgur.com/33Qg5BU.jpg The only things her invention has in common with these is that you fidget with it and it spins. Was her patent really broad enough to cover everything sharing those attributes? You might as well patent quarters. They're great for fidgeting.

reneherse 9y ago
You're correct, the claims of the article do not correspond to the claims of the patent, whatsoever. The inventor's patent contains no moving parts, is constructed from a single piece of plastic, and is supported by a single finger when spinning. While it might be an entertaining toy, it's a completely different product. Regarding the inventor's fundraising campaign, I think the Kickstarter platform is a poor choice given the circumstances. The current campaign is very poorly written, and gives a potential backer no confidence that the product would ever see the light of day. A different platform without the "all or nothing" constraint would have been a better choice, and the campaign would be better structured as a direct appeal to charity. The inventor is obviously dealing with some difficult personal issues, and a flat sum of money --without the strings of a demanding production schedule attached-- would likely be far more beneficial. (edited)
noja 9y ago
The photo in the article shows this.
- jannotti 9y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't even notice that weird frisbee looking thing on first read. Those are not, or at least should not, be covered by the same patent.

sschueller 9y ago

Those things are a cool thing but I am glad once this craze ends and not every second item on thingiverse is another spinner.

hbosch 9y ago
They've already evolved into cubes! https://www.thefidgetcube.co/ https://www.thefidgetcube.co/

jannotti 9y ago

Sure, I'm no lawyer, but I think I can state fairly confidently that this patent, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Hettinger.INNM.&s2=Catherine.INNM.&OS=IN/Hettinger+AND+IN/Catherine&RS=IN/Hettinger+AND+IN/Catherine http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H..., does NOT cover the popular spinners of today.

dahart 9y ago

This patent would have expired in any case in 2014, wouldn't it? It was filed in 92, and issued in 97, so the term would have been 17 years, I believe.