Quote from alterego:
Sounds like you work for TT. Here's my spin on the pats deal......
pats has new software that they are releasing that doesn't infringe. they don't have any free cash to spend in court so they settle by stating that they will license the TT patent. But here's the catch..... they will pay nothing. Why? their new release of code doesn't infringe. It's a win/win. TT gets the PR to spin and Pats doesn't spend any money defending their code.
Yep you're right I am a TT shareholder ( i have stated this in many posts before and probably should have here but i get tired of typing it) So clearly i have a bias though i try my best to keep it in check and just provide factual information or corrections when i see people are misinformed. This is often the case when it comes to what the patent actually covers for example.
I would not dispute your spin on things, I don't really know what patsystems intends to do, so you may be right. As long as they are not infringing i doubt TT really cares. The MD trader concept is valuable, but if pats thinks they don't really need it to sell screens - well good for them. They have a lot of screens out there they probably know what their customers want.
Nonetheless TT has demonstrated willingness to license their technology on multiple occasions which was my main point.