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."

21 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting... by Sapphon · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  2. Sure, it's obvious. Now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  3. 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...
  4. 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?

    1. Re:Default should be deny. by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

  5. I'm not surprised... by m_evanchik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Cease and Desist Notice by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  7. Re:Wrong topic. by number11 · · Score: 4, Informative

    >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.

  8. The inventor is a 7 year old by btempleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now. by Technician · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  10. Re:if i were a patent lawyer by redhatbox · · Score: 4, Funny


    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...

  11. 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.

  12. Not a mad idea.. by AftanGustur · · Score: 5, Funny


    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
  13. Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  14. Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now. by Mononoke · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...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!

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  15. Wrong. by Irvu · · Score: 4, Informative
    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?
  16. This is why we need patents by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  17. Re:Sure, it's obvious. Now. by r_j_prahad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Evidence of prior fart?

  18. Are you tired of obvious patents? by Deven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  19. Re:In That Case... by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  20. Re:if i were a patent lawyer by mandolin · · Score: 5, Funny
    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..