Subject: Microsoft patent on typing Webdav properties

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:20:40 -0800

Will someone please go over and slap Alex Hopmann for placing his
name on something as stupid as US patent 6,356,907

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- 
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search- 
adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=6,356,907.WKU.&OS=pn/6,356,907&RS=PN/ 
6,356,907

....Roy

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:46:44 +0100

Well,

looking for "webdav" I discovered some more, such as:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtm
l/search-adv.htm&r=2&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=webdav&OS=webdav&RS=webdav:

"A method is described of converting a file system path corresponding to a
resource to a uniform resource locator (URL) corresponding to the resource.
After receiving the file system path, the following information is obtained
related to the resource located in the inputted file system path: the
protocol prefix, domain name, the port number if different than default, and
the URL fixed subdirectory structure if any. This information may be
obtained, for example, by reference to a URL provided to a conversion
module. The URL is then manufactured by first assigning the protocol prefix
as the left-most characters of the URL. Then, the domain name, a colon ":"
and port number if different than default, any subdirectory structure, and a
latter portion of the file system path are added to the protocol prefix.
Finally, any back slashes ".backslash." are converted to forward slashes "/"
to complete the conversion to the URL."

I guess any Web server running on a Windows system violates this one.

The search also turns up patent claims about ACLs, DASL (SQL) and storing
properties in property files. Needless to say, all filed by Microsoft in
1999.

Is this the reason why Microsoft went away from standards work back then?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:21 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Microsoft patent on typing Webdav properties
>
>
>

---

From: Chris Knight <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:24:36 -0800

> adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=6,356,907.WKU.&OS=pn/6,356,907&RS=PN/ 

I assume there is prior art to these? It's a shame that it got through 
the patent review process. (Not a suprise, however.)

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:01:00 -0800

> the patent review process. (Not a suprise, however.)

IANAL.

Many of the claims in the Microsoft patents are very specific to HTTP,
specific methods, and use of XML. There is clear prior art for ACL (easy to
find drafts in Google that predate the application). DASL is a bit tricky --
the first draft did go our before the application, but only by a week.
Still, we can point to email messages that clearly indicate that people on
the patent application were working on the DASL specification. I'm also not
sure whether revealing the idea of SQL wrapped in XML over HTTP at the
public, open DASL working meetings also constitutes disclosure of the
invention.

- Jim

---

From: "Eric Sedlar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:02:40 -0800

The reason companies like Microsoft patent this kind of crap is as a
defensive measure--I don't think Microsoft typically uses these patents
offensively.  This is the same with IBM and Oracle as well.  Lots of random
crap gets patented, so if IBM (who started the patents war and has more
software patents on stupid stuff than any other company) were to come after
Microsoft, for example, Microsoft would come back with probably 20,000
patents that IBM has infringed and drown the problem in litigation (and vice
versa).

The value of that Microsoft patent is that demonstrating prior art on that
one patent would probably be half a million in litigation costs to
invalidate it.

These obvious patents are like nukes--the big players are afraid of the
consequences of launching them, and they don't use them.  The only people
who use this stuff are the little players who have not much in the way of
actual software product revenue, with no target for the big players to
retaliate against--kind of like terrorists with nukes.  That's why all of
the trouble is caused by random little startups with no products suing
everyone for patents on the likes of downloading music over the Internet.

I'd bet that you could get Microsoft to make the patent available at no cost
to implementors of WebDAV if the issue were raised.  If we actually wanted
to use the Translate header, for example, it would clearly be in MSFT's
interest to make the patent available freely.

--Eric

---

From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:29:40 -0800

There used to be a grace period of 1 year after public disclosure for
filing.

Don't know if it is still true, though I don't think the patent procedures
have been changed in that area unless it is part of international
normalization.

The big deal is going to be with regard to the IETF rules.  I don't know
when they were updated to require mandatory licensing of anything disclosed
or proposed for an IETF standard.

-- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 18:01
To: Chris Knight
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Microsoft patent on typing Webdav properties

IANAL.

- Jim

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:35:53 -0800

> There used to be a grace period of 1 year after public disclosure for

In this case, I still think we can demonstrate public disclosure. The
minutes from the August 25, 1998 DASL BOF at the Chicago IETF clearly show a
protocol that wraps SQL in XML and uses the SEARCH verb.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/98aug-36.htm#TopOfPage
(see the slides)

As well, there are minutes from the previous LA IETF that also show this
protocol, and these are from a year before filing.

Additionally, it seems like the VESA case applies here, since DASL was led,
and pushed by Microsoft at the time, and the IETF had/has clear IP
disclosure rules.

Again, IANAL.

- Jim