Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Is the POST Method Patented? 204

Posted by Cliff from the yet-another-wacky-patent-story dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the POST Method Patented? More

Is the POST Method Patented?

Comments Filter:

  • Irony (Score:4)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @06:27AM (#1040579) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • 'nuff said :). There's heaps of it and this should be tossed out as invalid.

    I think it's way past time the USPTO was overhauled.

  • huh? (Score:1)

    by toast- ( 72345 )
    The patent is dated 1997. THis was light years after POST/GET was invented and implemented in browsers, and other things.

    Is it legal to patent something that was done/published before (but maybe not patented?)

    Also, does this Konrad work for a large enough company to persue action on this? (I don't think anything could ever come about this.. but you never know)

  • There has got to be a limit somewhere when it comes to patents, how many times can we let little issues like this pass us by before we realize that our whole existance is being patented. POST and GET method's have been in use for years now, how can someone claim rights to it? This is getting rediculus.

  • absurd (Score:4)

    by heiho1 ( 63352 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @06:33AM (#1040583)
    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.
    ___
  • ...then consider this "post" an act of civil disobedience. =P

    Seriously, there HAS to be a mistake there. A misinterpretation? It would be too funny if that story were true. (who would enforce it?)

  • HTML IS Prior Art here .... (Score:4)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @06:33AM (#1040586) Homepage Journal
    Look at the dates on the patent - the web was up and running long brfore the patent was first applied for (96) or granted (99).

    POST and GET were in common usage at the time and any claim on them by this bogus patent is really pushing it

  • Look on the bright side (Score:5)

    by jeroenb ( 125404 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @06:34AM (#1040587) Homepage
    This guy could sue Amazon for using "GET" and/or "POST" in their one-click-shopping :)

  • The "GET" method can't be patented, if so all web browser are violationg this patent since they all use "GET" to receive all documents excluding forms page submiting with POST.

    GET /index.html

    And all e-commerce site use the POST method in their application to access their database.

    Maybe if the patent owner declare war on all e-commerce site using the "POST" method, maybe the Congress will understand no everything can be patented, like caching a client-id in a cookie to let its customer pay in 1-Click(TM).

  • imagine if some of these people used this time to create intelligent posts, the possibilities are endless....

  • We should all be OK, ala Y2k windowing (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This patent is likely to cost mega-corporations "A_LOT" of money and as such is likely to be overturned. The Y2K windowing patent(moving dates into a window starting at a lower bound less than 1900 A.D.) was done-in for the same reason. If we look at a filesystem as a flat database, this patent is likely to effect ftp,NFS, etc.. So prior art should be VERY easy to prove as any rcs/cvs type implementation with a web interface would also likely fall under this yoke. Another case of anything utilizing the HTTP protocal immediately being pattented. I wonder if W3C ever heard of any of these guys before putting GET, PUT, etc into specs.
  • Entirely. As long as it hasn't been sold before, anything can be patented.

    You should see some of the ideas I have....HAMBURGER EARMUFFS! YAAAYYY!
  • This is the equivalent of saying "I have a patent for the process of putting mail in a mailbox, therefore the USPS is violating my patent."

    Perhaps one form of a "posting" mechanism could be patented, but not the simple action itself. If that's the case, every website that takes email via forms, including the Govt ones, are in violation of that patent.

    tcd004

    Here's my Microsoft Parody [lostbrain.com], where's yours?

  • 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

  • In the 80's I was known to update databases over the phone lines using various communications software packages.

    Can this guy now sue me for having done that.

    By the way does anybody know when the First Post was done on the internet.

  • If these absurd patent claims continue, programmers should start to simply ignore patents as a form of civil obedience.

    The claim in question is absurd both because POST and GET were in use many years before the patent was granted and also because the patent would apply more to RPC-like mechanisms than POST ("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...").

    Someone in the vincinity please print out the patent claim and information about the lawsuit and nail it to Mr. Dickinson's forehead.

