Slashdot Mirror
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."
I'll have to try that position some time. I've been swinging for a while now and never come across a partner who.. oh wait ;-)
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
You fuckers can't simply accept that someone else has ideas that are new and unique, can you? Everything is obvious and easy to see once you hear it.
Don't go saying that there's prior art or that it's such an obvious invention. Where is your prior art? Can you prove that the idea is obvious?
I didn't think so. This patent stands.
OMG i can't believe this ...
... yet it is ... strange how life surpasses fiction time and time again.
this is WAY too ridiculous to be true
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.
A sideways swinger's bar with a cowboy neal theme. Think of it. "Patent Pending Swinging Action" Hep Cats and Swingers Welcome Here. We'll make a mint!
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
This only applies to two chains hung from a tree branch (specified in the Claims section). The background section describes "other substantially horizontal support" but it's not in the Claims section. Legalistic? Yes. But someone has to think of the children ...
I did that when I before, and so did my sister!
It's my invention! Mine, MINE, MINE!
So I will swing sideways when I want to and I won't license it from you, sue me!
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.
All a coder really wants, are fast cars, fast women and fast algorithms.
Or perhaps the boring, dry, technical aspect of these patent claims put them in a hypnotic trance. I guess that's why patent lawyers are paid the big bucks.
This is absolutely the best thing that could happen - getting more and more ridiculous patents approved. This will prove to people once and for all the USPTO is obviously approving these things in their sleep. Pretty soon the books will be bulging with absurd patents, and someone will call for a review of ALL the patents issued, and whether or not they actually were deserved and worthy of continued enforcement. A buddy of mine that used to work for a very large electronics manufacturer actually submitted a patent for a picture-window Ant Farm as a joke, and was almost awarded it!
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
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...
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?
This is by the same federal government, (though, to be fair, by a different agency), that issued student visas to the 9-11 hijackers 6 months after the fact.
I'm not a lawyer, but is there anyone out there who is? Wouldn't this sort of gross incompetence bring into question other patents issued, at least by this obviously negligent examiner?
And at least the "Tarzan" yell part gives off the strong suggestion that this was submitted as a goof.
The intellectual property laws in this country have become nonsensical and counter-productive in their execution and enforcement.
Embarassing.
Funny though.
evanchik.net
For those of you blowing milk out of your nose while you laugh at this article, I just want to inform you that I own the patent on that method. Thank you.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Licenses are available from the inventor upon request. "
... but it DOES NOT actually say so.
... after all he does hold the patent to it
Which might mean that he will give them out for free
What if he decides to charge elementary schools with swings for using his invention ? and makes the districts pay
:)
Seriously, we do. I'm moving to Canada... anyone want to house me for a bit? I'll fix your computer.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
sarcasm Pronunciation Key (särkzm) n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
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.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Well they obviously don't have the manpower to read all the patents, so they probably do something similar to the IRS - approve everything that comes in (maybe check for a minimum lenght and minimum number of words longer than 5 syllables) and then "audit" a small random selection... you know by reading them.
sic transit gloria mundi
Maybe the agent posseses a sense of humor and an apreciation for irony that has slowly twisted his mind over the years. It started simply. A inane little patent. Won't hurt anything. But it was darned funny. And nobody caught it. So he upped the stakes with another gem. Unnoticed. And another. And another. The beancounter souless zombies that are his coworkers oblivious to the parade of delicious irony under their noses, presented by inane claims, burried in a sea of paperwork. Taunting him. Daring him. Just a little more. They'll appreciate his humor. If he just found one obvious enough.
Maybe our mastermind is actually an activist. Working from the inside. Sabotaging the system. Poisoning the dignity of the entire USPTO system with more and more outlandish patent grants. Daring the public to see the USPTO for the foolishness that it really is. They'll apreciate how foolish it all is. If he just made it obvious enough.
Or maybe there is no mastermind. We are simply witnessing the byproduct of a reality distortion only known to exist within the proximity of US Governmental beurocracy and Steve Jobs.
