US Patent #6,368,227

The URL code chokes on something of this length, I’m afraid. You’ll need to cut-and-paste the entire thing.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=‘6,368,227’.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227

I really have no good comment. The parents among you might want to start acquiring licenses for the patented technology.

Clickable version of the link: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U232141B.

The patent office opened quite a can of worms when it started allowing patents for processes and methods. I suspect the patentholder here registered it as a parody of the types of business methods that have been patented. I’m an attorney, but not a patent attorney, so I’m not very knowledgeable about this sort of thing. Maybe someone with a little more expertise could weigh in on whether this patent could stand up to challenges.

c&p no good, either.

I especially liked this from the very end:

Go here and paste 6,368,227 into the “Search” box.

:rolleyes:

The patent attorney filed the patent for his seven-year-old son.

It’s a joke. Laugh.

Of course, it’s also a joke with the full weight of US patent law behind it … which just makes it funnier.

I used to use the push-pull method of swinging when I was in elementary school, but that was for normal forward/backward motion. I’d reveal the details, but it’s a trade secret.

Damn, I wonder if I can patent walking. Perhaps breathing! That’d be great, I could collect a metric shitload of royalties from everyone, too!

Not me! Breathing is for earthlings!!!

my favorite part

I was certainly getting tired of the old ways!

Of course it’s a joke. IANAL of any type, but I’m sure that ‘prior art’ exists on videotape somewhere.

What I’m wondering about is the other patents referenced. The second one is for a method of hanging a door swing, but the first dates back to 1881. Anyone with access to the patents know what this one is?

It is also a type of swing, a chair suspended between 2 A-frame-type stands, facing one end (sideways from a “normal” swing). There is a foot pedal that makes the swing swing.

As I look out the window of my office, my twin 5 year old granddaughters are swinging on their swing set. I have just asked them to stop swinging and they have compied. Now I have asked them to start swinging. Ah ha, I have found a flaw in the instruction listed. Both girls, instead of just pushing and pulling the chains, each backed up a step till the swing seat was firm against their bottom then each pickup up their feet and they are swinging. On the forward swing, each lays back and sticks out their feet. On the back swing, each leans forward and tucks their feet under the seat. At no time does it appear that they are pushing and pulling the chains. We now have scientific proof that the patent is not enforcable.

I want to patent pooping.

I think I’ll install a credit card acceptance machine by every toilet in the world ( calling it " Swipe & Wipe") and then there will be
PpP (Pay-Per-Poop)

Next, I’ll patent intercourse. It, too, will be called PpS. Pay per Sex, which, if you think about it, in the end, we really do, in some way or another :smiley:

Shirley, it should be PpF, or Pay-per-Fuck.

Hey, just being grammatical.

:smiley:

WHY is there www.makeashorterlink.com? WHY? I mean how much possible call could there be for that type of service? I thought we were long past the age of “put any possible stupid thing on the internet for free and somehow it will make money”

Uh, because it’s useful? Because it’s easier to send a link that fits on one line across something like email or a message board? Because it’s easier to type? Egads, man, its utility was demonstrated in this very thread! What more proof do you need?

Besides, Elwood, what glaring social need does Something Awful fill? What type of call could there be for such a service? I thought we were past the phase of “Put any disgusting thing on the Internet for free and somehow it will make money.”

:rolleyes:

Is not there then inherent irony in having the domain name fairly long?

Doesn’t “is not there then inherent irony in” sound really neat?