Patent Granted on Sideways Swinging

Matt Van Gundy writes "In another brilliant move by the well loved U.S. Patent and Trademark Office a patent (6,368,227) has been granted to a Mr. Steven Olson for inventing the method of swinging sideways on a swing. The patent even lays claim to "inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval." I claim prior art, but perhaps I am one of the few fortunate ones who enjoyed this method of swinging long before its 'invention' by Mr. Steven Olson. " My favorite line from the patent : "The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required."

Comments

OMG ... its true

[Tensor]

OMG i can't believe this ...

this is WAY too ridiculous to be true ... yet it is ... strange how life surpasses fiction time and time again.

excerpt from page:

Inventors: Olson; Steven (337 Otis Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104)
Appl. No.: 715198
Filed: November 17, 2000

CLAIM

I claim:

1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of:

a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch;

b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch;

c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and

d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is practiced independently by the user to create the side-to-side motion from an initial dead stop.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of:

e) inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the magnitude of the component of forward and back motion is less than the component of side-to-side motion.

Wrong topic.

[codetalker]

This should have been listed as a "funny" article. There's no way this is for real. Anyone remember a while back when someone patented the rights to the ";-)" and people were in an uproar until they realized that you could liscence them for free. I'm sure the same thing will happen here. Probably just someone out to prove that the patent office is either overworked or very negligent.

Re:Wrong topic.

[number11]

>There's no way this is for real.

It's a gen-u-wine US patent. Backed by whatever force of law genuine US patents have. And possessing whatever moral force the law provides.

>someone out to prove that the patent office is either overworked or very negligent.

Probably. Did anyone notice that the patent lawyer has the same last name as the patent holder? And remarkably enough, the phone listing for the attorney (or, at least, somebody with the same name as the attorney) is for the same address as the inventor. It would appear daddy used junior as a stand-in here.

Re:Wrong topic.

[Confused]

It was despair.com, who trademarked the :-(. There were no patents involved.

More details on this page.

Re:Wrong topic.

[evilviper]

Probably just someone out to prove that the patent office is either overworked or very negligent.

Quite true, but that's exactly why everyone is so damn pissed off.

The I.N.S. sending green-cards to a dead terrorist isn't a security threat... It's the point that they have such a crappy system that they would send green-cards to obviously known terrorists.

The USPTO is Slashdotted

[Get Behind the Mule]

Can somebody put up a mirror? Or would that violate some kind of IP laws? You never know these days.

The USPTO has become such an outrage that it needs to become in issue in this year's elections. That can only happen if media attention can be drawn to absurd patents, and this is just the kind of thing to do it. Everyone can understand how preposterous this is; and then, if we're lucky, the TV news will get someone like Bruce Perens or ESR as a talking head for background, and that person can go on to say, "You know the patent office does this all the time, let me give you some more examples, and let me explain the damage that it does to our economy." It's our best chance.

If we're unlucky, they'll put on an M$ spokesmen, who will use the TV sound bite to blast the GPL as an evil, anti-capitalist plot.

That's a USPTO.GOV link!

[seanadams.com]

There's no way this is for real.

Wrong! This is a real patent. Read it.

Contrary to whatever you've been led to believe about the patent office, you CAN get a patent on absolutely anything - it doesn't even have to work. The patent office just files the paper work. It's not until you sue (or get sued) that anybody decides the strength of your patent.

Re:That's a USPTO.GOV link!

[Sircus]

You don't have to be a US citizen to be issued a US patent. The only thing you might need to pay special attention to is the Oath/declaration, though since you clearly comprehend English, this shouldn't be too tricky.

Re:April Fool's is long past

[cptgrudge]

It can't be from April Fool's, it was filed November 17 of 2000.

Re:Default should be deny.

[MyNameIsFred]

This makes absolutely NO sense to me.

If the patent office can't understand something, it should deny the patent.

So if they're a bunch of idiots, inventors should pay the price.

If the patent office doesn't have the resources to properly investigate the patent, it should deny it.

If they're underfunded, inventors should pay the price.

If a single company submits too many patents, they should be denied.

If they're inventive, they should be penalized. Think about Edison, under your rules he would be denied

While I agree the Patent Office needs to be reformed. Your suggestion doesn't fix any of the problems, and only penalizes inventors. How about some useful suggestions like more funding to hire more examiners. Or did you know that examiners have to fill quotas -- that is process X number of applications per week. How about getting rid of the quotas or reducing them.

I live in D.C. and actually know some patent examiners. They are not the complete idiots that ./'ers think they are. Many of them have Ph.D.'s in the field that they examine -- e.g., a Ph.D. in biochemistry looks at biochemistry patents. At the same time, they have to live within the beauracracy, and it's inane rules.

Reform is good, as long as its sensible.

Re:Don't put this on slashdot.

[Roblimo]

Reporters from CNN, NYT, WSJ, and many other mainstream news media regularly scan Slashdot, Linux.com, NewsForge and other "niche" Web sites for story ideas. Posting something interesting (or silly) on Slashdot usually brings it to their attention just as effectively as emailing them about it. :)

- Robin

Re:Patent holder's father is patent attorney

[broohaha]

I heard it on public radio over the weekend, too. It was a quiz item on the (funny) news quiz show "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!". They even played a soundbite of the 7-year-old explaining why his sister didn't want to be included in the patent.

Here's a Real Audio clip of the entire show.

This story was covered on NPR over the weekend with a fluff/human interest angle. Sorry, couldn't find it in their archives.

Re:just like the RFC's

[Nohea]

RFC's are not enforcable by law.

Wrong.

[Irvu]

The US code does not allow for "obvious" patents, such as this one. It also charges the USPTO with asessing the nature of the patents. Specifically, see U.S. Code Title 35 (Patent Law) Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 9:

"The Commissioner may revise and maintain the classification by subject matter of United States letters patent, and such other patents and printed publications as may be necessary or practicable, for the purpose of determining with readiness and accuracy the novelty of inventions for which applications for patent are filed" [emphasis added.]

See also Chapter 10 Patentability of Inventions. Or here for a summary.

The interesting question is, did Olsen violate his oath in applying for this, or was he serious?

Prior Art

[Krieger]

The prior art and other patents listed are actually interesting. One is for an original swing, and another is for an indoor swing. Both have relatively lengthy prior art sections as well. Interesting reading.

I think where the patent office went wrong was that they started allowing concepts to be patented. Inventions or processes are fine as there is a defineable method you go through to get a result. A specific engine, chemical process, etc. But allowing patents for a one-click shopping system? For swinging in a circle? How can they sign off on these things?

Re:Talk About the playground Bully....

[markhb]

Note that the "lawyer" in the case has the same last name as the inventor, and also that the patent references "the inventor and his sister." My guess is that the dad is a patent attorney, and the inventor and sister are his kids.

At least he's willing to license the patent (see the end of the abstract), and also that the patent specifically references a "tree branch". The real "money" goes to whoever patents an extension of this one to cover those cases where the swing is suspended from a metal bar supported by supports arranged in an isoceles triangle :)

Re:These laws exist to be broken, not adhered to

[ajakk]

The fact that such a waste of the taxpayers' money was able to go through the system indicates just how easy it is to do.


This is not a waste of taxpayers money. The USPTO funds itself on the fees people pay to file and maintain patents. The USPTO made money by allowing the patent. This patent doesn't hurt the public in any way, and it is obviously a joke.

GET A SENSE OF HUMOR!