Fidget spinner craze inventor struggles to make ends meet
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
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.
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.
I was just mildly frustrated with the tone of the article.
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.
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)
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.
https://medium.com/@jobosapien/real-vs-fake-the-infamous-cas...
"The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce."
Thanks but no thanks, Guardian.
I do sort of wonder if it would have gotten this popular if the patent was still active, though.
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.
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.
Tough lesson but sounds like she has a philosophical view.
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.