9 ms·
Patent US6368227 - Method of swinging on a swing
- DigitalSea 14y agoThis is disgusting. It's disgusting that just the other day I saw kids probably no older than 6 violating this very patent in a public playground of all places. Six year olds violating patents, what has society become? They were smiling and giggling with their friends swinging on the swingsets, hopefully the criminals responsible for violating this patent are dealt with to the full extent of the law. In all seriousness though, it's patents like this that are the reason the patent system is as broken and messed up as it is. You can patent anything if you use enough convuluted words in a couple of paragraphs it would seem.
- bmeckel 14y agoThose monsters. Have they no sense of the society they are spitting on. As you said though, this really is the perfect example of what's wrong with the patent system. There needs to be an overhaul of what can be patented and how to go about it, but the companies with the influence to do so have no real incentive to do so, as most of them own the patents that they need.
- calvinlough 14y agoThis patent is for side-to-side swinging. IANAL, but if they were doing the traditional forward-backward swinging they should be okay.
- noonespecial 14y agoIt will however require the services of a competent patent attorney at a cost of around $1mm and approximately 3 years in a court in Eastern Texas to prove that they are in fact "okay".
- marshray 14y agoDon't worry, we can start out by getting a judge to enjoin the probable infringement. We'll make sure no kids are allowed to attend elementary school during those 3 years.
- jswift 14y agoThis patent is also for tree branches. With chains. Regular metal frames in playgrounds are exempted and so too are tree branches with ropes.
- fpgeek 14y agoWondeful! Lots of room for follow-on patents! (said the patent lawyer)
- camiller 14y agoDid you attempt to assertain if they had or had not in fact liscensed this patent? Let's not make assumptions after all.
- utopkara 14y agoBefore pulling the end of world pickets from the attic, just have a look at the last page of the patent. None of the claims are granted. If anything, this shows the level of crap the patent examiners have to deal with everyday.
- pkteison 14y agoThe patent was granted in 2002, then claims revoked in 2003 after bad press. So it's still fairly damning on the system.
- DigitalSea 14y agoExactly. The very fact it was approved in the first place proves the system is massively flawed. If it took bad press for it to be revoked, that just makes the patent system look even worse.
- blktiger 14y agoWhat I want to know is why does is this patent referenced by a Microsoft patent that is completely unrelated? http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US8181265 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US8181265 Does Microsoft think the patent system is a joke?
- tamasnet 14y agoI love the fact that this same MS patent also references "Method of exercising a cat" http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036.
- cskau 14y agoAlso seems to reference 'Method of exercising a cat', http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036
- rfrey 14y agoPassive-aggressive gesture by the engineers after being strong-armed into working through the application?
- bhavin 14y agoI went through both Samsung and MSFT patents that 'refer' to this patents. This patent, in both cases, is cited by the examiner. So, my idea behind that is the examiner either didn't like his job or had a good sense of humor about whole patent process!
- DigitalJack 14y agoOr it was a form of protest. Those patents are now tied to absurdist humor forever.
- mherdeg 14y agoCould this have been a joke by the patent examiner who handled the document? If you look very closely at this Microsoft patent document (http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US8181265?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US8181265?printsec=abstract#...), on page 2, you'll see that the reference to the swing patent has an asterisk next to it. The document says, specifically, on page 2: … 6,368,227 B1* 4/2002 Olson…472/118 … * cited by examiner A handful of other the "cited by examiner" references are to apparently useful references (other patents that cover antipiracy stuff). Dunno why the examiner would add the swing patent unless perhaps they thought their system was a joke? Or am I misreading what the asterisk means? (The examiner also cited the "method of exercising a cat" patent in this document.)
- bockris 14y agoIIRC this was a joke patent that they put forward just to see what they could get away with.
- gojko 14y agohow about this one as well http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6004596 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6004596
- smoyer 14y agoOr maybe not so much a joke as an absurdity used to prove a point? I actually wish there were more patents like this as it would lead to tighter examination. I also don't think it's an accident that the inventor and filing attorney have the same last name. It's hard to justify the cost of doing this unless you can get the lawyer for free. It's not the filing fees that are expensive so much as the rest of the process.