So many posibilities. And we've only just began to scratch the surface...
What's the suggestion we always hear when we are lacking any form of "power" for some task? Distribute it! So I am suggesting that we replace the USPTO with Patent@Home, where all patent applications will be randomly distributed between the participants to be approved or rejected. It might seem that giving the decision to 14 year old kids with no kind of training on the subject is a bad idea... but then, look at the parent.
sic transit gloria mundi
Hey, maybe if I describe it properly and clearly list out all the steps involved, I may get a patent for the way I pick my nose!
This is not my sig.
You can't actually be arested over IP (for now at least).
sic transit gloria mundi
It's only a new, patentable device if a computer is somehow involved at some point. Like, if you were looking at a computer while swinging, or were thinking about a computer.
sic transit gloria mundi
Folks, this is mostly an amusement patent. The inventor was a seven year old, and of course he's not the first to invent it. But his dad's a patent lawyer and wrote it up for him on a lark.
Like the laser cat-exerciser patent, nothing will ever come of this. It's just there to be silly. Nobody will ever be sued for infringement. Can't there be a sense of humour in this?
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
of course. but not legally arrested.
sic transit gloria mundi
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.
Don't get me wrong, I think software patents are Evil and Rude and I would never patent something actually useful. Any suggestions for stupid things to patent so (a) I get the cash and (b) companyt lawyers go mad trying to enforce something unenforceable (or better: something that would be struck down as a patent when it came to court, so that after I have the cas they realise the patent is unenforcable) received with thanks!
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I may get a patent for the way I pick my nose!
With all those sex sites on the net, you'll make much more money licensing the technology of using porn to cause arousal. While nose picking may be just as common as masturbation, there is way more money in the latter.
Besides, think of the lawsuits from Kleenex if you're invention catches on and results in a drop in tissue sales.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
It can't be from April Fool's, it was filed November 17 of 2000.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Don't actually know. In England, public sector workers tend to get significantly less than they would get in the business sector. The obvious consequence is that a lot of the best people migrate out of the public sector. I don't imagine things are much different across the pond.
==========
Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
Abort / Retry / Ignore ?
It may sound stupid, but I think this would actually be the only way to get people to care about the absurd state of the Patent Office.
Face it: patents, for non-geeks, sound like an incredibly dull subject. They will find it preposterous and silly, but they won't stay tuned long enough to realize the damage it does to the economy. How many typical Joe Americans stay tuned for more than 30 seconds to a political analysis on NPR, C-SPAN or PBS?
Unfortunately, the patents are a "pure real issue". That is, they cannot be reduced to partisanship, a scandal or a psychological "hot button" (like "help the poor", racism, Big Government, abortion, Christian Decency, taxes, gun-control, etc) which seems the only way to gather support for an issue these days.
It takes some real thinking to figure out the role of IP on the economy, and then the role of the Patent Office in there, and then the difference between trademarks, patents, copyrights (because someone will ask about the "patent on Mickey Mouse or Shakespeare").
Even among geeks people care because it has become a psychological hot-button, with most geeks being "for-IP" or "against-IP". If they didn't already advocate one side, they wouldn't probably tune in either.
Now, put ESR or RS on Jerry Springer in a show about "Absurd Patents and the Outrageous Government that Grants Them!" and you'll see more people being aware of the subject than if you throw a rationalistic national campaign. After they already have a position, they might be willing to be convinced.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Where USPTO's actions can be justifiably questioned is when decisions are made which appear to show that it does not have (enough) examiners with adequate knowledge of the field concerned, IT being, unfortunately, one of these fields. As has been commented before, the remedy is to improve the scrutiny by taking on additional knowledgable examiners, but this isn't something that can be done overnight even if the neccessary resources were approved by government and legislature: ask yourselves what it would take to persuade you to consider such a career, rather than working in the "real world".
I hope I'm not the only sad bastard that's just ran outside to the nearest park (first time in DECADES) to try out this 'better' method of swinging?
