11–20 of 32 posts
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.
some teachers believe that they can help children concentrate – especially those with ADHD.
And some believe that they are distracting to everyone else in the 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.
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.
If she'd remained the patent holder, who's to say that the gadgets would have become popular?
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.
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 hel…
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
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.
> 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 p…
> 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 p…
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.
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 dev…
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)
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 dev…
