Are you infringing this patent?
April 10, 2002 8:39 AM Subscribe
Are you infringing this patent? Please make sure that you (or your 10-year-old nephew) aren't.
Riffola - you're probably fine. The patent was granted yesterday. Nonetheless, I do suggest that you consult an attorney.
posted by lawtalkinguy at 8:59 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by lawtalkinguy at 8:59 AM on April 10, 2002
Actual jungle forestry is not required
Ha! Oh, that's good stuff. Now since this was patented specifying a tree branch, would any other substantial overhead mounting device (say, a plank or something) be a violation of this patent?
posted by macadamiaranch at 9:05 AM on April 10, 2002
Ha! Oh, that's good stuff. Now since this was patented specifying a tree branch, would any other substantial overhead mounting device (say, a plank or something) be a violation of this patent?
posted by macadamiaranch at 9:05 AM on April 10, 2002
Note that the patent is on the method of swinging, not on the swing itself. So, it's still okay to hang a seat from a tree limb. Pulling alternately on on the chains or ropes to propel yourself side-to-side is a no-no, though (although licenses are available from the inventor!)
I'm not a patent attorney, lawtalkinguy, but Black's defines "patentable" as follows: "to be patentable, a device must embody some new idea or principle not before known, and it must be a discovery as distinguished from mere mechanical skill or knowledge". How in the hell was this granted a patent, then?
posted by yhbc at 9:10 AM on April 10, 2002
I'm not a patent attorney, lawtalkinguy, but Black's defines "patentable" as follows: "to be patentable, a device must embody some new idea or principle not before known, and it must be a discovery as distinguished from mere mechanical skill or knowledge". How in the hell was this granted a patent, then?
posted by yhbc at 9:10 AM on April 10, 2002
How in the hell was this granted a patent, then?
Yhbc, Scientific American has recently started a column on patents and intellectual property law. It addresses questions like yours. The US Patent Office is unequipped to deal with the 21st century, it seems, and examples abound of stupid patents that should never have been issued. Check it out.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:18 AM on April 10, 2002
Yhbc, Scientific American has recently started a column on patents and intellectual property law. It addresses questions like yours. The US Patent Office is unequipped to deal with the 21st century, it seems, and examples abound of stupid patents that should never have been issued. Check it out.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:18 AM on April 10, 2002
In practice, the Patent and Trademark Office has three requirements to patentability. The proposed invention must be:
novel - i.e., no one has patented or disclosed it before
non-obvious - it must not be an invention that a person skilled in the art would have seen as obvious
It must have utility - i.e., it must be useful
Query whether the patent above meets all three.
Your question yhbc actually points out something that people might overlook about patents themselves: just because you have a patent, doesn't mean you can enforce it. Getting the patent itself is just a low hurdle you overcome with the PTO. If you accuse someone of infringing, their defense will likely be an attack on the grant of your patent, saying that it is invalid because it doesn't meet one or more of the requirments above.
By the way, the above is not legal advice. Do not rely on it. Consult an attorney.
posted by lawtalkinguy at 9:19 AM on April 10, 2002
novel - i.e., no one has patented or disclosed it before
non-obvious - it must not be an invention that a person skilled in the art would have seen as obvious
It must have utility - i.e., it must be useful
Query whether the patent above meets all three.
Your question yhbc actually points out something that people might overlook about patents themselves: just because you have a patent, doesn't mean you can enforce it. Getting the patent itself is just a low hurdle you overcome with the PTO. If you accuse someone of infringing, their defense will likely be an attack on the grant of your patent, saying that it is invalid because it doesn't meet one or more of the requirments above.
By the way, the above is not legal advice. Do not rely on it. Consult an attorney.
posted by lawtalkinguy at 9:19 AM on April 10, 2002
I will gladly dig through the entire sciam site at another time, BitterOldPunk (why does a knuckball flutter, anyway?), but in the meanwhile do you have an internal link to the column you mentioned?
posted by yhbc at 9:22 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by yhbc at 9:22 AM on April 10, 2002
Actually, from what I understand, if one copies a process for one's own use, and do not obtain any commercial benefit from said action, then I don't think you can be accused of infringing a patent. Basically, you have to be selling something -- just going into your backyard and swinging in the described manner will not get you prosecuted -- unless you charge kids to do it.
posted by meep at 9:36 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by meep at 9:36 AM on April 10, 2002
lawtalkingguy, if you're not an IP lawyer, you sound like an IP law student - all the 'not legal advice' disclaimers... anyway, i'm not a patent attorney either, but it seems like you're pretty much right on - especially on the enforceability issue. patents, like other intellectual property, have to be policed by the rights-holder, and remedy sought through civil suit. so basically, your local cop ain't gonna make you get off the swing for infringing on this patent - it's pretty much unenforceable... how this passed the non-obviousness requirement, i can't fathom.
on the other hand, this guy could just be yanking our chain.
posted by ab3 at 9:43 AM on April 10, 2002
on the other hand, this guy could just be yanking our chain.
posted by ab3 at 9:43 AM on April 10, 2002
lawtalkingguy, if you're not an IP lawyer, you sound like an IP law student - all the 'not legal advice' disclaimers... anyway, i'm not a patent attorney either, but it seems like you're pretty much right on - especially on the enforceability issue. patents, like other intellectual property, have to be policed by the rights-holder, and remedy sought through civil suit. so basically, your local cop ain't gonna make you get off the swing for infringing on this patent - it's pretty much unenforceable... how this passed the non-obviousness requirement, i can't fathom.