Read the patent. It states the method for a swing suspended by two chains from a tree branch. Since the playground swing I used has a pipe frame instead of a tree branch, this patent does not apply to my horizontal swinging done in grade school. The swing we had at home used ropes instead of two chains. He has patented a specific implimentation of the horizontal swing method on a specific type equipment. (two chains and one tree branch) I'm glad he didn't patent spinning in circles on a swing.
The truth shall set you free!
ok, has anyone gotten the images to work in a Linux browser? I click on Images and it just shows a quarter of a page of large print text starting with "US Paten..." inside a weird frame.
Did that in Mozilla 0.9.9 and Netscape 4.78. Konqueror 2.2.2 just showed a block box.
To hell with that chair crap... my application is in the mail for a patent destined to make me richer than [name your deity]. Yessireebob, billions upon billions of people will pay me royalties, some even dozens of times per month.
I won't disclose too much, but it has to do with "manufacturing processes". In a nutshell, it involves a method of inserting and removing a cylindrical device in and out of a round opening in a rhythmic fashion. Provisions are built in for proper device lubrication, and the entire assembly (including fuel) is completely organic in nature. I'm gonna be freaking billionaire...
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.
Read it a little more closely:
Sorry, I think you're gonna have to pay up...
In other news, a bunch of SlashDot readers have obtained a patent on "A Method For Simultaneous Perambulatory Motion and Masticating a Pliable Sticky Artificially Colored and Flavored Confection"
This story was covered on NPR over the weekend with a fluff/human interest angle. Sorry, couldn't find it in their archives.
The NPR story mentioned that the patent holder's father is a patent attorney. (The patent holder is a 10-12 year old boy.) There was no suggestion that the patent was filed to raise awareness of problems with patent law, but I can't help but think that's the case.
Folks, this is mostly an amusement patent. The inventor was a seven year old, and of course he's not the first to invent it. But his dad's a patent lawyer and wrote it up for him on a lark.
Couldn't a patent of this type (or the cat one) be used as a defense in a patent-infringment case?
I mean: you claim that whatever you infringed is obvious and use those examples to demonstrate that the the fact of being approved by the USPTO is in no way a guarantee of quality, inventiveness or anything. The idea is basically to kill the image of the USPTO as a reliable source and thus undermine every patent issued.
Here is my letter which I sent this morning:
Rep. Morella:
I am writing today with further concern of regarding the U.S. Patent Office. The U.S. Patent Office and its antiquated practices are working against the very purpose it was created for, furthering American innovation and invention. Instead, in recent years, it has shown that it cannot keep up with the rapidly growing pace of technology and has not been applying proper standards to evaluating prior art. There have been several cases over the past five years where patents that are harmful to my industry, the Internet, and the technology industry have been granted. These patents, which have ample prior art, only induce frivolous lawsuits and draw my industry into the quagmire of costly legal debate, not to protect the rights of inventors, but to further corporate coffers.
The reason that I write today is because a frivolous, non-technology patent was granted on April 9th. Patent 6,368,227 was granted for "Method of swinging on a swing", and describes a method in which a person swinging on a playground swing could swing sideways. This patent is the best indicator that the U.S. Patent Office needs serious review.
I call upon you to investigate this matter further, and if the investigation warrants, bring this topic up for debate within the House of Representatives. It is time that we begin to fix those areas of Government that are not performing their prescribed duty and return them to working for the people again.
I sig, therefore I am.
I didn't think so. This patent stands.
I propose a new moderation level for this type of posts: "Hillarious", it would cost 2 moderation points but only add +1 to the post's Score.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Didn't McDonalds do a fine job of spinning that case in their favor, even though they lost?
Now everyone points to it as an example of frivolousness, although it is actually not the best exemplar of this phenomenon.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
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.
If they don't get a C&D from one, they'll be hearing from another.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
So does this mean the Patent Office now implicitly agrees that they think patents are silly, too?
