IB - Booktrader 906 no more single click!
- Thread starter atrocious
- Start date
Unfortunately, I think doing that would still amount to infringement of the patent - purposely providing customers with the means to infringe could also be considered as wilful infringement, which could attract triple damages.
Doing a quick search, I found this project relating to open source access to the TWS API that may be of interest:
http://code.google.com/p/ib-net/
2010/06/21
11:02:12
IBCS
Please note that effective with the release of TWS build 906, BookTrader users will now be required to confirm their intentions before transmitting an order. Clicking on the Bid or Ask size columns will no longer result in an instantaneous transmission, but instead will invoke the new Order Confirmation box with the order summary. Users may then click Transmit to send the order, Cancel to cancel the order, or Open Order Ticket to make changes.
"This decision involves legal considerations, which we are regretfully unable to comment upon at this time."
11:02:12
IBCS
Please note that effective with the release of TWS build 906, BookTrader users will now be required to confirm their intentions before transmitting an order. Clicking on the Bid or Ask size columns will no longer result in an instantaneous transmission, but instead will invoke the new Order Confirmation box with the order summary. Users may then click Transmit to send the order, Cancel to cancel the order, or Open Order Ticket to make changes.
"This decision involves legal considerations, which we are regretfully unable to comment upon at this time."
IB Salvatore or IB dev, don`t help here ?????????????
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 on TT patent case against CQG
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/Patent0207_pdf
March 10, 2007 | CQG Patent Ruling Memo
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/CQGPatentRulingMemo_pdf
March 29, 2007 | CQG DOM Free of TT Patent Threat
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/CQGPatentRuling_032907_pdf
April 3, 2007 | CQG Responds to Trading Technologies
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/CQGPatentRulingResponse_040307
Given that the above case centered around whether the scale is static, the recent change to Booktrader does not affect that functionality. Does that mean that these DOM's are violating some other ridiculous TT patent beyond whether the scale moves or not?
Any ideas about what patent the absence of a mandatory confirmation step violates? Or is this addition just an unrelated concession to TT?
CQG have some news releases about the case in 2007:
February 21, 2007 | Judge's recent ruling on TT patent case against CQG
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/Patent0207_pdf
March 10, 2007 | CQG Patent Ruling Memo
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/CQGPatentRulingMemo_pdf
March 29, 2007 | CQG DOM Free of TT Patent Threat
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/CQGPatentRuling_032907_pdf
April 3, 2007 | CQG Responds to Trading Technologies
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/CQGPatentRulingResponse_040307
Given that the above case centered around whether the scale is static, the recent change to Booktrader does not affect that functionality. Does that mean that these DOM's are violating some other ridiculous TT patent beyond whether the scale moves or not?
Any ideas about what patent the absence of a mandatory confirmation step violates? Or is this addition just an unrelated concession to TT?
The ruling cited in the links above were all dated in Spring, 2007. They referenced Federal District Court rulings. Perhaps there has been a recent ruling issued by a federal appelate court that modified the lower court's decision. If so, TT may have started threatening/suing again.
Jack
Jack
Trading Technologies Sues Cunningham Trading Systems and Interactive Brokers
Some of the patents relate to its MD Trader product, the order-entry screen incorporated in its X_Trader software.
By Melanie Rodier More from this author
FEBRUARY 05, 2010
Trading Technologies (TT), the world's largest technology provider for futures trading, has filed patent infringement suits against Cunningham Trading Systems and Interactive Brokers.
In addition, the firm has filed patent claims against SunGard/GL Trade, Futurepath Trading, BGC Partners and CQG.
Patents relate to its MD Trader product, the order-entry screen incorporated in its X_Trader software, as well as to other features.
Chicago-based TT previously filed around 15 lawsuits against brokerages and trading firms over patent infringements that occurred in 2004.
Most brokerages and vendors settled out of court, although eSpeed was ordered by a court to pay its rival $3.5 million in damages in 2007.
This figure was reached by multiplying the number of trades eSpeed made over a period of four or five months by 25 cents.
I guess TT musta won the case.
"Trading Technologies (TT), the world's largest technology provider for futures trading, has filed patent infringement suits against Cunningham Trading Systems and Interactive Brokers."
THis is the new parasitic style of American capitalism, which perfectly represented by patent trolls such as this. What happens when the parasitic behavior begins to kill the host?
THis is the new parasitic style of American capitalism, which perfectly represented by patent trolls such as this. What happens when the parasitic behavior begins to kill the host?