TT sues Refco for patent infringement
- Thread starter TsunTzu
- Start date
It always cracks me up when people talk about the CFTC stepping in. What exactly is the anitcompetitive practice??? Do you actually believe that or did you just read it somewhere else and parrot it back? Are you against patents altogether? That must be true because otherwise what you're saying makes no sense.
there are like 6 screen companies, anybody can write to the exchange's api. Everybody has crappy margins so there can't be too much anti-competitive pricing power. Nobody is preventing these other companies from inventing and patenting their own trading methods. So i don't see how there isn't any competition. It's not like TT is preventing people from trading futures.
These screen companies could invent their own superior interfaces for trading and beat TT that way. Through COMPETITION instead of WHINING. But no everyone just copies it instead of innovating themselves and then complains when they get called on it for being lazy.
TT is enforcing a patent that it was awarded on a very small and precise piece of technology. That is what you are supposed to do with a patent right? If MD Trader is so without merit as a patentable idea then it should be easy to either invent a superior interface or get the patent overturned. OR TRADE WITHOUT IT.
But that's not the case. It has a lot of freaking value if you trade thousands of contracts back and forth a day, and there aren't any better ways to do what it is designed for. A lot of people have tried to come up with a work around and failed. The fact that people are so up in arms about this whole drama proves exactly the point that MD TRADER *is* valuable. If it weren't people wouldn't say jack. They either wouldn't use it or someone would invent a better / different way.
What this basically comes down to is TT has been basically giving away a very valuable idea and has now stopped and people are upset that they don't get a free lunch any more.
Furthermore, If there's ANYTHING anti-competitive in futures it's the fact that there is no common clearing and the exchanges have virtual monopolies on their contracts due to the open interest. THAT is anticompetitive. And if you compare the exchange's revenues to that of any of the various screen companies it becomes clear where the real monopoly is. Spend your time complaining about who is really costing you a lot of money.
there are like 6 screen companies, anybody can write to the exchange's api. Everybody has crappy margins so there can't be too much anti-competitive pricing power. Nobody is preventing these other companies from inventing and patenting their own trading methods. So i don't see how there isn't any competition. It's not like TT is preventing people from trading futures.
These screen companies could invent their own superior interfaces for trading and beat TT that way. Through COMPETITION instead of WHINING. But no everyone just copies it instead of innovating themselves and then complains when they get called on it for being lazy.
TT is enforcing a patent that it was awarded on a very small and precise piece of technology. That is what you are supposed to do with a patent right? If MD Trader is so without merit as a patentable idea then it should be easy to either invent a superior interface or get the patent overturned. OR TRADE WITHOUT IT.
But that's not the case. It has a lot of freaking value if you trade thousands of contracts back and forth a day, and there aren't any better ways to do what it is designed for. A lot of people have tried to come up with a work around and failed. The fact that people are so up in arms about this whole drama proves exactly the point that MD TRADER *is* valuable. If it weren't people wouldn't say jack. They either wouldn't use it or someone would invent a better / different way.
What this basically comes down to is TT has been basically giving away a very valuable idea and has now stopped and people are upset that they don't get a free lunch any more.
Furthermore, If there's ANYTHING anti-competitive in futures it's the fact that there is no common clearing and the exchanges have virtual monopolies on their contracts due to the open interest. THAT is anticompetitive. And if you compare the exchange's revenues to that of any of the various screen companies it becomes clear where the real monopoly is. Spend your time complaining about who is really costing you a lot of money.
Your right about me just spilling it back parrot fashion on the competitive thing, I thought that what these boards were all about? shouting off an ill considered opinion 
I remember back 5/6 years ago when the front ends were first being coded, even knew some of the guys. All the systems had their plus and minus points, but they were all pretty much for muchness. I used RTS from day 1, i found it better for showing the true amounts of implied and book order spreads for legging short sterling. At the end of the day just how many permutations of showing market information and entering an order is there really going to be?? After all it is just a tool, just as say candlesticks are a tool and the pencil and paper i used in the pit, was a tool for recording my trades.
I now trade on TT, I find it suitable for the trading I do now and I am more than happy to pay my monthly license fee for that service to use their tool.
Refco prop trade on TT, there customers are free to choose what front end they want. They are not forced to use an in-house system that infringes on any patent or saves the clearer the ongoing license subscriptions.
TT tried to get the exchanges to pay a fee for every roundturn that goes through TT, as they now see themselves as the exchange. The exchanges were having non of it, so who could TT possible turn to next to get a bite of this previously untapped revenue stream?? What about if nudge nudge wink wink we drop the patent fight for your in house system and we have an out of court settlement and you just give us pence per lot? How does that sound. Like my runner saying to me after years of good service carrying my cards that he now wants a percent of my gross to do the same job.
I am not winging about where my money goes and if you were to ask me if I would pay a pence per lot to trade on TT, then probably I would, I wouldn't notice the cost. However if this cost for every time you used a tool, applied to the plethora computer tools used in all walks of life, where would it end. If this action is not just about greed then what is the license fee for and why has it taken 5 years for this to suddenly come to light.
Thanks for your indepth reply to my post though. Its pleasant to see all side if the argument put forward in a manner that doesn't have to resort to personal abuse and profanities.