That just gave me an idea, issue a patent for approval that patents the process of patenting silly things.
Either they will have to find prior art (there are tons but I doubt they have the balls to point them out), or grant the patent.
And if they grant the patent, you can collect fees from anyone who 'infringes' on your invention.
Voila, no more silly patents.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Mail this to CNN or some other news site that most Americans read. If the general public learns about this then there will be an outrage and changes may be made to the patent office. Any complaints slashdotters send in is only a fraction of a percent of the number of Americans out there.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Moderation Totals: Troll=1, Redundant=1, Total=2.
And probably this one too.... hell i found it funny
Burning karma, just for shits and giggles....
OK, has anyone patented twisting the ropes a few dozen times, before lifting ones feet off the ground causing the user to twist very quickly in the opposite direction?
;-)
(Thereby inducing dizzyness)
And if not, should we club together and get this one? Might make a fortune
The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
Here it is:
To: usptoinfo@uspto.gov
Subject: Patents
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:05:08 -0300
Hi. I am a swing researcher, and in my advanced studies to find out how kids swing, I came to the conclusion that 99.38% +-0.62 of
the average american kid has swong sideways, at least once in his lifetime. This study was conducted with careful observation of
2.495.487 kids swinging, and took 10 years of my life.
So I guess my research pretty much conflicts with patent # 6,368,227 (Olson April 9, 2002).
Shall I publicize my findings ?
Or can I be sued if I do so ?
TIA.
If only I had published my sideways swinging method in the New England Journal of Swinging 27 years ago, I would now have documented prior art! Curse you Steven Olson! Curse your cold black heart!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
People will won't see this an example of general bad patent granting policies, they'll just see it as a mistake.
I'm hoping to obtain a patent for "Utilizing the methane producing capabilitites of sybiotic colonic microbes to produce sound pressure waves emitted from the anus modulated by sphinctal muscle control".
This is my 1000th post! w00t!
I think the monkeys would actually do a better job. Many of these patents would insult the patent monkey's intelligence.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I got dibs on the bubble sort!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
http://www.ipo.org/PTODay_99.htm - here the name of Peter L. Olson is mentioned. He seems to work for 3M. He makes presentation on prosecution issues - scary..:)
m l
http://www.micropat.com/og/ogn980210/patrequ.ht
He is again listed as attorney for 3M on adjudication of certain patent.
RFC's are not enforcable by law.
The Patent clame is only for a swing attached by 2 chanes to a tree.
So any one swinning on a metal framed swing, or a swing with more than 2 chaines, or a conection mecanism not comprising of a chain, will not be effected by this patent
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
I'm sorry, but there's no justification for tissue piracy!
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I think lawyers (as well as computer scientists) are simply guilty of creating the system which they work with. Lawyers created the legal system in such a way to require lawyers. Computer scientists have created computer systems to require computer scientists. It's classic self-validation, self-preservation, self-ishness that drives the capitalist USSA.
I think it's wonderful, because you create your own job. I just wish I knew more about law, because that is the fastest growing self-perpetuating system and is probably going to be a VERY good business to be in (it already is).
Lawyers will tell you (and rightfully so) that as the world gets more complex, and the world population grows larger, the possibility of dispute increases accordingly. Of course, they neglect to mention the fact that they are the major cause of dispute..
But, really, it's amazing that 6 or 7 billion people can all pretty much get along on one planet, and really, unfair stuff doesn't happen all that often. But, to remain on topic, it is pretty funny when a system we setup to be foolproof ends up making a fool of us all.
I think this should be a lesson to all the judges out there: they need to take much more into consideration than just a patent application. And they do. If only they couldn't be bribed.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
That reminds me, I have to patent the tire swing.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
You get a year to file your patent after it's disclosed (in the US), but overseas patent rights are lost.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Do these moronic drones have ANY CAPACITY FOR THOUGHT?!! There has to be a century of prior art on this, as in, ask any 6 year old kid.