- astangl 14y agoI looked at costs of filing a patent awhile back. Seems relatively cheap to file, if you do as much work yourself as possible, however the maintenance fees they require you to pay at 3.5 yrs, 7.5 yrs, and 11.5 yrs, to keep the patent in effect, get progressively steeper. I wonder if this guy has paid any of the maintenance fees?
- jchung 14y agoTo be fair, the patent was filed by a five year old whose patent-attorney father was trying to educate on how the patent process works. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/patents-patent-office-faces-huge-backlogs-extremely-technical-inventions-absurd.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/patents-patent-of... Perhaps he taught his son even more than he expected.
- antiterra 14y agoIt's also expired due to nonpayment of fees.
- ctdonath 14y agoConfirmed; the US Patent Office says "Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362".
- danielweber 14y agoAnd as scott_meade points out, all the claims were canceled.
- innguest 14y agoGood! I can finally swing from side to side again.
- sailfast 14y agoThank you - this article was a key piece of the puzzle and should certainly temper any severe rage over patent trolling on swings.
- MartinCron 14y agoWhen I explained the patent system to my young child, he came up with an invention for a marshmallow roaster that roasts from the inside. I was tempted to go through the steps of filing a patent for him so we could both learn from the process, but the time effort wasn't worth it. No, we have no working prototype for this world-changing device.
- PhantomLobe 14y agoYo dawg...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- drharris 14y agoHas nobody noticed there is no issue date? You can file any patent you want, but if it's actually issued, that's another problem.
- DigitalSea 14y agoBetter prepare yourself, on the left hand side there is in-fact an issue date, "Issue date: 9 Apr 2002" which is beneath the filing date "Filing date: 17 Nov 2000"
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- OllieJones 14y agoIt's been a while since Albert Einstein worked in the patent office, eh?
- manaskarekar 14y agoHave you seen this patent on 'refreshing a bread product by heating ...': http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436?hl=en http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436?hl=en
- yk 14y agoTo be fair, that patent claims: b) setting the temperature of the heating elements between 2500 F. and 4500 F So it is using light bulbs to heat the bread. Which is somewhat imaginative compared to using an oven.
- philh 14y agoI actually never realised that a swing could be used like this. I always just went forwards and backwards.
- dctoedt 14y agoWhen you think about it, patent examiners make industrial policy that affects the entire United States for up to 20 years. To be fair, the USPTO takes that responsibility pretty seriously. Still, examiners are human --- and a lot of them aren't experienced enough to have signature authority: their actions must be signed by their supervisors, who have to oversee multiple junior examiners. In many fields, the examining corps is pretty buried by the workload and doesn't have the time or other resources they'd like to have. [EDIT: In response to 'dkhenry, I agree, there's no excuse for the patent being discussed here.] This examiner burden is exacerbated by three things: First, patent examiners' performance is graded in part on the basis of a "count system," which provides at least some incentive for examiners to allow at least some claims [1]. Second, the statute mandates that a patent be issued unless the examiner can demonstrate that the application is not patentable. Third, there's no requirement that a patent applicant conduct any kind of patentability search. An applicant and his patent attorney must disclose any "material" prior art of which they're aware, but the applicant need not do any kind of literature search. [EDIT: When you apply for a patent, you pay filing fees in part to help cover some of the cost of having a patent examiner do a search.] Just imagine if a PhD candidate wasn't required to do a literature survey as part of her dissertation work, but instead her advisor and thesis committee were required to approve her degree unless they and their TAs could affirmatively demonstrate that her research was insufficiently novel. That's not unlike the way it works in the patent system. And now think of how much more national impact can result from the issuance of a patent compared to the issuance of a PhD degree. Inventors and patent attorneys tend to fiercely oppose any proposal that patent applicants be required to conduct prior-art searches, on grounds that it would increase the cost of a patent application. But if an inventor wants a national industrial policy to be made in his favor that will last for as much as 20 years, it doesn't seem per se unreasonable for society to require him to do some due diligence first. (Of course, as long as the law is what it is, patent applicants, including my own clients, will quite properly abide by the law as it is and not as some might think it ought to be.) Richard Stallman once asserted, in testimony at the USPTO [2], that: --snip-- Some years ago a professor I know patented Kirchoff's current law, which says that the electric currents flowing into a junction equal the currents flowing out. He did this to confirm, privately, his suspicion that the PTO could not handle the field of electronics. He never tried to enforce the patent which has since expired. I will disclose his name if you give assurances that he and his lawyer will not get in trouble for this. Kirchoff's laws were formulated in 1845. If the PTO couldn't understand electricity after a century, how can we expect it to understand software in another decade or two. (applause) --snip-- [1] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/usptos-new-examiner-count-system-go-into-effect/id=9310/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/usptos-new-examiner-cou... [2] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/sanjose/sj_stallman.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/sanjo...
