Posted on 04/21/2002 3:53:23 PM PDT by bvw
I've seen the report. The gist of the report is that the government should give the author more funding.
While I personally don't doubt that researchers have found something, I think the jury is out concerning just what that something is. Cold fusion advocates have yet to demonstrate a system that achieves reproducable results -- much less a system that achieves practical results. Several labs have tried to reproduce cold fusion, but it doesn't seem to work. Whether there is some conspiracy among scientists to discredit cold fusion, or whether the cold fusion advocates aren't giving enough details about their experiments, or whether there ain't no such animal as cold fusion, I don't know.
At any rate, you certainly cannot expect a patent on a method that doesn't work or that only seems to work when no one else is around. The purpose of a patent is to increase the public knowledge. To disclose to the public how something is done so that, after the patent expires, the public can practice the invention. If no one can reproduce your results, then the patent fails to serve its purpose.
That's life. Compared to Bill Gates, we're all "disadvantaged". But it's nobody's fault and there's no use in complaining about it.
Anti-gravity, warp drive, violations of the Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics, etc. I've seen 'em all.
The excuse given for dropping the working-model requirement: the government had run out of warehouse space in which to store the working models!
--Boris
And the fees just went up to pay for "Homeland Security". Think of it as a hidden inventor's tax.
The Congress shall have PowerThomas Jefferson was the first patent commissioner, and it was a registration system -- just like copyrights are today. It switched back and forth to an examination system then a registration system, finally ending up an examination system in about 1830 or so.8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,
The difference between the two is that an author can say "this is my original work, and I claim copyright on it," but in an examination system, it's up to an inventor to prove that his invention is novel and useful. That's like having to prove a negative.
The question is, how can two diametrically opposed systems of IP law be derived from the same Constitutional clause and both of them be Constitutional? It's no trick question, I'd really like to know!
I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. Could you amplify? Thanks.
Primary Examiner: Nguyen; Kien T.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Olson; Peter Lowell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates to a method of swinging on a swing.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
A few basic types of swings have been around for generations. Perhaps the most common is one that includes a seat suspended between two ropes or chains that are hung from a tree branch or other substantially horizontal support. These swings are often found in side-by-side sets of two or three or more on, for example, a school playground.
Young children often need help to climb onto a swing, and may need a push (sometimes even an "underdog" push) to begin swinging. Others may be able to begin the swinging movement on their own by pushing with their feet against the ground, and once moving may coordinate the motion of their legs and body in what may be called "pumping" to sustain the movement of the swing. When swinging in this manner, the user travels along a path as generally shown in the cross-section of FIG. 1. Another method of swinging on a swing involves twisting the seat around repeatedly so that the chains or ropes are wound in a double helix. When allowed to unwind, the swing spins quickly, which can be entertaining for the user.
These methods of swinging on a swing, although of considerable interest to some people, can lose their appeal with age and experience. A new method of swinging on a swing would therefore represent an advance of great significance and value.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for swinging on a swing. The swing comprises a seat for supporting a user that is suspended between two chains that are hung from a substantially horizontal tree branch. The method comprises the steps of: a) positioning a user on the seat; and b) 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, to create side-to-side motion. In another embodiment of the invention, the swinging method may be practiced independently by the user to create the side-to-side motion from an initial dead stop. These and other features of the invention are described in greater detail below.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 is a schematic top view of the swinging path of a swing used in accordance with conventional swinging methods.
FIG. 2 is a front view of a swinging path of a swing used in accordance with one embodiment of the swinging method of the present invention.
FIG. 3 is a schematic top view of a swinging path of a swing used in accordance with a second embodiment of the swinging method of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
The present inventor has created, through experimentation on a standard swing, a new and improved method of swinging. The swing is of the type described above, in which a seat is suspended between two chains that are hung from a substantially horizontal tree branch. 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.
The standard swing should be a single swing that is suspended sufficiently far away from obstructions to make the practice of the inventive swinging method completely safe. That is, the swing should be suspended a sufficient distance away from the trunk of the tree from which it suspended, and from any other swing, building, support, overhead wire, or other obstruction or threat to safety that may be present.
The standard method of swinging on a swing is defined by oscillatory motion of the swing and the user along an axis that is substantially perpendicular to the axis of the tree branch from which the swing is suspended. This "forward and back" movement has been known for generations, and is illustrated in FIG. 1. In contrast to the conventional method of swinging, the present inventor has discovered that much greater satisfaction can be obtained by alternately pulling on one chain to move the swing and the user toward that side, and then pulling on the other chain to move the swing and the user toward that side. This side-to-side oscillatory motion of the swing and the user is thus along an axis that is substantially parallel to the axis of the tree branch from which the swing is suspended, and is illustrated in FIG. 2. This side to side swinging method has the added benefit that it can be continued for long periods of time simply by alternately pulling on one chain and then the other. The importance of sufficient clearance between the swing and any obstructions or threats to the user's safety is apparent.
