Slashdot Log In
Red Hat Claims Patent On SOAP Over CGI
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:29 AM
from the wash-your-mouth-out dept.
from the wash-your-mouth-out dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This is a patent I can get behind (Score:5, Insightful)
If this results in the abandonment of SOAP, I'm all for it.
And after htey get rid of SOAP (Score:2, Funny)
they will get rid of SHOWERS.
Not a big deal (Score:2)
Most of IT support and administration staff weren't fond enough of SHOWERS to use it. SOAP itself wasn't necessarily a child process or deamon for SHOWERS as it also worked with BATH and HANDWASH. Neither of which are popular either. Most of them will just hope that DEODORANT will cover up the problems that SOAP, SHOWERS, or BATH would have fixed but generally everyone can tell if they start sniffing around the network.
I hear good things about the open source project PTA BATH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this results in the abandonment of SOAP, I'm all for it.
No complaints there, but it would be inconvenient if you're no longer allowed to return XML in response to a request. Even a large proportion of HTML documents are valid XML, so hypothetically you might have to include unclosed tags in your pages to be on the safe side.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure SOAP is complex, but that complexity can be encapsulated away. Really, the alternative is what? Everyone coming up with completely incompatible data transmission formats, reinventing the wheel and making the same mistakes over and over?
Re:This is a patent I can get behind (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:This is a patent I can get behind (Score:5, Insightful)
As to GET and PUT limitations: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208427 [microsoft.com]
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.
If you somehow see a problem with this, then you're working in the wrong job.
Parent
Fix the patent laws with anti cancer drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
!AHAH (Score:2)
Since returning HTML would not be covered, AHAH requests would not be covered.
You should be using AHAH anyway.
On the server side, it would be the same... (Score:2)
AHAH on the server is just another request...that's the whole point
What AHAH? (Score:2)
Since returning HTML would not be covered, AHAH requests would not be covered.
Even under a typical AJAX environment, switching the encoding from XML to JSON might work around.
You should be using AHAH anyway.
What do you mean by AHAH? Are you implying that not using query suggestions [google.com] or client-side pre-validation [sitepoint.com] creates a better user experience?
Patent for "Talking" (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
I should patent (Score:3, Informative)
A circular load bearing device where a bent-wood rim is suspended around a hub with wooden segments of equal length. This is useful as a method of facilitating the motion of wagons, chariots and the like. Optionally a metal (bronze or iron) rim can be placed around the wooden rim adding greater durability at the expense of weight.
In Soviet Australia, wheel patents YOU (Score:3, Funny)
A circular load bearing device where a bent-wood rim is suspended around a hub[...]
Except in Australia, such a patent was issued [ipmenu.com].
Umm... (Score:2)
Ok so who patented POSTing a JSON and returning an XML? Or GETing a key/value pair and returning JSON? Or POSTing XML and returning porn?
And why only over CGI? Why not patent the use of server text preprocessors as well?
I Thought This Would be Coming (Score:2)
2. Red Hat have started to become the target of a lot of patent trolls themselves and this is what the said lawyers recommend as a defense mechanism.
Thanks for the spam link (Score:5, Informative)
All of the various "free patents" sites are pure spam. The USPTO, like many other patent offices around the world, lets you view patents online for free - including free from ads.
In this particular case, you can read the patent here [uspto.gov], straight from the horse's mouth.
Re:Thanks for the spam link (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I think you're wrong and overmoderated. I've been trying freepatentsonline.com and it is pretty neat.
Negative points: adverts, and these go away when you sign in.
Positive points: extensive search functions (e.g. search on all different fields), ability to save searches, ability to download search results as spreadsheets (not figured out how yet).
Of course you can read the patent without ads on the USPTO site. But the hard part is searching patents.
Maybe you want to actually try the site before making blanket statements about "all free patent sites being pure spam". I think Google patent search is also pretty neat, and it's free.
And the USPTO site is also free.
Parent
USPTO.gov images (Score:2)
The USPTO, like many other patent offices around the world, lets you view patents online for free - including free from ads.
The various "free patents" sites provide the service of translating the images from TIFF in an obscure codec to something more popular, such as JPEG, PNG, or PDF.
Re: (Score:2)
does USPTO give you PDF download of the full document? I go to see images, and I'm told I need a TIF plugin. a quick registration at freepatentsonline, and I can download the full PDF. Google patents, I can download a registration free PDF download. Both are 'image pdf' files with non selectable text. wikipatents is interesting, but doesn't quite do it for me.
USPTO is behind the times. But that's to be expected.
Defensive patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what they are doing by promising not to sue Open Source projects for using THEIR patented intellectual property. It's still THEIR patented intellectual property, and they'll sue closed source projects for using it.
What's even worse is they renig on their promise if an Open Source project tries to challenge Red Hat's claim
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat is not one thing. It is:
- a community of engineers
- a bunch of lawyers and accounts
- a group of shareholders
and more. I think the value of this story is not to show that the engineers are bad people. It's to show that the lawyers and accountants have a lot of power and could abuse that.
