Slashdot Mirror
Is the POST Method Patented?
echodave asks: "So, I happened to architect a fairly large website for one of the big three a while back, and I've recently been notified that they're in the midst of a patent infringement lawsuit regarding method="post". It seems that according to this patent , a certain Allan Konrad claims ownership of any model wherein a database is accessed via a client, whether it be web based, client/server based, etc. What's up with that? Through informal discussions, it's been identified that he's essentially claiming ownership of both "POST" and "GET" methods...which are not only used in database related applications, but even something as simple as this form on Slashdot that I'm using to submit this story. Any hints, comments, advice or ideas will be appreciated." Is there anyone in the USPTO checking these things, or can anything get in?
Well, the patent office uses "GET" here:
http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/search-adv.htm
... so I'm guessing we're ok. Don't you just love irony?
The patent office is in the throes of fallout over their too-broad patents issued of late. Patenting things like using a single mouse click to submit a transaction [Amazon's stupendous and ridiculous "One Click" patent], a web-based affiliate program [thank Amazone again] and now the notion of a thin client and a related standard web application infrastructure for enabling such a thin client to issue remote commands is a perfect example of the out dated nature of most government copyrighting and patenting procedures and a clear call for the public at large to take measures to protect themselves from slick individuals patenting away our every basic computer concept behind a wall of "geek speak" as effective as any used by lawyers to confuse the issues with innuendo.
So basically, all these years that I have been building web applications I have been hosing this man's patent without ever even being aware of it? How can he claim control of procedures developed independently of him with no fore-knowledge of his supposed technical advances?
Something must be done about ridiculous patents before we all end up paying for the concept of dialing up to a service provider and using a phone line as a means of digital communication...
Wait a minute...
A local host computing system, a remote host computing system as connected by a network, and service functionalities: a human interface service functionality, a starter service functionality, and a desired utility service functionality, and a Client-Server-Service (CSS) model is imposed on each service functionality. In one embodiment, this results in nine logical components and three physical components (a local host, a remote host, and an intervening network), where two of the logical components are integrated into one Remote Object Client component, and that Remote Object Client component and the other seven logical components are deployed among the local host and remote host in a manner which eases compatibility and upgrade problems, and provides an illusion to a user that a desired utility service supported on a remote host resides locally on the user's local host, thereby providing ease of use and minimal software maintenance for users of that remote service.
___
POST and GET were in common usage at the time and any claim on them by this bogus patent is really pushing it
This guy could sue Amazon for using "GET" and/or "POST" in their one-click-shopping :)
Wow, if someone can patent something like this then I'm going to run down to the local US Patent Office and get the one for doors! Then everbody will have to pay royalties on their doors to me! ;)
-Antipop
This is bad for /., right?
The Original Celebrated Curiously Strong GHOST (mentha lemures)
I tried to read the patent, and I just couldnt. If someone has to read stuff like this for their job I can imagine it causes great mental damage, possibly enough for them to allow these things to be patented. God, its awful, I've seen random number generators output stuff that makes more sense.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
because he's the webmaster of the web pages at cedr.lbl.gov which include, amoung other things, textbook examples of POST and GET
A local host computing system, a remote host computing system as connected by a network, and service functionalities
Telnet, telnetd, and the DARPA ARPANet, circa 1981.
a human interface service functionality,
That would be the telnet client
a starter service functionality,
The negotitation that happens at the beginning of telnet session to determine your terminal type
and a desired utility service functionality,
Such as remote access to the UNIX or VMS commands on that other machine on the DARPA ARPANet
and a Client-Server-Service (CSS) model is imposed on each service functionality.
Telnet won't much work if without a telnet client, a telnetd server, and both being compatible with the appropriate RFCs. Come to think of it, I think the RFCs would be the place to find prior art.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
I work at Lucent and they had all web content searched for POST or GET in relation to a lawsuit last Wed.
Konrad v. General Motors Corp., et. al.
Anybody read Japanese? It's clear that Allan Konrad, the owner of this patent, is suing GM in Texas (Why Texas? The guy lives in California.) for patent infringement on this and two other patents ("remote service access systems based on a client-server service mode").
But that's all that I can tell.
-Waldo
I tried to read the patent, and I just couldnt. If someone has to read stuff like this for their job I can imagine it causes great mental damage, possibly enough for them to allow these things to be patented. God, its awful, I've seen random number generators output stuff that makes more sense.
I agree. I haven't seen such a nasty example of repeated loops and aggravated back references in text for ages. I gave up around claim 21. I'm vaguely interested in this one though since it strikes me that the bulk of this patent is tied around a client-server database, so its tricky to see just how specific this patent is. The gist of it centres around trying to give the user on the client sensible access to the information/services on the server as far as I can tell, but I'm going to have to go and lie down before I attempt to distill any more out of the text - I feel like I've just SIGINT'd out of a infinite recursive loop.