The present inventor has discovered certain other improvements in the art of swinging on a swing, either or both of which can be used in conjunction with the swinging method described immediately above. The first is that the inventive swinging method can be initiated from a dead stop without pushing, and without the user having to contact the ground. That is, the user can climb onto the swing, and begin from an initial dead stop to pull first on one chain, and then on the other chain, alternately until the user and the swing have begun to swing side-to-side in accordance with the inventive swinging method described herein. This enables even young users to swing independently and joyously, which is of great benefit to all.
Another improvement on the swinging method described above is the induction into the side-to-side swinging movement of a component of forward-and-back motion. That is, by skillful manipulation of the body, the present inventor has found it possible to add a relatively minor component of forward-and-back motion to the side-to-side swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped like an oval, as is shown in FIG. 3. It is preferred that the magnitude of the forward-and back motion (shown in FIG. 3 as being along the Y axis) be less than the magnitude of the side-to side motion (shown in FIG. 3 as being along the X axis), so that the latter predominates. In this manner, the motion can be more easily continued simply by alternately pulling on one chain and then the other in the manner described.
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.
They probably had sufficient reason [insufficient room for models] at that time. But other categories such as design patents are eating up time at the PTO and should be dropped as a category. Software should be sent to the copyright office.
And terrible!
Why terrible? It's the same kind of thing as the ancient Roman Emperor Caligula did when he named his horse to the Roman Senate. Shows an utter contempt for law, due process and our individual rights. What ever the Beltway dictates, that is the LAW, as ridiculous as it may be. And to the wisdom of tyrants big or petty, the more ridiculous the better for it demonstrates the tyrant's desired order of things.
In the general case today such bonuses are obscene, when viewed with any sense of integrity -- the judges are the same or G-level kin as the award receivers, it's just another corruption on top of corruption.
OK. We're talking about production bonuses at the PTO.
The PTO is caught in a bind. Inventors want their applications processed quickly. Something has to be done to reduce pendancy. The way the PTO makes this attempt is by hiring more examiners and by giving incentives for examiners to produce more.
New examiners make mistakes. Experienced examiners who rush through an application to get a bonus may also make mistakes. But the vast majority of US patents are valid --something like 93+% of them.
The PTO does have checks in place to attempt to bring this number up. But they handle such a volume of patents that some are bound to get through.
I don't really think that the "bad" patents are as much of a problem as the bad patent laws. The courts do not understand technology and they come up with some bizzare rulings.
For instance, you cannot get a patent on a computer program. But if you claim that same program running on a general purpose computer, it magically becomes patentable. Last time I checked, you had to have hardware to run software. But the court evidently sees a distinction between a computer program and a computer program running on a computer.
The latest thing is that examiner cannot take "official notice" of well-known facts without documentation. Some things are so commonplace that they are not documented. It's only a matter of time before some joker gets a patent on the method of walking -- all because the courts won't allow an examiner take official notice of how everyone walks.
The difference between the two is that an author can say "this is my original work, and I claim copyright on it," but in an examination system, it's up to an inventor to prove that his invention is novel and useful. That's like having to prove a negative.
The question is, how can two diametrically opposed systems of IP law be derived from the same Constitutional clause and both of them be Constitutional? It's no trick question, I'd really like to know!
Just parsing the text shows how both can be constitutional . . .
Copyright secures to authors, for a limited time, the exclusive right to their writings.
Patent secures to inventors, for a limited time, the exclusive right to their discoveries.
The difference between copyright and patent is usually easy to discern, although there are plenty of "grey" areas, and neither subject is easy to understand "well."
Copyright is a "prohibition on copying." Some things would be difficult to reproduce except by copying, and these things are suitable to protect by copyright. Examples are books and sculptures. But, under copyright law, two people can create similar items, and neither can restrain the other, provided neither person copied the other.
Patents are a "prohibition on practicing" the invention. Generally speaking (except for shop rights, or prior user rights, which vary from country to country), the holder of a patent can restrain all comers. The notion of patents is that some things can be practiced in various ways, but the inventor deserves protection (in exchange for giving the idea to the public domain after a limited time) on the concept. Light bulbs for example -- the inventor shows a generally spherical bulb, but the bulb could be flame shaped, cylindrical, rectangular, square, etc., and still be a light bulb.