The only "innovation" here is in thinking to file for a patent. I guess these guys are going to go around suing playgrounds for royalties.
If any of these idiots at the USPTO dare to cash their paychecks, they are comitting fraud. This madness has got to stop.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
...that the USPTO is not responsible for the patents it has granted. If they were responsible, then someone could sue them for issuing a bad patent. That would certainly get their attention.
Hey, you issued those guys a bad patent, causing our company to go through a very expensive legal process. We are suing you for $25M damages and legal fees that we wouldn't have suffered if you hadn't screwed up.
The rear doors of the van burst open and ATF agents stream out and into the playground, ringing the preschoolers with their automatic weapons at the ready. Little Tommy pees his pants.
The preschoolers are handcuffed with zip ties and escorted solemnly back to the van to be shipped to Leavenworth, Kansas for 14 years of hard labor.
So any one swinning on a metal framed swing, or a swing with more than 2 chaines, or a conection mecanism not comprising of a chain, will not be effected by this patent
However, I swung from a swing connected to a branch of a tree, originally connected with rope, later replaced by chain. This was done at my uncle's and I can claim prior are minimally back to the mid 1950's (that's the earliest I can remember being out at their place on the swing).
What gets me is that this thing could even go through the patent process. Are the ones reviewing them so sheltered in their lives they never sat on a swing as a kid and went sideways? Even on a regular swing set with multiple swings it was done, one just ran into the swing next to it, but who cared. It also shows the lunacy of those who'd even attempt such a filing. There should be a 'frivilous filing' fine as there can be for frivilous legal suits.
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?
rsync: a great idea... particularly as at least one very large (60,000 files) dataset gets "mirrored" from one site another using... drumroll please maestro... DOS `COPY'. So they won't have heard or rsync (or wget --mirror, or LWP::Simple or any of the thousand-and-one mirroring utils on sourceforge)... heh. damas, I just mailed you at Yahoo so we can sort out the cash if I get anywhere with this.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I never got the patent law information but from my little inquiry, my limited understanding leads me to believe that this is a perfect case for negligence per se, which is when you don't actually have to prove negligence, it is just understood that the act is so blatantly negligent that you don't have to argue why the reasonable professional would not have performed said act (like amputating the wrong leg). However as somone else posted, it is possible the rules and restrictions of patent law protect the patent examiner in this case, and I am not sure who would be the appropriate party to bring a suit against this guy, but I would love to see someone try.
I can see it now.
"w00t! f1rst p4nt3nt!"
That would force the govt/s to reform the patent registration process.
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?
Without the protection of a monopoly on their methods, children would not have a sufficient incentive to play. Imagine a world where the children do not play. That would be aweful. You don't hate children, do you?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
When a child acts out in stupid ways, possibly hurting themselves, it is often called a "cry for help." Perhaps this is just the final straw. Granting the 1-click patent was a call by the lowly clerks to give them better funding, better education and make the process more logical, we didn't listen.
Then they went and ostensibly called for public comments and ignored the responses. Again, a classic cry for help; persisting in destructive behavior despite signs to stop.
Now we have come to this, an official temper-tantrum on the part of the USPTO. You might sum it up as: "You won't give me what I need to do my job, FINE! I'm gonna patent Everything See how you like that!!!."
Fellow Americans, fellow parents, of the poor neglected USPTO, it is time to listen to our child, and give them back the ability to do their damn job.
This is abviously an April Fool's day joke that was so lame it took two weeks to surface.
I'm a 2000 man.
Please use trademark names properly to reduce trademark dilution. From now on, it's "Kleenex (R) brand facial tissues".
Sincerely,
Kimberly-Clark(R) Corporation
(R) Registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark Corporation (C) 1938, 1986, 2000 KCC. All rights reserved
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
- Show junior what dad does at work all day.
- Point out that our patent system needs some reforms.
- Provides a lot of advertizing for Dad's business.