  • This is bad for /., right?
  • I don't know how much difference this makes, but the patent is listed as a "continuation" of a patent filed in 1993, and lists as references several papers this guy published in 1990 and 1991. IANAL, but it seems like he might be able to use these to invalidate claims of prior art.

  • 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 meant disobedience, of course.
  • This sounds to me like trying to patent the wheel or... gravity?

    It doesn't make any sense, standards 'de facto' like this shoudn't be ever considered for patenting or any kind of 'fee-required' thing.

    Even though somebody invented the method, is like saying: "Hey! I invented pointers, so now every application that uses a pointer should pay me a fee for every pointer used..."

    Kind of silly!

  • If they are planning on enforcing their patent they should go after the biggest problems first:
    Microsoft's Hotmail service [hotmail.com]
    Yahoo! [yahoo.com]
    If they try against any others it might be seen as a double standard.
  • The only solution I can see is to bitch slap this jerk until he says he's sorry.

    "I'm sorry! I didn't think anyone would actually hit me! I thought it would just drag out in the courts until companies paid me to go away."

    If this guy thought the payback for frivolous patents was getting punched, he never would have done it.

    The obvious question is: Who decides which inventors get punched? I suggest a poll of experts in the field. Thumbs up or thumbs down.

    Jon Sullivan
  • because he's the webmaster of the web pages at cedr.lbl.gov [lbl.gov] which include, amoung other things, textbook examples of POST and GET
  • Oh yeah?

    Well, *I'm* running down to the Patent Office [damn: it's a holiday, today...] and get the patent for *windows*

    Bwahaahahahaa..

    You shall *all* bow before me!

    t_t_b
    --

  • Uh (Score:1)

    by Ravagin ( 100668 )
    isn't that kind of like copyrighting any program that uses ";" to mark line breaks in the code?

    Jeez. POST is part of HTML. I don't think it's right to copyright a command. Although maybe, if the copyright were on the method the database uses to handle data sent by the POST command, he might have a chance. But that's different.
    ===
    -J
  • I suppose what you'll see next is an automatic moderating tool that automaticly moderates up all those automatic first posts to +1 insightful.
    And after that we'll see an automatic meta-moderation tool to make sure all those automatic-moderations are 'fair'...

  • Can you say prior art. (Score:5)

    by Kiwi ( 5214 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @06:48AM (#1040607) Homepage Journal
    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

  • that I have recently been awarded the patent for a process which I have invented, known as 'breathing'. Any and all organisms who wish to 'breathe' may license the technology from me for a modest licensing fee...only $100 per 'breath'. Those who do not 'breathe' will 'suffocate' and 'die' (patent pending on the technological process known as 'death') Anyone found to be 'breathing' without a license will be punished to the full extent of the law.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

  • You would think that something as common to all databases would have hit someone at the pattent office. But since they seem to be clueless about computers in general, anything can be pattented.

    Maybe I could pattent a mouse click, or maybe http://, oh, and why not pattent slashdot? But slashdot would be a trademark I guess.

    All in all, this has went way beyond stupid.

  • Re:Uh (Score:1)

    by 51M02 ( 165179 )
    Wrong, POST is part of the HTTP protocol, when you connect to a server you have to use one of the two way to receive a document. You mostly use the "GET" method ("GET /index.html") and sometimes you use POST. The main difference is that GET has a limit of 1024 bytes of data for input (the data ou send to the script) and POST has nearly no limit.
  • Richard Stallman has a great article describing why these get through. Read The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent [mit.edu]
    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?"
  • I work at Lucent and they had all web content searched for POST or GET in relation to a lawsuit last Wed.

  • ??? (Score:1)

    by v4mpyr ( 185039 )
    Isn't there some way we can get it through to these companies that they're killing the advancement of technology with these freakin' patents? Perhaps something like EFF but for freedom of innovation?

    If anyone knows of an organization like this please reply... if not we should seriously consider starting one. We would most likely have all the support we need here on /.
  • Konrad v. General Motors Corp., et. al. [ondapatent.com]

    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
  • It's time that Slashdot gives the USPO a little /. effect. We should complain till they actually do their jobs right.