Both patent and copyright have the ultimate goal of furthering the public benefit, of improving society overall. Without the possibility of patent, fewer people would attempt to invent, and those who did manage to invent would tend to keep their inventions secret (if possible). Similarly for copyright -- without some type of protection, fewer people would bother to create.
That makes it a bit harder to make an "obviousness" rejection stick. I hadn't heard of that new rule, and doubt it to be literally true in all cases. For example, an examiner could probably note, without serving up a document, that threaded rod can be made in just about any length.
As you know, patents, like everything else, have cycles. Right now we're in that part of a cycle where, for various reasons, it is fairly easy to get a patent from the USPTO. Plus, some recent decisions of the CAFC opened floodgates -- I am thinking in particular the floodgates for "business method" and "software" patents.
The "how to swing" patent has no commercial value. There is no practical way to enforce it. Somebody wasted time and money to come up with it, and it makes a fun talking point, but that's all it's worth.
It still seems like the examination system of patents is inequitable. Say for example, that a cold fusion invention did indeed work, and that it was cobbled together by some small entrepreneural outfit. Under a registration system parallel to copyrights, the destitute inventor would have to make an enabling disclosure to claim patent rights. Meanwhile, Big Gamma Nukes could read the disclosure, implement the invention (infringe the patent), and would owe the inventor an adverse royalty based on the value of the infringement absent reaching a prior agreement.
Obviously, the inventor wasn't capable of fielding a cold fusion powerplant without raising a bunch of venture capital or making a deal with an outfit capable of doing it. The present patent system would scare off any outfit capable and determined to get into the business even if it had other necessary technology to bring to the table.
It seems that all a patent is good for is standing to sue an infringer in federal court, an expensive and risky proposition. Microsoft can defend its patents, but a MicroSqueak probably can't even afford the filing fees!
Since it's in the public's interest to benefit from new and useful inventions as well as reward inventors so as to induce more of them to make new, neat stuff, it seems that a registration system has many more positives than negatives just as the copyright system does.
If I remember my history correctly, the last switch to the present examination system was championed by a particular senator, and it finally became law in about June, 1830. Within a very short time, that senator was issued a patent on a steam locomotive, called Hercules or something. Yeah, sure.... A senator invented a locomotive in a month or so. Right!
Anyway, the IP field has intrigued me for years, and it just seems that the public and inventors aren't best served with an examination patent system.
That was allowed right after a memo went through the PTO about "No Official Notice". The examiner evidently took the memo at face value. I talked to someone at the PTO about that. She was of the opinion that we'll see more of that sort of patent unless the Courts back off. But as you said, it really doesn't do any harm.
Business methods and software patents are a disaster. But that's what you get when the cases are decided by judges whose idea of automation is an electronic pencil sharpener.
It seems that all a patent is good for is standing to sue an infringer in federal court, an expensive and risky proposition. Microsoft can defend its patents, but a MicroSqueak probably can't even afford the filing fees!
Since it's in the public's interest to benefit from new and useful inventions as well as reward inventors so as to induce more of them to make new, neat stuff, it seems that a registration system has many more positives than negatives just as the copyright system does.
Thank you for the generous compliment, above. Shucks.
Well, you've hit on a number of different points that are worth exploring. One is registration systems compared with examination systems, from a couple angles. The justification for examination at all, and why for copyright, examination "in advance" is not worth the cost. Second, that you are right on the money that a person seeking a patent needs to do so with eyes open, including the possibility of infringement litigation. Patent infringement litigation, by the way, is the most expensive litigation going. If I recall correctly, the average cost of a patent infringement lawsuit is about half a million dollars.
But more basically, patent protection is only useful to the extent a person can reap a commercial benefit. The basic harms caused by the "joke" and "impossible devices" patents are the possibility to defraud naive investors by flashing a granted Patent under their nose, and a bad face for the Patent Office.
The discussion below is over-simplified. The simplifications (which inevitably create technical errors) shouldn't affect the conceptual points being made, but could be crucial to a person trying to understand a particular dispute; or a person trying to figure out if they might be able to secure a patent.
Registration vs. Examination
The choice here is basically one of how to most efficiently allocate the act of examination. Examination is bound to happen, one place or another. And, when the issue of "registration vs. examination" is applied to the office that grants the legal right, the question isn't "examine" vs. "not examine," it is the degree of examination.