- jorgeleo 14y agoThe patent it self is so simple and basic, that mind as well be someone teaching exercise into the patents world. What it is making me "uncomfortable" is that patents from Microsoft (Secure machine counting) and Samsung (transistor substrate) refer to them...
- bhavin 14y agoNo they don't. In both cases, this patent is cited by the examiner, who probably had good sense of humor.
- dctoedt 14y agoIf a patent examiner cited the swinging patent in an application involving actual technology, I would guess the examiner might have intended the citation as a red flag, a signal to future judges and juries that the examiner regarded the application as bogus but couldn't prove it.
- scott_meade 14y agoThere is nothing patented in this patent. Note that "Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 are cancelled". That's all of the claims.
- monochromatic 14y agoWait, where does it say that?
- jryan49 14y agoLast page.
- monochromatic 14y agoAh, I didn't realize it'd gone into reexam. That seems like a silly waste of money.
- gojko 14y agoand here's another one. Wheel patented (in Australia) as a "circular transportation facilitation device" http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-...
- jprobitaille 14y agoThe Australian Innovation Patent isn't really a patent. When an application is filed a formalities check is completed, but no prior art search is conducted. Also, the inventor and assignee of an AIP can't litigate. If one wanted to, the Australian Patent Office would need to examine and issue an allowance as a standard patent. From the perspective of the US patent system, the AIP is more like a provisional patent application than anything else. http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/patents/types-of-patents/innovation-patent/ http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/patents/types...
- camiller 14y agoIf I had the money to throw away for the application fee I was going to patent "A Digital Method for Removal of Sinus Mucal Buildup"
- Zenst 14y agoAre we allowed to discuss this without violating Patent number: 6715762 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6715762 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6715762 Maybe this is a way to avoid parking tickets, who knows, anything is viable with the right lawyer these days.
- dkhenry 14y agoThe real question is why do Primary Examiner: Kien T. Nguyen and Attorney: Peter Lowell Olson Still have jobs at the patent office ( if they do ). We should be able to demand the termination of public servants who do not do their jobs.
- sliverstorm 14y agoInventor: Steven Olson Attorney: Peter Lowell Olson
- jryan49 14y agoLook at the last page. The claims are "cancelled". I'm guessing that makes the patent invalid.
- curveship 14y agoIt's a tongue-in-cheek troll, and a beautiful one at that. Someone filed this on behalf of his/her son. Check out the last lines of the application, with emphasis added: -- snip -- Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. 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. Licenses are available from the inventor upon request. -- end snip -- edit: formatting
- forgivegod 14y agoI wish I was a troll with a law degree.
- alphaBetaGamma 14y agoI rather like this one. Though to be fair, it was probably correct to award it: it's definitely inventive, and I doubt there is prior art. http://www.google.com/patents/US3216423 http://www.google.com/patents/US3216423
- Zimahl 14y agoI don't know a better word to describe that except to say it is disturbing.
- dkersten 14y agoI spent a lot of the day yesterday doing patent and publication searches and I've come to the conclusion that patents are written both by and for retarded monkeys.
- damoncali 14y agoEven better: http://www.google.com/patents/US4022227 http://www.google.com/patents/US4022227
- bbeaudoin 14y agoApparently the burrito (or is it a canoli?) was invented 12 years ago: http://www.google.com/patents?id=YlkIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=YlkIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...
- tsahyt 14y agoDon't worry. The EU recently standardized Pizza Napoletana[1]. Among some of the regulations are: * The flour used has to have a deformation energy between 220W and 380W * The dough has a pH-value of 5.87 and a density of 0.79g/cm³ * The salt has to be applied with a spiral motion on top of the tomatoes * The olive oil has to be applied with a spiral motion as well, totalling at 4-5g of oil with an allowed error of 20% * The baking time is 60-90 seconds. The dough has to reach 60-65°C That's not just a patent. This is a legal ordinance. This is law. This is taxpayers money at work! EDIT: edit for formatting and source [1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=0J:L:2010:034:0007:0016:DE:PDF http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=0J:L:2... (German)
- DanBC 14y agoI'm not sure what your point is. TSGs exist and are useful, as are PDOs etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_(EU) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_tr...) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:034:0007:0016:EN:PDF http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2...) (English).
