Patent Granted on Sideways Swinging 508
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."
OMG ... its true (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Wrong topic. (Score:3, Informative)
Do we need any more proof (Score:4, Informative)
How about a $10,000 fine for any patent clerk who approves any patent requests that are obvious, cover business practices or are just painfully stupid. (Higher damages if a patent request is in two or three categories...) I think it's only fair - if you're found to "violate" one of these bogus patents, it's going to cost you five times that just to get in front of a judge.
I have a hunch the fellow who sent this one in was trying to make a point. At least, I hope that's what was going on...
Re:Wrong topic. (Score:4, Informative)
It's a gen-u-wine US patent. Backed by whatever force of law genuine US patents have. And possessing whatever moral force the law provides.
>someone out to prove that the patent office is either overworked or very negligent.
Probably. Did anyone notice that the patent lawyer has the same last name as the patent holder? And remarkably enough, the phone listing for the attorney (or, at least, somebody with the same name as the attorney) is for the same address as the inventor. It would appear daddy used junior as a stand-in here.
Re:Wrong topic. (Score:3, Informative)
More details on this page [despair.com].
The USPTO is Slashdotted (Score:3, Informative)
The USPTO has become such an outrage that it needs to become in issue in this year's elections. That can only happen if media attention can be drawn to absurd patents, and this is just the kind of thing to do it. Everyone can understand how preposterous this is; and then, if we're lucky, the TV news will get someone like Bruce Perens or ESR as a talking head for background, and that person can go on to say, "You know the patent office does this all the time, let me give you some more examples, and let me explain the damage that it does to our economy." It's our best chance.
If we're unlucky, they'll put on an M$ spokesmen, who will use the TV sound bite to blast the GPL as an evil, anti-capitalist plot.
Re:Wrong topic. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
That's a USPTO.GOV link! (Score:3, Informative)
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:April Fool's is long past (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That's a USPTO.GOV link! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:kick in the system not the poor bloody workers (Score:5, Informative)
Warning advisory: Some of this may have changed when the Office converted to the new structure, but the following is basically believed to be true.
The examiner pay scale for series GS-1224 ranges from GS-5 to GS-15 (too lazy to look up the current pay chart); The lifer Primary Examiner (Full Signatory Authority) is a GS-14 (An application must be signed by a Primary to be allowed).
There are Production Quotas, called "Goals"; the quota is determined by a combination of the "art" area(s) you are assigned (each area is asigned a normalized "H/BD" rating) and your Grade and Authority, expressed as a factor (historically called "the Feldman factor" after a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patents).
The Primary Examiner Grade, GS-14, is actually relatively high by general government standards, especially for a non-supervisory position.
As for the merits of this case, no need for me to just pile on. In my day lots of us in my Group got a big kick over some of the infamous patents that came out, like the "Religious Bar of Soap" or the Board of Appeals decision reversing a final rejection of a perpetual motion application based on magnets (a classic subject of perpetual motion claims).
Re:Default should be deny. (Score:4, Informative)
While I agree the Patent Office needs to be reformed. Your suggestion doesn't fix any of the problems, and only penalizes inventors. How about some useful suggestions like more funding to hire more examiners. Or did you know that examiners have to fill quotas -- that is process X number of applications per week. How about getting rid of the quotas or reducing them.
I live in D.C. and actually know some patent examiners. They are not the complete idiots that ./'ers think they are. Many of them have Ph.D.'s in the field that they examine -- e.g., a Ph.D. in biochemistry looks at biochemistry patents. At the same time, they have to live within the beauracracy, and it's inane rules.
Reform is good, as long as its sensible.
Re:Don't put this on slashdot. (Score:3, Informative)
- Robin
Re:Patent holder's father is patent attorney (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a Real Audio clip [npr.org] of the entire show.
This story was covered on NPR over the weekend with a fluff/human interest angle. Sorry, couldn't find it in their archives.
Re:just like the RFC's (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
See also Chapter 10 [cornell.edu] Patentability of Inventions. Or here [cornell.edu] for a summary.
The interesting question is, did Olsen violate his oath [cornell.edu] in applying for this, or was he serious?
Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)
I think where the patent office went wrong was that they started allowing concepts to be patented. Inventions or processes are fine as there is a defineable method you go through to get a result. A specific engine, chemical process, etc. But allowing patents for a one-click shopping system? For swinging in a circle? How can they sign off on these things?
Re:Talk About the playground Bully.... (Score:3, Informative)
At least he's willing to license the patent (see the end of the abstract), and also that the patent specifically references a "tree branch". The real "money" goes to whoever patents an extension of this one to cover those cases where the swing is suspended from a metal bar supported by supports arranged in an isoceles triangle
Re:These laws exist to be broken, not adhered to (Score:3, Informative)
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:kick in the system not the poor bloody workers (Score:1, Informative)
most come in at a gs7/10 which is 51.5k
http://www3.uspto.gov/go/jars/sgs.html