4 ms·

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 m

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 10y 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 10y ago
The photo in the article shows this.
- jannotti 10y 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.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    I didn't realize it either until I found my way to the kickstarter page. It's the size of your head! And you can twirl a normal frisbee's rim around your finger just fine! And frisbees come in multiple more manageable sizes. And you can pack a frisbee into a bag more easily because it's flat. I don't mean to be a dick, but I can see why Hasbro chose not to produce it. It's a frisbee with a big lump on it that probably doesn't fly very well. The "As fidget spinner craze goes global, its inventor struggles to make ends meet" headline is 100% bullshit and the rest of the article isn't any better.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      If you want a fidget toy to actually be upset about, try the "Fidget Cube" of recent kickstarter fame. Knockoffs beat the genuine product to market. https://medium.com/@jobosapien/real-vs-fake-the-infamous-case-of-the-quickly-copied-fidget-cube-9b26a6161b36 https://medium.com/@jobosapien/real-vs-fake-the-infamous-cas...
    - reneherse 10y ago
      In a post-fact world, evidently it's the bullshit that pays the bills: "The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce." Thanks but no thanks, Guardian.

reneherse 10y 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 10y ago

The photo in the article shows this.

jannotti 10y 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.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  I didn't realize it either until I found my way to the kickstarter page. It's the size of your head! And you can twirl a normal frisbee's rim around your finger just fine! And frisbees come in multiple more manageable sizes. And you can pack a frisbee into a bag more easily because it's flat. I don't mean to be a dick, but I can see why Hasbro chose not to produce it. It's a frisbee with a big lump on it that probably doesn't fly very well. The "As fidget spinner craze goes global, its inventor struggles to make ends meet" headline is 100% bullshit and the rest of the article isn't any better.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    If you want a fidget toy to actually be upset about, try the "Fidget Cube" of recent kickstarter fame. Knockoffs beat the genuine product to market. https://medium.com/@jobosapien/real-vs-fake-the-infamous-case-of-the-quickly-copied-fidget-cube-9b26a6161b36 https://medium.com/@jobosapien/real-vs-fake-the-infamous-cas...
  - reneherse 10y ago
    In a post-fact world, evidently it's the bullshit that pays the bills: "The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce." Thanks but no thanks, Guardian.