    Also in the meantime I will not comply with anything that says I cannot retrieve information from a remote server. That is what this patent says, you could consider a directory structure to be defined as a database and therefor even mounting a remote file system is WRONG!

    Ohh, btw the patent mentions having to have a mouse on your computer for it to apply.... hehe I don't have a mouse, I have a "MOOSE" :)

    - x-empt

  • 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

  • Even if the patent would stick he has invalidated any and all claims.

    I do believe he is forced to enforce the patent against all infringements to keep it valid... And that is something he didn't do in the past.

  • Re:huh? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My lawyers will be in touch with you shortly. Do not leave town.

    -- Allen Konrad, motto: will patent the obvious in lieue of work.

  • Covert Channel (Score:5)

    by Slothrup ( 73029 ) <curt @ h a g e nlocher.org> on Monday May 29, 2000 @06:54AM (#1040619)
    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...
  • There should be *strict* penalties for attempting to patent something that it can be shown that you were already aware of a prior art; and, regardless if you knew or not, you should be responsible for the other peoples' legal fees if your patent is overturned. *and* if patent office employees are getting paid for how many patents they approve, their pay should be divided by [ their number overturned + 1 ] for the huge cost they add to society.

    - Rei
  • Bad /.! BAD! BAD! Seriously, I think I'll patent the Patent Application Process! Someones got to! See ya at the bank!!

  • Re:Not suprised. (Score:4)

    by Bob Ince ( 79199 ) <and@@@doxdesk...com> on Monday May 29, 2000 @06:55AM (#1040622) Homepage
    I tried to read the patent, and I just couldnt.

    Bahh, yer wuss. Here's a summary for the legally-challenged amongst us:

    The service consists of a human interface component comprising starter utility object consisting of the utility server resulting in the database service consisting of a utility network connection whereas said utility server consisting of a remote host apparatus connected by desired database object consisting of a database computer consisting of the utility server consisting of a database functionality connected by desired remote host object resulting in said utility service resulting in starter database object comprising desired utility object connected by a utility client comprising starter database object providing access to starter human interface computer comprising desired database computer whereas a remote host component resulting in a remote host computer providing access to starter utility component providing access to the human interface server consisting of a remote host apparatus comprising said remote host server connected by the human interface server whereas the database server consisting of the remote host object providing access to a database functionality.

    I Am A Lawyer.


    --
    This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
  • A class action suit, by the Slashdot readership, for mental distress caused by reading the patent.

    I wanna Crusoe Beowulf cluster, with my share.

  • The League for Programming Freedom web site [mit.edu] 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.
  • Well the POST and GET method are part of the HTTP protocol so well used on more than 15,000,000 sites according to the last Netcraft survey. So first this guy is a little late to sue everyone. Second if it's true I will have to reread the HTTP specs and see what it's left to patent.
  • Who is this moron? Durring the court session, you may want to point out a few sites like eBay, Amazon.com, bn.com, e-trade, etc that all use, you guessed it, datbases. And your browser is the client on all of them. To me, it sounds like the guy is just angry at you for some reason and knew about your site. You might want to get some publicity on this...ZDNN [zdnn.com] might be interested...
  • Your car has pedals?!?

    Mine has reins, and that's the way I like it.

    Giddie-up!
  • Actually, no. The patent office does a cursory check, but in general, the technology and claim are not investigated at all until the patent is challenged. It's a lazy evaluation system, just like the constitutionality of laws is not checked when they are passed but rather when they are challenged. It's more efficient this way; the patent doesn't do anything until someone tries to take it to court.

    magic

  • This guy filed for the patent in 1997, and got it just last August, and I have a difficult time believing that he had never visited a website using get/post before that. This prompts me to ask what dumbass at the patent office allowed it to go through? I guess your average web-surfer has never heard anything about get or post, but it doesn't take a lot of research to find out that almost all major websites on the internet use one or the other.

    This is really quite pathetic...

