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?

Irony

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?

absurd

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...

HTML IS Prior Art here ....

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

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

And Mr Konrad is certainly aware of the prior art

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

Can you say prior art.

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

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?"

This is being enforced against GM

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

Covert Channel

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...

Re:Not suprised.

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.

League for Programming Freedom web site

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.

Re:This is an international patent battle

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.

___

Re:Irony

To inject a little pedantry into the conversation, the US Government has a paid-up license to use this patent.

Think I'll patent me "Hello World"

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.

Re:We should all be OK, ala Y2k windowing

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.

---

Sounds a lot like POST to me.

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

Al Gore is the prior art we're looking for!

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...

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. ;)

This man is the problem

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.
--