Search results

Very well said. It seems the current best way to combat this sort of nonsense when it gets through the patent process is to counter sue. Presumably with an equally nonsensical patent infringement claim. I noticed that RCG counterclaimed in the 2007 case. I found this Stephen Kinsella...

LOL - It doesn't get anymore patronizing than that does it? … and it hasn’t gone unnoticed that your enthusiasm has taken what I wrote, (which ONLY addressed your proposed ‘easy’ solution to the original patent), and then twisted it to be a comment on how patent law works. Unless, of...

I don't think it would make any difference because the patent makes no distinction as to the physical location of the list(s) of Bids/Asks beyond each lining up with the price scale axis. Left, Right, (or Above, Below on a horizontal price scale) is irrelevant I think. However, the...

I realise that it was accepted but I don’t think that in itself, or the other arguments put forward, explains ‘why’. I'm not sure anyone really knows why. There seem to be many grounds for exclusion. As you state, you’re not trying to argue that it is valid. But reasons for its...

I mean that 'not violating' is impossible. e.g. you can't take out a patent on a number sequence unless it is 'original'. TT's patent pertains to the entire range of numbers from -Infinity to +Infinity. Price sequences (or any other sequential string of numbers for that matter) are anything but...

I don't think novelty needs to be the issue here but impossibility might be. My (admittedly limited) understanding of patent/copyright laws is that you can't have one where compliance is impossible (please feel free to correct that assumption if I'm wrong). If so, then their...

Well it would appear it did against espeed but the others settled. What I'm trying to discover is what aspect of their patent(s) is this latest round of suits based upon that wasn't settled previously? Adding a confirmation step to booktrader doesn't address the so-called 'moving scale...

I thought this had been resolved back in 2007. Have TT found some new minutae and tortured logic to start this nonsense again? I don't see anything new that overrides the decision made back then. CQG have some news releases about the case in 2007: February 21, 2007 | Judge's recent ruling...