  • Well the answer to a lot of posts about, is this legal, well the answer is yes. I faguely recall that when the stove or oven was invented that the original designer never patented the design but a "gentlmen" later did and required the inventor to pay royalties for something he invented. That just goes to show the facts of life.

    I personally think that this patent stuff is getting out of hand. People are just trying to make money quick. It could be seen as a way to get back at open source. I mean we're all sharing without any issues and some person decides he wants to get in on the act and circumvents the system and gets paid for something that everyone has worked so hard to work together on. Well at least that's one way to look at it.

    Pretty soon we won't beable to do anything without paying an endless number of royalties to various individuals to make something as simple as a "Hello World" program.

    Oh well.. I have to live in this world, doesn't mean I have to like it.

    My two cents

  • I was surprised by the Tim O'Reilly / Patent Office interview [oreillynet.com] posted yesterday. Dickinson's attitude was outrageous in that he felt the current system is adaquate.

    I remember reading editorials 10 years ago, month after month in DDJ [ddj.com] declairing software patent office to be totally inept regarding technology patents.

    A few years later, I ran into a problem implementing a self-service banking application due to a DC-based company's patent on finacial transactions originated from a consumer's home and secured with a password! "PIN-based transactions" originating from a home as opposed to a bank-run system like an ATM.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • 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
  • Aaah... You are correct ofcourse...
    It was my so-called 'brain' wich got the two confused...

    (TM needs defense... Patent does not... Try to remember :)

    I'll try to think before my next post.
  • A good trick would be to get all of the owners of these ridiculous patents to start suing each other. I think Amazon.com would be a great first target... Just think of the millions of books they've sold by using the patented database post and get commands! I wonder if their point and click patent violates the post and get patent?

    I want to patent a method for transferring an electron potential across a thin conductor sheathed in a layer of insulating material. I will call this invention (insert Dr Evil finger quotes) "Wire".

  • Here is a small excerpt from the actual patent text:

    The present invention 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. In one embodiment of a Remote Object system according to the present invention, a user appears to activate a Remote Object as a service of the local host. The user actually activates a starter client, which connects to a starter server on the remote host via a starter connection. The starter server interacts with a starter service, which initiates a Remote Object client. The Remote Object client on the remote host then interacts, as a human interface client, with a human interface server on the local host via a second connection, the Remote Object client connection. The Remote Object client also interacts, as a desired utility client with either a desired utility server on the remote host, or directly with the desired utility service on the remote host.

    IANAPL, but this sounds to me like they just want to hide as much networking mumbo-jumbo as possible from the user. The user just should not have to care about
    a) where the data is located (i.e no typing of http://slashdot.org or clicking on the bookmark)
    b) how the database actually works (there are hundreds of different web interfaces in the world, everyone different from the others)
    c) how the data is transferred (by http, ftp, smb etc)

    They're not trying to patent blatantly obvious stuff - they're even referring to large-scale time-sharing systems in the patent text, and everyone who knows about mainframs knows that ftp and other means for transferring data from one system to the other have been around for decades. It's just that up to now the user has to use different user interfaces for different retrieval systems and also has to distinguish wheter the data is stored locally or on the net (at least in most cases). IIAR they have patented a method to get rid of this (although I wonder how this solution actually might loook like...)

  • Re:This is an international patent battle (Score:3)

    by Money__ ( 87045 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @07:10AM (#1040636)
    Here's the translation [teletranslator.com] (with thanks to Mozilla Nightly teletranslator.com)

    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.

    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 ... or is it just a very special implementation of a database?

    I probably overlooked some serious restrictions in that patent, it can't be that overly applicable, but i can't fight that grammatics.

  • What is specifically required is "proof by counterexample," not just claim that something preceded the patents. One needs examples (with dates) of specifications which use the techniques discussed in Konrad's patent documents. The HTML specs may be insufficient for such purposes---the patent covers subjects with more far reaching implications. However, research papers submitted in journals of the ACM or other prominent industry magazines certainly would be convincing evidence. I recall client/server computing discussed prior to 1994 in magazines such as UNIX Review, DEC Professional and Dr. Dobb's Journal. I also happen to know that I myself had a working client/server application in 1992 that was derived from an even earlier work. Let's see a show of hands: who has used Usenet? For the curious: No, I didn't "invent" Usenet. My work was more closely related to MUDs.

