Lists Home |
Date Index |
> The SOAP they're talking about here is not the SOAP we're
> using in the XML
> It's really confusing, the new SOAP is a re-use of something that died
> inside Microsoft. They liked the name, and wanted to use it
> for something
I'm not trying to start any Microsoft bashing, honest. I love Microsoft:
they're about the only software company in the state that's hiring right
now, and who knows when that might come in handy? You listening Microsoft?
I love you guys! No, really.
And I'm not contesting that the methods described are different from the
ones in use. That's all cool.
But what I wonder is what is actually being patented here? It seems to my
paranoid little mind that it's a claim on the idea of invoking methods
using an internet protocol on machines that are running far, far away.
Arguably, it may only be that the technique itself is what the patent is all
about (or is legally defendable), and has no relevance to the present SOAP
incarnation. Or maybe it doesn't matter anyway, because Microsoft has
granted license gratis to the W3C for all patents regarding SOAP (maybe).
Regardless, it's an interesting little artifact, ain't it?
> Another clue is the date on the submission, in November 1997.
> Work on SOAP,
> as XML-over-HTTP, the protocol in use today, didn't start
> until March 1998.
> Further, before we announced SOAP, I asked Microsoft if they
> had filed a
> patent on it, and they said they had not. This was a material
> concern for
> us. We didn't want to endorse something that Microsoft had
> patented. Another
> large software company told us they were sure that Microsoft
> *had* filed a
> patent. I suppose we have just a few more months to find out
> for sure one
> way or the other.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amelia A Lewis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Jeff Lowery" <email@example.com>
> Cc: "Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] SOAP patented
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 12:40:45PM -0700, Jeff Lowery wrote:
> > >A little more homework:
> > >
> > >from http://www.w3.org/Submission/2000/05/ :
> > >
> > >"Microsoft further agrees that, upon adoption of this
> contribution as a
> > >Standard, Microsoft will grant to any party a royalty-free
> license on
> > >reasonable and non-discriminatory terms under applicable Microsoft
> > >intellectual property rights to implement and use the
> technology proposed
> > >this contribution in products that comply with the
> Standard but only for
> > >purpose of complying with the Standard. Microsoft
> expressly reserves all
> > >other rights it may have in the material and subject matter of this
> > >contribution. The licensing commitments made hereunder do
> not include any
> > >license for implementation of other published
> specifications developed
> > >elsewhere but referred to in this contribution."
> > Not to rain on the parade, but reading the application,
> this appears to be
> > reuse of the name (Simple Object Access Protocol) and the
> original purpose
> > (defeating the security offered by firewalls), but is not
> actually at all
> > the same thing that is represented by SOAP 1.1 or the
> current XML Protocol
> > Work.
> > Specific differences: data is described as binary, in
> multipart mime. The
> > contents are not at all similar to the XML SOAP envelope.
> > described as COM (ActiveX) and JScript, with an aside that
> "those skilled
> > the art" will see what else is obviously covered. So ...
> maybe it's a
> > patent on SOAP for RPC within .NET, but I doubt even that much. It
> > look like it would cover most SOAP implementations, because
> they mostly
> > don't use data marshalled as described, or operate as described.
> > On the other hand, I suppose it could be used as a stick to beat
> > with. Possibly the application went in before "SOAP"
> became a buzzword?
> > The authors aren't the MS folks who are involved in
> W3C/XMLP/WS work, so
> > as I know.
> > Amy!
> > --
> > Amelia A. Lewis email@example.com
> > The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and
> three hundred
> > sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't
> mean that God
> > doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>