Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Granted on Sideways Swinging

Posted by chrisd on from the uspto-idiots-makes-the-ins-look-good dept.

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."

3 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it by digitect · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So does this mean the Patent Office now implicitly agrees that they think patents are silly, too?

    (BTW, does anybody else see the potential here for using this as a general call for taxpayer revolt? How much did we pay for this? Do our congresspeople approve on wasting such funds? Do they want re-elected?)

    --
    There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
  2. Default should be deny. by Kris_J · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the patent office can't understand something, it should deny the patent.

    If the patent office doesn't have the resources to properly investigate the patent, it should deny it.
    If a single company submits too many patents, they should be denied.

    Why is the default to allow a patent if it can't be proven not to be original, useful and non-obvious?

  3. These laws exist to be broken, not adhered to by Zoop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody will ever be sued for infringement.

    Probably, but the problem with patents is that you can never be sure, can you? Unlike with trademark, which is subject to dilution, patents can be allowed to exist as long as the term is granted and even on the last day, someone can sue another person (even if they ignore someone standing next to them doing the same thing--it's totally up to them). It's a great harassment tool.

    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...provided you can afford a patent lawyer. If not, you're SOL.

    Corporations patent things largely because they fear just these things--so everybody sets up a system where they think they can scare everyone else from suing them because they might also be sued for some obscure patent. In effect, they don't expect anyone to NOT violate their patents--they just want it to make sure you can't sue them over one of yours.

    That is an increasing trend in law. Laws and regulations exist not to be adhered to, but to insure that someone has broken some law and that fact can be used against them as leverage. So if the city decides they can't afford eminent domain (where they have to pay you usually below-market prices for any property of yours they take to widen a road, for example), they simply find you guilty of one of the many ordinances they have and stick you with a massive fine--unless you agree to settle with them for the property they want.

    The danger with this is, aside from the obvious abuses, that it degrades respect for the law. Eventually, it fuels a very combative relationship with the government--which, combined with the size and intrusiveness of modern government is why you can't even drive past the White House on one side anymore. They're afraid of you.

    So no, this patent by itself isn't anything to worry about...it's a symptom of the larger set of problems, not all of which have to do purely with the patent office.