    It is important to keep in mind, however, that Konrad may not need to prove that his patent was in before the buzz or first implementation. It may be sufficient for him to prove he "invented" client/server computing, which would be easy to do if the earliest documented example of such research turned out to be his own.

  • I'm a literary geek rather than programming geek, so the thought occurred to me; An author can copyright a work created in a lanugage but not the language itself.

    Now as a bit of a hacker, (as in take a large, not quite blunt, object and batter less than optimal bits of code into a crude approximation of a program), "get" and "put" seem to be features of every coding language I have seen. They are in fact part of the grammar of programming independant of the language used by the programmer.

    Patenting/copywriting "get" and "put" would be akin to trying to copyright "blue" or patent the concept of "verb". Further, since most (maybe all?) programming languages allow the creation of programmer defined methods or functions, patent restrictions on "get" and "put" are either pointless (the programmer uses a different name for a method that performs the same function) or insanely broadbased (all "get" and "put"-like methods are covered by the patent, for example all I/O would be covered by the patent). I don't think this would hold up even in the States.

    Which raises the spectre of yet another anti-trust trial in which the court demands that the i/o functions, memory mangement functions, device control functions, etc, etc, are all spun off into separate companies..... No, let's not go there just yet....

  • Re:Irony (Score:3)

    by Phillip Birmingham ( 2066 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @07:16AM (#1040640) Homepage
    To inject a little pedantry into the conversation, the US Government has a paid-up license to use this patent.

  • Mr. Konrad esentially claims patent on multi-tiered client/server architecture. Obviously, Microsoft has been delaying their Next Generation Windows Services anouncement because of delays in negotiating with Mr. Konrad, not because of the impending breakup of the company.

    Seriously, the patent acknowledges so much prior art, including X Windows and Cathode Ray Tube Display, that it can't possibly be considered "inventive" or "non-obvious".

    This is basicly the longest description of multi-tiered client/server architecture that I've ever read. The entire software industry is infringing on this one. And has been since the first dumb terminal was connected to a mainframe.

    Get this: "The above description is illustrative and not restrictive. Many variations of the invention will become apparent to those of skill in the art upon review of this disclosure. The scope of the invention should, therefore, be determined not with reference to the above description, but instead should be determined with reference to the appended claims along with their full scope of equivalents." In short, the idea may be fifty years old, but I only want to claim future uses of it. Can I patent the business process of riding on the coat tails of real inovators and collecting royalties for doing nothing?

  • There has *GOT* to be some penalty for submitting patents without citing prior art that you can *VERY* easily prove that this individual quite literally had on his desk and certainly had prior knowledge of.

    Can I just spam the PO with millions of dynamically generated patents that contain just about anything under the sun, and not be held legally liable for those requests?

    "There autta be a law.."
  • 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 [canadawired.com] 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.
    -
  • Sorry, I just ran down and got one on using any sort of sturdy building materials in the process of building a structure. This includes all attached mechanisisms which allow access to the above said structure to and from the outside of the above noted structure..
  • It takes them three years to perform a cursory search?

  • Think I'll patent me "Hello World" (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @07:26AM (#1040655) Homepage Journal
    Excuse me, "A method of providing a basic test for the correct working of a compiler."

    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.

  • Can you supply us with the source code of the program who generated that gibberish? It will be far more understandable than the gibberish itself.

    --
    Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]

  • Can't the USPTO simply reject patents on grounds of unreadability?
    That would transfer the work of making a patent understandable to the patentholder, make future lawsuits much simpler (in those sentences a misplaced colon can make a big difference) and the damage of rejecting patents formulated in 'unreadable mode' would probably be negligible to granting them and then hoping that noone ever invokes the powers of the fineprint.