In the US, copyrights are recorded in the Library of Congress. Anybody who sends an item in can have it duly recorded, for a modest fee of about $20. In fact, even copied works can be "copyrighted." But, if I send in a photocopied rendition of Moby Dick, the Library of Congress is apt to notice (some amount of examination going on, else they wouldn't notice this), and the copyright is apt to not be recorded, and I might even get in trouble. So, there is some "examination," but not much, and not guaranteed. But what happens if I copy something that is not famously known?
Sometimes the true creator gets wind of somebody having copied his work. This only happens (matters) when the true creator starts to lose money -- which happens when the copiER makes competitive inroads against the true creator. Then what? LAWSUIT. The matter of whether the copiER indeed copied is settled in court, not in the Library of Congress. But trust me, the matter will get settled if enough money hangs in the balance.
So, why not examine the material that is submitted to the Library of Congress, and only grant the copyright if the applicant did not copy the work? Because an examination of copyright is expensive and is not reliable, until there is an actual dispute. It requires an investigation into 1) all other materials that resemble the applicant's work and 2) the circumstances surrounding the creation of the work, by the applicant. This is a two step process. The applicant can't be denied a copyright just because there is a similar work already on file. It must also be that the applicant copied somebody else's work, because under copyright, if the work isn't copied, both the applicant and the first creator have copyright, at the same time! When asked if the work was copied (the easy way to perform step two of the examination) the applicant might lie. A court confrontation measurably improves the reliability, but is very costly, and socially inefficient. So, for copyrights, we opt for a registration system up front, and most examination takes place in court.to make the examination reliability to the
Patent applications are examined by the US Patent and Trademark Office. The minimum total official fees related to a patent application for a "small entity" are presently $370 for filing, and $640 for issue. There are usually other fees, and the application and examination processes are very complex, so an inventor should budget at least an amount closer to $5000. Anyway, as we noted in the previous post, patents and copyrights have some substantial differences. Namely, one (patents) is good against ALL infringers and applies to concepts in the nature of inventions; while the other (copyrights) is only good against a copier and applies to works in the nature of writings, music, or sculpture.
Now, we determined that examination will take place. But we can vary the extent to which examination takes place in advance of a dispute vs. the number of disputes that will go all the way to court. For patents, the least expensive overall approach to determine if the applicant is entitled to the patent by reviewing already issued publications; and to tolerate some number of "wrong" grants that may eventually require resolution in court. Examination of patent claims is not as difficult to accomplish as comparing a short story against all the other short stories ever written, or comparing a tune/song against all other tunes or songs ever written. The nature of human inventive output (compared with artistic output) permits technical categorization and the quick determination, at a small cost and with a good degree of reliability, whether a given invention is indeed "new."
If we registered Patents to all applicants, without performing some amount of review of the existing state of the art, there would soon be billions of patents, as people literally "reinvented the wheel," and more patent infringement disputes would have to be settled by the courts.
What good is a Patent to a Small Guy?
The right to exclude others, which is what a patent holder has, is ultimately enforced by a court. The notion that only wealthy patentees can "defend" their patents is noted, and the legal system has provided some interesting mechanisms to deter the big company from stealing ideas right from a patent.
Usually, the amount of money owed to the winner in a civil lawsuit is "damages." Only the amount of money that you lost is at stake. But, wilful infringers face treble damages. If the big company's device "reads on" the claims in your patent, and you have no reason to believe your patent can be invalidated by the court (although it does happen, see the "How to Swing" patent, which would be invalidated if it was worth the money to take it to court), then you have substantially more leverage. Look at the bright side of fighting a "Goliath" company, if you win, they have the funds to pay the judgement! Lawyers will take good infringement cases on contingency. The small guy needs to "grow a set" and assert his rights.
Technicalities
You mentioned that an inventor has to make an "enabling disclosure." This is true, it is a legal requirement. If an inventor does not enable others to practice the invention, any patent that issues will be found invalid in a court. Not only that, an inventor has a legal obligation to disclose the BEST mode that he knows. The object of the patent system, remember, is to enrich the public by enticing inventors to make their inventions known, and practice-able by others after the term of the patent grant expires.
The balancing act is to set the patent (or copyright) term (time of enforceability), and power (scope of effect) for the public benefit -- which means authors and inventors need enough incentive to create -- but only enough, there is no social value to "overpayment" in the form of very long terms, or for example, by changing copyright to be enforceable against ALL comers, not just those who copy.
Soap Box
I'm a firm believer in human nature, and history shows us that a properly balanced and functioning patent system DOES benefit society. Humans have a bit of greed, and a bit of pride, and when incentivised with the possibility of getting lots of money for a new invention, millions of minds get busy THINKING about commercially valuable things. Without the possibility of being able to exclude the big guys, millions of minds would not bother to innovate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.