For the first time I feel vaguely sorry for the USPTO if they have to read this stuff ...
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
What would you do if you were a patent examiner that knew the system was screwed up, but you couldn't get anyone to listen to you? I'd start approving all sorts of trivial patents in the hope that this would force some kind of change in the system...
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
I wanna Crusoe Beowulf cluster, with my share.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
magic
Yeah, but he's also claiming his patent covers *all* client/server database models, and that must be nonense. Sybase and Oracle have been around since at least the 80s. Heck, wasn't Sabre using client/server interactions in the 60s?
Dana
partial text:
U.s.patents 5,544,320 5,696,901 5,974,444(Patent 3 case) " The client - it is based on the service model between the servers, far Every other service access system (REMOTESERVICEACCESSSYSTEMSBASEDONA CLIENT-SERVERSERVICEMODEL. ) " It is something regarding. Furthermore, the result of investigating the patent family, no United States National patent, preference insistence application to the country other than the United States to be seen, the ? It was a plug.
Here's more text from the upper right hand corner of the page:
February 16th of 2000
Reporter: on ? international patent office
American patent attorney
Charles E bell ???
Translating & decoding: Onda genuine patent office
Patent attorney Onda sincerity
39 corporations which are sued
1.GENERALMOTORSCORP.
2.HONDANORTHAMERICAINC.
3.FORDMOTORCOMPANY
4.DAIMLERCHRYSLERCORPORATION
5.NISSANNORTHAMERICAINC.
6.TOYOTAMOTORSALESUSAINC.
7.MAZDAMOTOROFAMERICAINC.
8.VOLKSWAGENOFAMERICA, inc.
9.BUDGETRENT-A-CARSYSTEMSINC.
10.AUTONATIONUSACORP.
11.THRIFTYRENT-A-CARSYSTEMINC.
12.THEHERTZCORPORATION
13.DOLLARRENTACARSYSTEMINC.
14.AVISRENTACARSYSTEMINC.
15.ADVANTAGERENT-A-CARINC.
16.THEBOEINGCOMPANY
17.EASTMANKODAKCO.
18.LUCENTTECHNOLOGIESINC.
19.NECAMERICAINC.
20.MOTOROLAINC.
21.TOSHIBAAMERICAINC.
22.AMERICATRANSAIRINC.
23.UNITEDAIRLINESINC.
24.DELTAAIRLINESINC.
25.CONTINENTALAIRLINESINC.
26.NORTHWESTAIRLINES, inc.
27.SUNCOUNTRYAIRLINESINC.
28.AMERICANAIRLINESINC.
29.AMRCORPORATION
30.MIDWESTEXPRESSAIRLINESINC.
31.MARRIOTTINTERNATIONALINC.
32.HILTONHOTELSCORPORATION
33.PROMUSHOTELSINC.
34.SHOLODGEINC.
35.STARWOODHOTELS&RESORTS
World-wideinc.
36.THEEXTENDEDSTAYINNSLIMITED Partnership
37.CHOICEHOTELSINTERNATIONAL
38.ENTERPRISERENT-A-CARCOMPANYOF Texas
39.SOUTHWESTAIRLINESCO.
___
As far as i understand it he has patented any client-server process where you can initiate some request and then get some form of output from it.
... or is it just a very special implementation of a database?
Now what is affected by this patent? Search enginnes, network queuing systems, remotely accessible batchservices, what about a supercomputer only accessible via another computer, mpegstreams, multiplayergames, xterms, remoteshell, any remotely accessible process, java applets
I probably overlooked some serious restrictions in that patent, it can't be that overly applicable, but i can't fight that grammatics.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
First off, the acceptance of bad patents is not in itself a reason to get rid of patents altogether. People, the Patent Office is run by human beings under an incredible workload. They are bound to make mistakes, and they are bound to let things sort themselves out in the courts rather than focus in detail on everything. Yes, some things like software patents and even business model patents probably should be removed, but the overarching concept of the patent is not a bad one, especially if you truly do have a novel invention that you intend to market.
With that said, the most rational response I can think of is to notify your Congressperson that their web site is in violation of a patent. According to this patent, almost everything on the Web is. Let your Congressperson know this, and then let them know that this is absurd and more important, why this is absurd. Use this as a natural starting point for showing other examples of 'bad' patents that apply to obvious ideas (note ideas, not mechanisms) and then ask them respectfully to look into the matter so that both you and they don't have to change your web site.
Trust me, you accuse a Congressperson of breaking the law and the first thing they're going to do (even before they start lying) is figure out a way to legally remove the illegality.