  • Hrm.. What about fraud? Technically, his application was a complete and total lie..

  • Re:We should all be OK, ala Y2k windowing (Score:4)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @07:51AM (#1040664) Homepage
    Agreed. Since an entire sector of the economy has been built on this technology, there is a lot of money riding on this yahoo's patent being made invalid. If the courts won't do it, then congress will (as it is there perogative under the constitution to regulate this sort of thing).

    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.

    ---

  • But you can only patent something for
    one year after you pubically disclose it
    or begin sale of product. So anything
    from early nineties and before should do as
    prior art.
  • Sorry, you can't. I just got a patent on "a process by which a human may apply for a patent" so you can't get your silly, OBVIOUS patent unless you pay me.

    So there.
  • A paradigm of customer oriented B@B services enhancing customer experience by offering forward looking proactive services in the client-server arena.
    There.

  • Sounds a lot like POST to me. (Score:5)

    by gregbaker ( 22648 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @08:02AM (#1040669) Homepage
    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

  • 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 recently got out my O'Reilly book "CGI Programming" for reference and it has examples of using GET and POST. The book is (C) 1996 and shows that the first printing of the book was in March of 1996. This would tend to indicate that "GET" and "POST" were in use before this guys patent was even filed.

  • 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.

  • My docs are dated 1994... (Score:3)

    by Sun Tzu ( 41522 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @08:22AM (#1040677) Homepage Journal
    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 [starshiptraders.com] has been on the web since 1996, incidently, accepting posts and applying them to its database. ;)
  • Can you supply us with the source code of the program who generated that gibberish?

    It's just a one-minute Python hack, but I can drag it out of the waste bin if you're really interested. You loony. :-)

    #!/usr/local/bin/python

    import whrandom
    r= whrandom.whrandom()

    art= ['a', 'said', 'the', 'a', 'desired', 'a', 'starter']
    adj= ['human interface', 'database', 'utility', 'remote host']
    nou= ['functionality', 'client', 'server', 'network connection', 'computer', 'component', 'object', 'service', 'apparatus']
    ver= ['connected by', 'consisting of', 'comprising', 'resulting in', 'whereas', 'providing access to']

    print 'The service consists of '
    for i in range(30):
    print r.choice(art)+' '+r.choice(adj)+' '+r.choice(nou)+' '+r.choice(ver)+' '

    It will be far more understandable than the gibberish itself.

    Quite so. (3, Interesting?!)

    This just in... police are warning of a dangerous impure batch of $3 crack going around Moderatorsville...


    --
    This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Re:Prior Art (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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?
  • It seems that anyone can get one. I think that probably what happened was the person who issued the patent was probably unfamiliar with the internet technology. I thought that the POST and GET methods have been around for a while. To many sites use them for one person to get a patent. I think that it was a slipup on their part and that this is just another sign that the USPTO needs to be rethought as well do patents.

    FYI: slashdot and every portol and just about every major ISP uses GET or POST.

    send flames > /dev/null

  • But Konrad filed his patent on August 14, 1997, which pretty much means he's screwed. Even if he *did* invent client/server computing, which I doubt, if more than a year passed between the time which he published a paper and when he filed for the patent, he can't get the patent anymore. This means that even if he did invent it, he could have published a paper about it no earlier than August 14, 1996, and, as we're all aware, there are plenty of previous examples of prior art, dating even back to the 60's, with mainframes and timesharing systems.

    If he's really pursing this avenue of 'I own POST and GET', then he's not doing himself any favors. I don't believe that anyone would have percieved his patent to be that broad, and, as such, would never have brought up all this prior art, but since he's going after someone, his entire patent is likely to be thrown out, which certainly isn't what he intended.
  • 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?

    I've said it before [slashdot.org], and I'll sy it again. The problem with patents is not that the USPTO grants "obvious" patents, or patents where there is clearly prior art. The problem is that patents can make something illegal even if you don't know of the patent's existance. That's the way all patents work, and that's why I think they're evil. They essentially say "even if you come up with this idea on your own, you're not allowed to use it". (Copyright, on the other hand, only applies to actually copying the original work, not independently developing something similar, hence I think copyright is okay.)

