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?

Comments

Look on the bright side

[jeroenb]

This guy could sue Amazon for using "GET" and/or "POST" in their one-click-shopping :)

Can you say prior art.

[Kiwi]

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.

- Sam

Read "The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent" - by RMS

[Seth Finkelstein]

Richard Stallman has a great article describing why these get through. Read The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent

One reason is that any idea can be made look complex when analyzed to death. But another reason is that these trivial ideas often look quite complex as described in the patents themselves. The patent system's defenders can point to the complex description and say, "How can anything this complex be obvious?"

Covert Channel

[Slothrup]

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...

League for Programming Freedom web site

[Seth Finkelstein]

The League for Programming Freedom web site has a great section regarding software patents:

Software patents threaten to devastate America's computer industry. Patents granted in the past decade are now being used to attack companies such as the Lotus Development Corporation for selling programs that they have independently developed. Soon new companies will often be barred from the software arena--most major programs will require licenses for dozens of patents, and this will make them infeasible. This problem has only one solution: software patents must be eliminated.

Sounds a lot like POST to me.

[gregbaker]

After a quick read of the claims, there's very little here that isn't part of "POST request with a load-balancing server" (claim 16 requires a load-balancing setup).

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

This man is the problem

[SurfsUp]

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.
--