
Fidget spinner craze inventor struggles to make ends meet - t_prakash
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/03/fidget-spinner-inventor-patent-catherine-hettinger
======
zeroer
> 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
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.

~~~
tghw
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
Yeah i read the article and missed the images or maybe a read it to quick.

------
wlesieutre
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.

~~~
noja
The photo in the article shows this.

~~~
jannotti
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
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
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-
cas...](https://medium.com/@jobosapien/real-vs-fake-the-infamous-case-of-the-
quickly-copied-fidget-cube-9b26a6161b36)

------
jannotti
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=H...](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),
does NOT cover the popular spinners of today.

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

~~~
gambiting
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
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.

------
thatBilly
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
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.

------
cableshaft
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.

------
audunw
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.

~~~
jerf
"I think the interface between IP markets and the goods/services markets is
deeply broken."

Potentially a bigger problem than any you cite is discoverability. So she has
a patent... so what? No company out there is going to search over the patents
looking for a good idea. If they manage to come up with an independent
implementation of something that happens to hit the patent, and they happen to
do a search, they're far more likely to modify the idea until it doesn't hit
the patent than to go try to license it from an individual.

There really isn't any fixing the problem that there's no path that looks like
"1\. Have idea. 2. Patent idea. 3. Profit." Step three is going to have to
look like a business. Even _if_ you assume basic income and even if you
somehow remove money from the situation entirely, which is to put it least
incredibly idealistic, if you want to see "success" you're still going to have
to hustle and build awareness. (And, apparently, do this on the same basic
income as everybody else in that ideal world, which won't exactly make it
easier to stand out.) Perfectly feasible with the right use of social media,
but on average it won't happen just by putting up a post of your idea and
waiting for the plaudits to roll in.

------
scandox
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.

------
dahart
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.

------
sschueller
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
They've already evolved into cubes!
[https://www.thefidgetcube.co/](https://www.thefidgetcube.co/)

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

~~~
pwagland
And some believe that they are distracting to everyone else in the class:
[https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-
network/2017/apr/29/secr...](https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-
network/2017/apr/29/secret-teacher-fidget-cubes-need-kicking-out-of-class)

Also there is no evidence yet that they do help concentration, so it is only
anecdotal evidence at this stage.

~~~
Symbiote
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.