- lurker14 14y agoSo? It's a truth in advertising legislation. It's why you can't buy a piece of toast in a box labelled Pizza Napoletana, or (for HN) a Galaxy SIII in a gox labelled "iPhone 5"
- ThomPete 14y agoSo let me ask this totally noob question. Is this where one could claim "prior art" or does that no apply in this case?
- bromley 14y agoIf anyone fancies suing the Whitehouse to make a point, here's a picture of what appears to be a relevant violation: https://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_image_pages/0519-0907-3019-0022.html https://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_image_pages/0519-090...
- andreasvc 14y agoNo. This patent was for sideways swinging.
- plam 14y agoin one of the water cooler rooms in the canadian patent office, we have a wall of shame for patents like this. I remember one patent for a stick, and another for patenting the patent process.
- protomyth 14y agoI think the original swing patent is pretty interesting. It is different from just a piece of wood held by two ropes / chains. Heck, there seems to be a lot of different types of swings that got patent protection. Must of been a competitive field.
- LVB 14y agoMore patents should reference Underdog: "Young children often need help to climb onto a swing and may need a push (sometimes even an "underdog" push) to begin swinging."
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- TwilioJosh 14y agoThis gives me hope that my patent for "Going to the Bathroom" is going to be approved!
- utf8guy 14y agoUpon re-examination, all the claims for this patent were cancelled (see the last page.)
- ChuckMcM 14y agoI cannot help but think this patent and others like it would be good test cases for a summary reversal mechanism. I would use them as follows: 1) Create a policy whereby a patent can be identified as being 'issued in error' (to be clear the case is made that at the time of filing the patent basis was already unpatentable) 2) Provide a framework for describing the unpatentability and the evidence standards for elements in the framework (so you have to show it was obvious for example and have other indpendent inventions at a similar time, or prior art, etc) 3) Establish what rights the patent holder has in defending against this allocation (what rules of evidence are needed, what standard does that evidence need to meet) 4) Establish an appeal process, if any, and its rules. 5) Establish a way of introducing these disallowed patents as evidence of unpatentability in current office actions. Then start with patents like this one and run them through that process. Part of the problem here is that the challenge process is really broken and it needs to be fixed in order to balance out the inevitable human failings on the approval process.
- sthu11182 14y agoA great collection of patents - http://patently-useless.tumblr.com/ http://patently-useless.tumblr.com/
- abcd_f 14y agoIt's a mock patent. I worked for a company whose on-staff lawyer was friends with the person who authored this patent. He too was (is?) a lawyer and he filed this application to demonstrate how ridiculous the patent legislation was. It was never meant to be a serious patent.
- jimworm 14y agoI'm waiting for the self-referential patent "A method to defend against patent lawsuits" that patents patenting the act of filing patent lawsuits in order to defend against patent lawsuits.
- RileyJames 14y agoStartup idea: crowd sourced prior art search? I remember performing this swinging procedure as a child. Surely there is some video evidence of someone doing it somewhere.
- mey 14y agoOf note is the Microsoft patent (US8181265) that cites it for "Secure machine counting" http://www.google.com/patents/US8181265 http://www.google.com/patents/US8181265 I assume as joke or hidden egg.
- QuarkSpark 14y agoThis just made my day!
- webosdude 14y agoI'm going to patent See-Saw balancing on a tree stem. That's just the beginning, I'm headed to Children's Park to get more ideas now...
- ciphersson42 14y agoI find it hilarious there is even a debate in these threads about this. I think it's pretty well established the patent system is entirely screwed. Alas very rich people have a good reason to keep it screwed. To stay rich. The only thing that suffers is inovation. There is also a trending story floating around lately were some one posted a bogas story created by SciGen to a spammy security magazine. Look at the person who filed these patents... TL;DR just skim them... http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:%22Steven+Olson%22 http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&#... One would almost think he used the equivalent type script but for patents. HA!