Red Hat Claims Patent On SOAP Over CGI

WMGarrison writes "US Patent 7453593 claims command-line processing by a web server of SOAP requests, resulting in XML responses, from and to a remote client. The HTTP Common Gateway Interface (CGI) operates precisely as described in Claim 1. If you POST a SOAP document and return an XHTML response or a SOAP document, this infringes Claim 2, since both XHTML and SOAP are XML languages. This patent thus claims to own the processing of SOAP documents by CGI programs."

Comments

This is a patent I can get behind

[haystor]

If this results in the abandonment of SOAP, I'm all for it.

Re:This is a patent I can get behind

[i_ate_god]

That is insane. Have you ever actually tried that stuff? Firewalls, cache, all these things don't behave well with GET. Furthermore, there are arbitrary limits to GET string length.

At the very least, any browser/server communication format must be able to handle arbitrarily complex datastructures of arbitrary length... unless you're writing toy apps.

You're so very wrong. The HTTP protocol does not define a max length for the GET query string. Any complex data structure can be represented by XML and you can return 100gb of XML if you want. Simpler structures can even be represented by JSON which might be even easier.

As for firewall and cache, well... stop setting up idiotic solutions. Your public API is exposed via HTTP. So your firewall and caching solutions need to represent this. If it doesn't, that's because you did something wrong and missed the point. HTTP is highly scalable and that's the point. If your public API are serving massive requests very frequently, throw squid infront of your HTTP server. If you want some obfuscation set your port to something other than 80. Your excuses for firewall and caching don't make a lot of sense.

Re:This is a patent I can get behind

[i_ate_god]

As to GET and PUT limitations: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208427

As to browser cache and proxy behavior: You are assuming app developers have control over their users' browsers and proxy servers. That's a false assumption. You just failed to meet the minim requirements for the project (working on ie6 with ghettoproxy 0.1).

You don't know what you're talking about. Who mentioned browsers? Since when do browsers make direct SOAP calls to SOAP-based web services? They don't. Applications make SOAP-based requests to web services and then serves up views based on the data models the web service returns. The problem with SOAP is that SOAP reinvented HTTP. HTTP is perfectly geared to handle this notion of a centralized API with many applications using the same API. You can use this setup with ANY KIND OF APPLICATION, whether it be a desktop app, a web app, a command line app. You don't even need the internet.

• User makes request
• Application receives request, fetches data from RESTful webservice over HTTP
• Centralized API fetches data, returns it to application
• Application displays top ten favorite movies to user

If you somehow see a problem with this, then you're working in the wrong job.

Fix the patent laws with anti cancer drugs

[unlametheweak]

OK, to save companies time and money (except for the Trolls and parasites), just get rid of software patents already. It's not good for buyers or sellers. It's not good for employees. It only benefits lawyers and patent troll parasites. Patent reform shouldn't take years, it should take days. I don't want to see another story like this ever again.

Patent for "Talking"

[olddotter]

Perhaps I should patent Talking. A means of transferring information between people. If you submit audible sounds to a individual and get audible sounds back, then you are infringing. :-) For a follow up I'll patent political speeches.

When will the madness end?

Defensive patents

[Richard W.M. Jones]

These are defensive patents. You have to file them if you're in the US software business, or else risk getting sued for $billions. Read how Red Hat licenses their patent portfolio to all open source projects.

Re:Yes.

[Nick Ives]

You're post reads as if you're being sarcastic. You are aware that if Red Hat were to prevent other people from using their patents in GPLv2 or later software then they would lose the ability to distribute GPLv2 or later software, right?

They could go after proprietary vendors I suppose but I find it far more likely that these are defensive patents.

Re:So what?

[zarthrag]

Therein lies the problem. I'm a one-developer shop. Even if a claim is 100% bunk, I can't afford to defend myself from a legion of lawyers who would simply drag out a court case forever - SCO style. Since I'd like to actually work instead of spend my life in court, I'd be forced to settle - giving said patent a bit of legitimacy. It's not a protection now, it's a business model equivalent to a protection racket.

Someone had to...

[neowolf]

Face it- if Red Hat hadn't done it, M$ probably would have. It's likely a "defensive" patent they are unlikely to use unless provoked. It's all just a game. A big, high-stakes, unfortunate game.