on the other hand, this guy could just be yanking our chain.
posted by ab3 at 9:44 AM on April 10, 2002
on the other hand, this guy could just be yanking our chain.
posted by ab3 at 9:44 AM on April 10, 2002
I want to get a patent on 1337speak and begin filing suit against everyone who uses it without permission. I'm not certain what utility 1337speak actually has (lawtalkingguy's third criterion), but a case could be made for low-level encryption or other such bollocks. 0wnz.
posted by Danelope at 9:54 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by Danelope at 9:54 AM on April 10, 2002
:: tosses the entire unabridged Black's Law Dictionary at ab3's head for the awful "yanking our chain" line ::
posted by yhbc at 9:59 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by yhbc at 9:59 AM on April 10, 2002
I'm not certain what utility 1337speak actually has...
Why it makes you more 1337, of course.
posted by shagoth at 10:00 AM on April 10, 2002
Why it makes you more 1337, of course.
posted by shagoth at 10:00 AM on April 10, 2002
So I guess we shouldn't really be concerned about crazy patents unless someone tries to enforce them through lawsuits. I wonder why this guy went through the hassle of getting a patent, since it won't stand up in court. Maybe he figured it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.
posted by jaden at 10:08 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by jaden at 10:08 AM on April 10, 2002
I think the patent examiners down at the USPTO are just goofing off. Here's another example.
Can anyone say "PTO reform?"
posted by crunchland at 10:43 AM on April 10, 2002
Can anyone say "PTO reform?"
posted by crunchland at 10:43 AM on April 10, 2002
if you look at the images, you'll notice that the method is to swing from side-to-side, not back-and-forth.
posted by awadwatt at 11:12 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by awadwatt at 11:12 AM on April 10, 2002
good example, crunchland. I guess police officers will have to pay a licensing fee for handcuffs now :)
posted by LuxFX at 11:21 AM on April 10, 2002
posted by LuxFX at 11:21 AM on April 10, 2002
I love it! I'm going into the kitchen right now to utilize this newly patented swinging method.
(And yes, I really do have a swing in my kitchen.)
posted by Dick Paris at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2002
(And yes, I really do have a swing in my kitchen.)
posted by Dick Paris at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2002
"the bracelets include an interconnecting structure that enables the bracelets to be interconnected."
"..it follows that the child or person is effectively tied to the object and this will serve to frustrate the abduction attempt."
puga
posted by PugAchev at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2002
"..it follows that the child or person is effectively tied to the object and this will serve to frustrate the abduction attempt."
puga
posted by PugAchev at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2002
One of the few things Slashdot is good for is stories on patents. I believe that the conclusion that (lame) community has reached is that the patent office is not doing a bad job, they are simply doing no job at all.
And since you cannot hold them accountable, the end result of their innaction is that absurd patents can be granted to organizations with enough money...which can then bully lesser organizations, who, even if they get the patent revoked, cannot file for damages.
Piles and piles of dogshit.
posted by Settle at 4:10 PM on April 10, 2002
And since you cannot hold them accountable, the end result of their innaction is that absurd patents can be granted to organizations with enough money...which can then bully lesser organizations, who, even if they get the patent revoked, cannot file for damages.
Piles and piles of dogshit.
posted by Settle at 4:10 PM on April 10, 2002
The part that blows me away that some guy spent $8-10K getting this patent (yes, after pto and legal fees, that's what it costs).
btw, from my inexperienced opinion as a law student/future patent attorney, it seems that this patent has about a zero chance of staying valid
posted by dicaxpuella at 7:34 AM on April 11, 2002
btw, from my inexperienced opinion as a law student/future patent attorney, it seems that this patent has about a zero chance of staying valid
posted by dicaxpuella at 7:34 AM on April 11, 2002
bah I've done this already, in my swinging days. Y is Slashdot lame? You apparently agree with them, even. $8-10k, lol.
posted by firestorm at 4:29 AM on April 16, 2002
posted by firestorm at 4:29 AM on April 16, 2002
Update: According to Reuters, the patent holder is seven years old.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:35 PM on April 17, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:35 PM on April 17, 2002
(Sorry a bit late)
Settle, actually the PTO is accountable right up to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Patent claims are invalidated all the time.
posted by anathema at 7:47 PM on April 19, 2002
Settle, actually the PTO is accountable right up to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Patent claims are invalidated all the time.
posted by anathema at 7:47 PM on April 19, 2002
When I was a kid, we used to swing on these swings that were at the top of this hill. The swing's chains were like fifteen feet long and the frame was made of thick steel pipes. So we'd swing so high that at the apex of the back swing as we went above the hanging bar, the chain would go slack. The goal was to get as high as possible and on the forward apex we'd let go and fly up into the air like twenty feet and then roll down the hill after you hit the ground. If you were able to do this without running home to Mommy cuz you thought you broke both your legs on impact, the other kids thought you were cool. I landed on a rusty piece of metal hiding in the grass one time and bloodied my left leg. The other kids told me I was gonna get lockjaw, but I didn't cry home to Mommy. I waited until the other kids left and then I ran home crying.
The best a kid today can come up with is swinging sideways? Puh-leeze! Kids today are a bunch of wusses.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:40 PM on April 19, 2002
The best a kid today can come up with is swinging sideways? Puh-leeze! Kids today are a bunch of wusses.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:40 PM on April 19, 2002
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by riffola at 8:48 AM on April 10, 2002