3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoYou'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.
- Lagged2Death 9y agoIsn'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.
- zeroer 9y agoEverything you say is correct. I wish there were some mechanism to force inventors (or enormous multinationals) to use their patents or lose them. I was just mildly frustrated with the tone of the article.