I've filed a defensive patent covering certain methods of 'surfing' information using a 'mouse'- and certain methods of retrieving information from a collection of printed papers arranged in a bundle with easily flippable 'pages'.. You are currently infringing on said patent by 'browsing' information on slashdot. Please adjust your current habits, and send a check post-haste to avoid further legal problems.
-
air and light and time and space
Seriously though, I think it's time we started suing filers of these trivial patents for fraud. There's prior art, they KNOW there's prior art, and they've apparently gone to exceedingly great lengths to obstifucate the wording of the patent to make it appear is if there's not. They are doing grevious harm to the industry in the process. Sue them. Sue them hard. Like that guy who had the patent on Windowing for Y2K software, despite some 20 years of prior art (Whatever became of him anyway?) I'm pretty sure we covered windowing briefly in one of my college classes in the '80's but we didn't spend too much time on the concept becase it was so basic.
I agree with Tim O'reily. We shouldn't have to fight over the tools of our trade, and our industry is the only one where we seem to have to do so. I think fraud lawsuits would go a long way toward stopping these trivial patents. And maybe some malpractise suits against the patent office itself, which should be catching them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hrm.. What about fraud? Technically, his application was a complete and total lie..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I think I have finally figured out the USPTO. They know full well that they don't have a clue about a lot of the stuff people are asking for patents on. I mean given the state of the economy right now, it must be hard to find people who know technology and law, and want to work for a government paycheck. So, if you are the USPTo, and don't know what to do about a patent, do you decide to just arbitarily give or deny patents.
If you deny the patents, there is no established legal review process. You can't sue the USPTO, you can just resubmit through an arduous and expensive process and then you may be denied again. On the other hand, if they let it through, then ultimately it is up to the patent holder to enforce it. So, if they try to enforce it, then it is theorized that some corporation who can afford the kind of people who understand this stuff, can rifle off a few law suits. Thus, if it is a reasonable patent it will stand and if it isn't, it will get chucked out in court.
Really, this may not be a bad approach to things if you think about it. Those ideas which have the most potential to be lucrative will get the most financial backing for a challenge when applicable. Sort of a patent natural selection if you will. The only thing the USPTO does is fact check the legal documents, rubber stamp them as being a vaild patent and then let the lawyers settle it on the back end.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
A paradigm of customer oriented B@B services enhancing customer experience by offering forward looking proactive services in the client-server arena.
There.
I'm not sure about claim 17, "The apparatus of claim 13, wherein said local host computer comprises a plurality of physical hosts, interconnected to act together as a single local host computing means." That implies some sort of load-balancing at the client. I don't know why you'd ever want to do that, but it seems like it would be an obvious thing to do if it was necessary.
So, as far as I can see, this patent describes any HTML form submission (POST or GET) to a database front-end, with an obvious extension or two.
Greg
The place to look for prior art is client/server SQL. SQL predates this patent by some years, it's platform-independent, and SQL host queries are invoked via a mechanism along the lines of claim 1.
I knew this would come in handy someday...
Everybody knows that Al Gore invented the Internet back in the 80s, so it should be pretty obvious that you should look in his collected writings for the best evidence of prior art. I'm thinking it's somewhere in the "Electronic Protocols" chapter of Earth in the Balance.
It's an ugly job, but I think that somebody out there has to read the collected works of Albert Gore to find that prior art. The future of the Internet, and our children, depend on it.
Babar
The HTML Manual of Style, Larry Aronson, Copyright 1994, Ziff-Davis Press, documents Post in just the way I use it in both of my database-driven websites. One of them has been on the web since 1996, incidently, accepting posts and applying them to its database. ;)
Geeky modern art T-shirts
rfc1945: HTTP/1.0 spec, May 1996
Ok, Im too lazy to read the full description of the patent, but it sounds like a patent on accessing a database across a network. For that there is plenty of prior art. A simple grep though the RFC index gives at first this.
0756 NIC name server - a datagram-based information utility. J.R. Pickens, E.J. Feinler, J.E. Mathis. Jul-01-1979. (Format: TXT=23491 bytes) (Status: UNKNOWN)
If a namesever is not an old enough precidence of a database that can be accessed though a human accessable client on anouther machine, then when was the SQL spec introduced?
FYI: slashdot and every portol and just about every major ISP uses GET or POST.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
Has every body seen this article where Time O'Reilly dismantles Patent Office Director Q. Todd Dickinson?
Here's an exchange that really says it all:
Tim: Are you a lawyer by training?
Dickinson: Yes, I am.
Tim: How would you feel if a lawyer was able to patent an argument?
Dickinson: If it was new and non-obvious, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
Tim: And the ability to basically extract a royalty from other lawyers for using that same legal argument?