It probably goes without saying that Red Hat engineers are generally really smart and ethical people - you don't work for an open source company otherwise.
A lot of technology firms have tensions between the patent
In Re Bilski (Score:2)
The In Re Bilski case invalidates this patent, as it is not tied to a particular machine.
DISCLAIMER: Not only am I not a lawyer, my sole basis for my statement is knowledge gained from my somewhat-attentive reading of previous /. comments (not articles) regarding the "In Re Bilski" case. I'm not sure if the word "case" applies to In Re Bilski. I'm not sure if "In Re Bilski" should be written with initial caps, as opposed to "in re Bilski", for instance.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bilski doesn't apply here, as the In Re Bilski ruling only applies to Process claims. The claims in question are directed to a system.
Distinction without a difference? (Score:2)
the In Re Bilski ruling only applies to Process claims. The claims in question are directed to a system.
If a system's only novel aspect is a process that happens in the system, in this case XML encoding and decoding at each side of the connection, then what's the difference [wikipedia.org] between a system claim and a process claim?
Acronyms (Score:3, Funny)
Haha Microsoft (Score:2, Funny)
How is that not 'blatantly obvious'? (Score:2)
I mean, SOAP's entire purpose is to be a messaging mechanism over different mediums, protocols, architectures, and implementations; ergo, if I implement "Handling SOAP over " how on earth could that be patentable? Maybe they're referring to actual soap (like Lava, or Lever 2000, summat...)
Someone had to... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Bullshit! (Score:2)
RIP (Score:5, Funny)
With any luck, this will finally put SOAP to REST.
Patent 101.... (Score:3, Informative)
A patent is not infringed upon unless all claims within the patent are infringed upon. The slashdot submission does not take into account the other claims in the patent.
Of course, that doesn't really matter, because there are numerous prior art implementations of a CLI integrating to SOAP for something like this. For example, IBM WebSphere Portal has an xmlaccess command line utility that does exactly this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they are. Of course they are. It's not bad when "we" do it.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so all this 'defensive patents' is nonsense -- they just want to get some leverage to 'wrestle' others wrt other companies' patents if/when such "others" will try to go after redhat
That's the whole point of a defensive patent portfolio. Some other company has patents over stuff you're selling (considering all the software in RHEL, this is certain) so you take out patents on stuff that other companies are likely to be selling.
Its the same logic as the cold war where you have nukes because everyone else has them - nobody would ever go after anyone with patents because the other guy could just counter-sue. The problem is patent trolls, they are the equivalent to terrorist groups with nuc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say some corporation applies for a patent on garbage collection or XML or image editors or something like that. Someone has to prevent them from doing it.
Who would be in a better position to present prior art? Who has obvious standing in this case at all? And which one has legal parity that would be obvious to any Windows user charged with making a judgment on this? A corporation with a similar patent, or a loosely-knit but idealistic bunch of Slashdot lawyers?
In principle it goes against everything t
Their patent policy is worth reading... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
against the likes of SCOs, M$ and greedy lawyers.
And Canonical, the FSF, and everyone else.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are aware they aren't patenting things to prevent others from using those concepts or to change a fee to use the process. Instead they are doing it as a defensive measure against the likes of SCOs, M$ and greedy lawyers. They aren't patent trolls, they are protecting themselves and the Linux.
You don't need a patent for that just prior art in the wild
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have know for a long time that Red Hat is a patent troll. They make IBM look like noobs.
Ok, c'mon now... Redhat (IBM as well) is part of OIN [openinventionnetwork.com]... Press Release [openinventionnetwork.com] here... How about we wait until they actually do something trollish before throwing around accusations like they were government bailout money...
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, so anyone who is against software patents is by definition a copyright-infringing teenager?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You hit a small shop first to gain that legitmacy. The next place you sue(slightly larger), you show that you've succeeded in court before, and that either gets them to settle or influences the judge in deciding for you. You continue up the chain until you get smacked or start making serious money. If you get any resistance, you drop it as soon as possible and go on the next company. While you may have had success as an individual, most of these cases would either avoid you initially after you pushed bac
Pro se? Ha! (Score:2)
If you can see the claim is bogus, why do you think a court will not have the common sense to come to the same conclusion.
Because the patent holder may have already won by default. If you were sued, would you have the money to defend yourself in court?
Re:frist psot (Score:4, Funny)
You know, I never understood the "don't drop the soap" joke. Surely if someone is physically able to rape you anally, then there is little to no advantage to you bending over initially.
And if you've ever got a large quantity of soap in your eyes, you'll know that having bent over to get the soap, you've got your hands on quite a good weapon.
The joke seems to imply an attitude of "Oh jeeze - well, since you've started, you might as well finish", which rather cuts against the whole homophobic thrust. I've read back over these passages a few times, but it still doesn't make sense - is it just going straight over my head?
Parent