I'm not sure what Dad intended at the start, but the last item is surely the most valuable to him now.Seriously. If you have a person who's genetically engineered, they contain patented materials. Just as the seed industry (Monsanto?) sues farmers that save seeds for reuse, why not sue people for this? If they pass their genetic immunity to this disease to the next generation (without paying a royalty to the company), how will the poor widdle company make its money back? :P
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
He's going to be the only kid in his gradeschool with a patent, that's what. It's a novelty, a vanity patent, if you will, the sort of gift that a patent attorney is almost uniquely qualified to give his son. I think it's kind of sweet, to tell you the truth, and I daresay he'll never attempt to enforce it. Perhaps he'll donate license to the children of the world or somesuch.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
It looks like Peter Olson is a patent attorney for 3M (Which is based in St. Paul - the address in the patent) Look at these couple of documents that talk about a "Peter L Olson" First document and second document
From the last paragraph of the patent it states "the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging."
I'm going to guess that Peter Olson is dad and he gave his son, Steven, a gift of his very own patent. A pretty cool hack of the patent system if you ask me. Also goes to show how screwed up the system is.
A little poking at Mapquest and you can get a good aerial view the tree that inspired the patent as well.
Evidence of prior fart?
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
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
If you're tired of obvious patents like this, then do something about it! This patent is a golden opportunity to shine some light on the disgrace that the patent office has become. This is a smoking gun!
The computer industry suffers increasingly from bad patents being granted on obvious techniques which are far from novel. This trend is obvious to us, but not so clearcut to those outside the industry. An XOR cursor may be obvious to a programmer, but sounds quite novel and non-obvious to a layperson. This patent should be blatently obvious to anyone, including your elected representatives!
Everyone who reads Slashdot and hates to see obvious patents should print out this patent, schedule a face-to-face meeting with their elected representatives, show them this ridiculous patent and use it to drive home the point we've been trying to make for years -- that the patent office is out of control and completely ignoring the "novel and non-obvious" standards that the law sets before patent protection is warranted. If enough of us do this, Congress might actually get the hint and start taking patent reform seriously. And this patent doesn't require them to take our word for it; they can see for themselves how absurd this patent is! It doesn't matter if this patent was requested as a lark; it was granted and has the full force of law behind it.
We need Congress to be outraged about this patent as an example of the corruption in the system. Whether or not this particular patent could or would ever be enforced is irrelevant; if patents are granted on obvious methods, it harms the public interest by granting a legal monopoly on the obvious. That impedes progress and economic growth, endangers companies and jobs, and erodes public trust and confidence in the government -- all things that Congress ought to care about...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Sorry, I think you're gonna have to pay up
When I pay up, it will be proof positive of prior art. I graduated HS in the '70's and haven't done much on a swing set since.
The truth shall set you free!
from USPTO corrections page:
"Any person may file a request for reexamination of a patent, along with the required fee, on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. At the conclusion of the reexamination proceedings, a certificate setting forth the results of the reexamination proceeding is issued."
from there fees page:
147 1.20(c)(1) Request for ex parte reexamination 2,520.00
099 1.20(c)(2) Request for inter partes reexamination 8,800.00
it is sad that getting a re-examination is about 10 times more expensive then filing a claim.
I wonder what the Bars official view is a lawyers who waste texpayer money, file something they know can't hold up in court is?
going to have to find out.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow. This is revolutionary. The gentleman receiving the patent has developed a way to cause a pendulum to travel in an oval orbit as opposed to the more common elliptical orbit.
An oval is, of course, asymmetric about the "short" axis (just like an egg) whereas an ellipse is symmetric about both axes.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
That's great, I can already see the headline stories:
"Boy, 8 years of age, sent to prison for 30 years to life, for infringing on patent for the third time."
"Six year old girl agrees to pay two gummy bears, one red, one green, to settle patent infringement claims..."
I wonder if I can patent putting your pants on one leg at a time... then I just need to copyright the phrase and I'll be set for life!
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
How nice. So the tax-payer is now the one responsible for paying for the various overhead that such an "amusement" patent generates.
