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

Interesting...

[Sapphon]

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 ;-)

Sure, it's obvious. Now.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

[glwtta]

very negligent

That's the point! It's not the person patenting this that's causing the "uproar" it's the patent office.

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.

Re:Wrong topic.

[Lonath]

Yes it is something to get your panties in a knot about. If the USPTO allows bullshit patents like this through, then how many bullshit software patents are there? It costs a million dollars+ to break even one patent. Remember that even if this is a "joke", the owner can sue someone for use of this and they can bankrupt a normal person since a normal person isn't sitting on millions of dollars. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the patent office granting patents on any old thing.

As another example, should the USPTO be granting patents on some little rinky-dink calculations in CIFS so MS can stop SAMBA from existing? It's the same bullshit anything-goes mentality that gets us patents like that.

Re:April Fool's is long past

[shyster]

What I can't figure out with this (and other stupid patents) is why it takes 1500 words to describe a method of swinging!?! Evidently, the patent office gets wowed by "technical" words such as parallel, perpendicular, and X-axis. Then, they are no longer able to think rationally and approve the patent.

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 great!

[Mister Transistor]

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!

I don't get it

[digitect]

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?)

Re:I don't get it

[NewtonsLaw]

Come on folks -- it's unreasonable to expect the patent office to act as judge and jury in respect to patent claims -- that's what the courts are for.

Registering a patent does not prove that you were first to come up with an idea or invention -- it simply provides you with the ability to prove that you were in posession of such knowledge at the time you filed the registration.

In effect -- a patent is little more than proof of knowledge at a specific time/date, and a right to sue.

If we were to place the onus of verifying each application's technical merit and freedom from prior art -- then it's unlikely that anyone other than the large corporates could afford to register their inventions.

Default should be deny.

[Kris_J]

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?

Re:Default should be deny.

[armb]

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

If the patent office can't understand a swing, things are even worse than we thought.

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

How many is too many? Maybe hundreds or thousands of IBM's patents really are reasonable, original, useful and non-obvious. Applying for lots of patents might sometimes be a sign of abuse of the system, but denying patents after some arbitrary number is unfair to large companies doing lots of research. If it costs money to submit a patent application, and dodgy ones are rejected, companies will reduce dodgy submissions without a limit on how many they can have.

Anyway, large companies could just get individuals or spin-off companies to patent stuff and then licence them back to the companies on favourable terms.

Re:Default should be deny.

[ZanshinWedge]

A patent does not specifically have any legal standing by itself. It is up to the courts to decide the legitimacy of a patent. To require a full level of investigation of a patent and prior art would make getting any patent far too difficult. The way patents work now are they way they *should* work.

The problem comes when we have blatantly stupid patents and blatantly stupid courts and blatantly stupid people. A company can use a baseless patent with no backing in the courts to harrass other companies, organizations, or individuals, especially if those organizations have less resources for things like legal battles.

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.

I'm not surprised...

[m_evanchik]

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.

Cease and Desist Notice

[circletimessquare]

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.

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.

Re:The USPTO is Slashdotted

[Hrunting]

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.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. In an era where people don't tune into politics because there aren't any real issues, let's throw the whole geek-led patent issue at them. When will the geek community learn that the best way to forward geek causes is not to try and get the general populace behind them? You would think after the beatings in high school we would learn that our plights don't interest those in the "real" world.

Look, our country is in a recession. The rich are getting tax breaks. More people are living in poverty. Social security, which many in our generation believe will form the foundation of our post-retirement earnings, is in jeopardy of falling apart. There is a war against terrorism and a parallel war against human rights. When you stack the fact that out of the thousands of patents that the USPTO gives out a year, a few are silly and challengable against the real problems plaguing our country right now, I don't think we're talking an election year issue.

Geeks need to get off their horses and walk among the people for whom silly patents and the lawsuits that question them are not life-challenging events.

p.s. The last thing we need is ESR getting on national television as a representative of the geek community. If you want to talk about ways to connect geek causes with mainstream America, ESR does not enter into the conversation.

Re:April Fool's is long past

[glwtta]

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.

Mastermind

[_Sprocket_]

We now have proof of a machiavellian genious working within the USPTO. We may not know his intent, but we do know his modus operandi: absurdity.

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...

Re:what about copyright infringment

[mbrubeck]

You can't actually be arested over IP (for now at least).

However, you can be thrown in jail, held for weeks, away from family and friends without a hearing, and detained in a foreign country for weeks.

The inventor is a 7 year old

[btempleton]

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?

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:Sure, it's obvious. Now.

[cybermage]

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.

To be fair...

[Observer]

... to the USPTO, my understanding is that provided an examiner with reasonable knowledge of the field doesn't find any published prior art, then they're under an obligation to issue the patent. And on the whole it's a good thing that examiners' discretion to reject applications is limited to the claims themselves, and not (subjective) assessments of what is or is not ridiculous or useful.

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".

Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now.

[Technician]

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.

Re:if i were a patent lawyer

[redhatbox]

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...

These laws exist to be broken, not adhered to

[Zoop]

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.

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!

Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now.

[Micah]

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.

Read it a little more closely:

As is apparent to those of ordinary skill in the area of swinging, the chains could be replaced with ropes, cables, or the like, or the tree branch could be replaced with another substantially horizontal support such as a metal bar or pole.

Sorry, I think you're gonna have to pay up...

Patent holder's father is patent attorney

[klarck]

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.

Not a mad idea..

[AftanGustur]

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.

Re:Moderation changes.

[Kerg]

I have already patented that idea.

Curses!

[Greyfox]

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!

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:Sure, it's obvious. Now.

[SpinyNorman]

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!

Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now.

[Mononoke]

...I think Kleenex will still see a drop in sales.

Don't you get it? It's those damn kids that are sharing kleenex that are causing the drop in sales.

I'm sorry, but there's no justification for tissue piracy!

The problem is...

[Ecyrd]

...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.

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?

This is why we need patents

[Sloppy]

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?

Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now.

[r_j_prahad]

Evidence of prior fart?

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 :)

Are you tired of obvious patents?

[Deven]

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...

Re:In That Case...

[maxpublic]

Sometimes government workers, especially those lower down on the food chain, think that the system sucks too. And they will actively work to point out the flaws in such a fashion as to make it painfully obvious to even the most brain-dead of folks that something is wrong in Bureaucracy-Land.

I can't imagine that the clerk who saw this wasnt' aware of the absurdity of the situation. No doubt he/she looked at it as the perfect opportunity to point out the silliness of current ip laws, especially in his now-incredibly-overworked office. And I'm sure that someone higher up the chain - a management type - is giving him shit about it.

Max

Re:if i were a patent lawyer

[mandolin]

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.

The saddest thing here is the (low) number of people reading your post that could actually claim "prior art" on this one..

Re:Fairly bright?

[markmoss]

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...