  • This man is the problem (Score:5)

    by SurfsUp ( 11523 ) on Monday May 29, 2000 @10:08AM (#1040707)
    Has every body seen this article [oreillynet.com] where Time O'Reilly [ora.com] 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.
    --
  • Another explanation is that anyone at the patent office who understood the subject well enough to write an effective counterargument could make more money in the private sector, and has, in fact, already left.
  • 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.




    3.8 Remote Market Object

    A Remote Object system where the Desired Utility Service further comprises, for example, functionality to place a want ad, make a purchase, make a purchase from a
    catalog, or locate available real property:

    Examples:

    Remote Want Ad Object

    Remote Purchasing Object

    Remote Real Estate Loan Object

    Remote Airline Ticket/Reservation Object

    Remote Browse Real Estate Object

    Remote Place an Item For Sale Object

    Remote Job Application Object

    Remote Legal Counsel Object

    Remote Physician Object

    Remote Professional Counsel Object

    Remote Expert Counsel Object

    Remote Market Survey Object

    Remote Electorate Survey Object
    3.9 Remote Reality Simulation Object

    A Remote Object system for supplying artificial reality-based services from a remote host. A Remote Reality Simulation Object has a Desired Utility Service which
    provides artificial reality-based services on the remote host. The Remote Object Client in this system interacts with the Desired Utility Service, and in turn issues
    requests to the Human Interface Server on the Local Host, to create the illusion of an artificial reality system running on the Local Host.

    3.10 Remote Entertainment Object

    A Remote Database Object system where the Desired Utility Service further comprises the functionality to:

    Request and have presented on Local Host, a

    Motion Picture preview,

    A full length motion picture, or

    A Video

    Request a video game executing on Remote Host

    Request to obtain a book review

    Request to participate in a computer-based Treasure Hunt.

    3.11 Remote Museum Object

    A Remote Database Object system where the Desired Utility Service further comprises a database containing digital representations of museum objects where such
    representations can be delivered to the Local Host and experienced in any of the five senses.



    "Remote reality-simulation object". Heh. The Sims, Halflife servers, etc.


  • When I was working for Working Software [working.com] back during the initial release of System 7 for the Macintosh by Apple Computer, [apple.com] I led the development of the Word Services Suite [wordservices.org] by a group of spelling and grammar checker vendors, word processor publishers, and Apple Computer.

    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 [webcom.com] 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 [be.com] (where is uses BMessages instead of Apple events) which you can read about here [wordservices.org] and I'd like to make an XWindows version, perhaps using the Corba API's provided by Gnome [gnome.org].

    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

  • Don't these big companies have mob connections any more? I mean, if this guy had tried this in the 60s (yeah, yeah, no web in the 60s, beside the point), he would have been whacked, and his body dragged to a park to make it look like a suicide. If they aren't using their hit men on this type of loser, then what are they saving them for?
  • 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).
    Nope, 16 is an "optional extra" that reads "all the above, but applied to a load-balanced 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. Spoofing proxy server or firewall - a lan that has access to the web, but that looks like a single machine (or IP address) from the outside.
    --

  • I think we should organize a contest "write the silliest patent" and see how this can go !

  • 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 [w3.org] at W3.org [w3.org].

  • I don't know about patents, but I do know of someone who is preparing to try to get someone arrested for registering a trademark on a domain name that he owns.

    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.

  • This paragraph caught my eye:

    One example of a remote access system is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,124,909 (Blakely et al., June, 1992). Therein, requester processes run on a local host, and are used to translate local host commands into commands understood by the remote host. Such a system is illustrative of the types of systems which must be continually updated, on local computers, because improvements in information service software result in new versions of such software. These new versions must be obtained, usually including a purchase cost, for and installed on each local computer. This is known as the "software maintenance burden".

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close