Coming as this does at tax-time, my "amusement" threshold is rather low.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Young children often need help to climb onto a swing, and may need a push (sometimes even an "underdog" push) to begin swinging
Nice to know the USPTO will still permit the unlicensed use of underdoggies for my 2-year-old!
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
The saddest thing here is the (low) number of people reading your post that could actually claim "prior art" on this one..
In England, public sector workers tend to get significantly less than they would get in the business sector. What is (possibly) different on this side of the pond is that we often grossly increase the pay of public sector workers and the quality doesn't improve. In the case of school teachers, the personnel quality has actually declined quite a lot in my lifetime, even though their paychecks have increased greatly, both absolutely and in comparison to most other workers. Forty years ago public schools around here paid about like sweeping the floor in a unionized auto plant, and people that found they hated teaching almost all got out. Now they are likely to stay in, because without significant talents or an education far more rigorous than teacher's courses, they can't get another job paying nearly as well.
Fire the incompetents? Never happens in gov't service. I ran into two incompetent teachers in public schools, from 1958-1971. (By the way, on this side of the pond "public school" means 100% tax-supported and government-controlled, by distinction to tuition-charging "private schools". Private schools often provide superior education at 1/2 the per-pupil budget.) One incompetent was in her first year teaching; my 6th grade class drove her into a "nervous breakdown", and she didn't come back for a second year. The other one had been in the same job 20 years already, and had been just as incompetent all along -- I have no idea why he stayed, except he probably was too lazy to keep _any_ real job.) But when my son reached high-school age, about 50% of the local public high-school staff didn't know the subjects they were teaching. Needless to say, he didn't go there.
Now for the real bad news: apply this principle to airport security. The past: underpaid McDonald's rejects working for private security firms. The present: the same McDonald's rejects shifting to the government payroll. The future: McDonald's rejects that cannot be fired, drawing three times the pay at taxpayer's expense...
I want to patent kicking this guy's ass for doing something this stupid. Prior art, anybody?
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
I'll have you know that I've just patented a method of transport that involves two legs moving in parallel in opposite directions with the objective of propelling oneself forward.
And by the way, your lucky you didn't violate my other patent...
I won't say what it was but let's just say that if you had stated "first post", "f1rst p0st" or anyother derivative thereof I would have sued you into oblivion;-)
I stole this Sig
Here? on slashdot? I'll take your word for it, but the far more likely suggestion around here is cluelessness.
slashdot, where even Meryl Streep fans can moderate (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30557&cid=32
:)
hawk
I guess it's now safe for me to disclose a patent-pending process I've developed for swing-powered flight. It involves the more traditional leg-pump forward/backward swinging, so I don't believe I'll owe any royalties on the side-swinging patent.
My process can be performed at any stage of swinging, but maximum effectiveness is obtained when the chains or ropes become momentarily slack at the outer range of motion.
At this point, the swing operator would reposition their arms so that their elbows are (and here's the important part) in front of the chains. Then at the edge of the forward motion arc, the operator uses his/her arms to lift up slightly of the swing and releases their grip on the chains/ropes. The forward momentum provides for a brief period of flight.
I'm also working on an alternate means of forward propulsion that I've decided to call "skipping."
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
You're right on, d00d. This HAS to be a joke.
Any bets on if it'll turn up as a story on The Daily Show(tm)?
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
> It's those damn kids that are sharing kleenex
>that are causing the drop in sales.
It's not the drop in sales that concerns me, it's the spread of disease.
Call for Kleenex exchange programs in your city NOW.
-l
Sorry, but as your nearest DVD will inform you, copyright infringement carries criminal penalties, and you can in fact be arrested, at least for that. I'm not so sure about patent infringements. Remember that there is no such thing as "intellectual property" recognized by the law.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
No one who ever proposes the infinite number of monkeys solution ever stops to think about the monkey shit. Or how much banannas would set them back...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Now that's what I call government intelligence.
cat