Dickinson: As I say, if it's new, and if it met the statutory standards for patentability (and that's the key question here), and it was incorporated into software in some form, that wouldn't be a problem.
Tim: No, not in software. Just in actual, in court.
Dickinson: Well, I don't want to deal in hypotheticals. The courts haven't dealt with that question.
Now, even when this guy was completely snookered by Tim he couldn't bring himself to concede the point. It was at this moment that every shred of confidence I have in the PTO evaporated completely. It went on...
Tim: Well, how about a basketball player invents a new move. Should that be patentable?
Dickinson: Moves aren't patentable subject matter.
It continues in this vein. Eventually the moderator steps in to rescue him from embarrassing himself further. Read the entire article.
In my opinion, this man is the problem.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Well, there should be. Actually, there should be a bounty on fraudulent patents. Find and cite prior art, get a patent overturned and collect $50k-$1M, reward (payable by the patent holder) depending on the value of the patent.
Well, patents should by definition contain innovation, and even this guy probably figured that mentioning Microsoft and innovation together might tip the USPTO off to the scam.
It looks like he might have patented (or intended to patent) RPC/RMI/SOAP/etc, not just GET/POST. He has a whole "remote object" section (section 3): The following is a list of examples of different Remote Object systems. It is not an all-inclusive list of Remote Object systems, but shows a number of possible
applications of the present invention.
"Remote reality-simulation object". Heh. The Sims, Halflife servers, etc.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Apple had always promoted the use of its new "Apple Event" technology by giving spellcheckers as an example; instead of propriety OEM spellcheckers that are different for every application, the user could have a single speller that is shared among all their applications. Since Working Software published Spellswell we felt we should take the lead in this.
It works really well and in fact can be used for any text operation, such as grammar checkers, address books, HTML verification and the like. Text encryption would work fine and I was working on a text encryptor but never finished it. I since led the binding of it to the BeOS (where is uses BMessages instead of Apple events) which you can read about here and I'd like to make an XWindows version, perhaps using the Corba API's provided by Gnome.
Recently I was contacted by someone who was searching for prior art. It seems someone patented interapplication spellchecking protocols and he has the hope that Word Services was developed early enough to invalidate that patent. I don't know the patent in question or who holds the patent.
What I especially have a gripe about is that I only started working on this method because the idea of it had been promoted for several years by Apple as an obvious application of a new technology they were promoting.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Their's still prior art on this from before 1992. BIND + nslookup should be a good start on it.
The patent is very detailed, and I haven't read it all, but my read on it is it's for a client-server setup where the client talks to a server, which then gets the data from a seporit service. Some of the nslookup/BIND queries are handled this way. IE: nslookup asks the local name server (BIND) to lookup something, BIND then queries another name server to retreive the information and pass it back to nslookup. Now there is another part to this. The pattent mentions the server passing user interface component data to the client. This is the only part that I can see as being "unique" in this situation. It is detailed out in very specific terms that this is part of the process pattented. I don't know directly if GET, POST and web forms predate 1992. I do belive the CERNVM "FIND" gateway may provide the needed prior art. It dates from 1991. I don't think this guy has much to stand on.
Refference History of the WWW at W3.org.
The creep was working with him as a potential business partner when he suddenly and mysteriously backed out. A few months later my friend did a trademark registration search on the name of the domain this guy was working with him on when he found that this creep had registered my friends domain as his own trademark.
On the trademark registration form you have to swear under penalty of perjury that you have listed all the potentially similar trademarks that you are aware of. I think simply stealing one that you were previously working with as a partner would count as being aware of it don't you?
My friend isn't going to fuck around with suing the guy or getting his trademark back. He's just going to put the guy in federal prison.
How could this story apply to patents?
Mike
Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
This paragraph caught my eye:
If he thinks he's patenting the Web, then he's very, very mistaken. Last time I checked, I had to continually update my browser. It's not quite as much of one as used to exist in the past, but it's still definitely a "software maintenance burden".
Can you say "prior art"? I thought you could. Lets look at the abstract for this patent, dated, oh, from 1996: A local host computing system, a remote host computing system as connected by a network, and service functionalities Telnet, telnetd, and the DARPA ARPANet, circa 1981. a human interface service functionality, That would be the telnet client a starter service functionality, The negotitation that happens at the beginning of telnet session to determine your terminal type and a desired utility service functionality, Such as remote access to the UNIX or VMS commands on that other machine on the DARPA ARPANet and a Client-Server-Service (CSS) model is imposed on each service functionality. Telnet won't much work if without a telnet client, a telnetd server, and both being compatible with the appropriate RFCs. Come to think of it, I think the RFCs would be the place to find prior art.