Have a good weekend.
I remember back 5/6 years ago when the front ends were first being coded, even knew some of the guys. All the systems had their plus and minus points, but they were all pretty much for muchness. I used RTS from day 1, i found it better for showing the true amounts of implied and book order spreads for legging short sterling. At the end of the day just how many permutations of showing market information and entering an order is there really going to be?? After all it is just a tool, just as say candlesticks are a tool and the pencil and paper i used in the pit, was a tool for recording my trades.
I now trade on TT, I find it suitable for the trading I do now and I am more than happy to pay my monthly license fee for that service to use their tool.
Refco prop trade on TT, there customers are free to choose what front end they want. They are not forced to use an in-house system that infringes on any patent or saves the clearer the ongoing license subscriptions.
TT tried to get the exchanges to pay a fee for every roundturn that goes through TT, as they now see themselves as the exchange. The exchanges were having non of it, so who could TT possible turn to next to get a bite of this previously untapped revenue stream?? What about if nudge nudge wink wink we drop the patent fight for your in house system and we have an out of court settlement and you just give us pence per lot? How does that sound. Like my runner saying to me after years of good service carrying my cards that he now wants a percent of my gross to do the same job.
I am not winging about where my money goes and if you were to ask me if I would pay a pence per lot to trade on TT, then probably I would, I wouldn't notice the cost. However if this cost for every time you used a tool, applied to the plethora computer tools used in all walks of life, where would it end. If this action is not just about greed then what is the license fee for and why has it taken 5 years for this to suddenly come to light.
Thanks for your indepth reply to my post though. Its pleasant to see all side if the argument put forward in a manner that doesn't have to resort to personal abuse and profanities.
Have a good weekend.
FredBloggs
Guest
lol - you said it. you have to watch him like a hawk. if youre not one of the 'chosen people' you have no chance.
truth is that he is very successful. however, i believe that true success can never come from having a negative attitude - especially towards others. yea i know - this makes me a massive hypocrite!! but im trying!!
what sort of person chooses a number plate after their place of work? (L1FFE).
I've traded both and I prefer keyboard entry. I find it is more robust (less erroneous order entries) and much better in fast markets (you can change price massively with ease, whereas a price ladder can't cope with huge rapid price changes). I traded Sep 11th 2001 with keyboard entry and it was fine, whereas it would have been extremely problematic with a static price ladder. However, no current software vendor I know of has good keyboard entry, so I currently use TT with the mouse. If this patent persuades other vendors to design a proper keyboard entry system, I'll be very happy.
Quote from TsunTzu:
Your right about me just spilling it back parrot fashion on the competitive thing, I thought that what these boards were all about? shouting off an ill considered opinion
You must be a hell of trader to be able to drop your ego that quickly and write that.
I'm impressed, sincerely.
You and i have something in common. We both started on RTS. For me it was in the 1998 timeframe. RTS had been in business for some time and there had been electronic trading for at least a decade. During the previous 10 years NOBODY had anything like MD Trader. It just wasn't how things were done. If you were trading back then I'm sure you had the experience of trying to hit a bid only to have the price change just as you were clicking on it and getting a "surprise" price. To me this says it wasn't an obvious way of doing things and a unique idea.
Much like a pencil, the MDTrader design has been so widely copied and is so intuitive in hindsight that people take it for granted. And though today it might seem ridiculous precisely because its so common place, that pencil you are using was once patented technology.
Nicolas Conte developed and patented the process of making the lead used in pencils and encasing it in wood in 1795 and at the time it was a revolutionary breakthrough.
The first guy to patent sticking an eraser on the backend was Hyman Lipman in 1858.
Someday, the single click price ladder style of order entry will be so common that nobody will even remember that there was anything else. And the patent will expire. In the meantime it is fair that the person who invented it should be allowed to benefit from it. That is the original purpose of the patent system. It is an incentive for innovation.
If your runner gave you an advantage in speed and precision of execution that no other runner did then he *should* ask for a percentage. IMHO your analogy is flawed because you are comparing something that is unique, innovative and protected by patent law with a commodity. The reason you would find your runner's proposal absurd is because you could always find some other cheap fast talent willing to replace him. If TTs price ladder is so replaceable, trade without it. That would be the equivalent of switching runners. TT can't sue a company for using trading screens that don't infringe.
The fact is many companies built prop businesses around the ability to scalp and process order flow made possible that was non-existent on a screen prior to MD Trader. Rows of guys all scalping ticks that depend on a single-click vertical displays to do their job.
Anybody still on the old style of market-grid interface would get their lunch eaten.
I find this ironic coming from a fellow trader. Our entire economy is based on greed as far as i can tell. I'd be open to other models but very few traders i've met would. The reason it took 5 years is because that's how long it takes to go through the patent process. The patent was issued a relatively recently despite the fact it was filed over 5 years ago.
I'm a little confused because it seems like what you're saying is you agree that TTs software is worth what they're asking for it. It seems like your primary concern is that every computer tool you rely on will come out of the woodwork and start asking for similar concessions.
That seems unlikely unless they all had invented something unique enough to be awarded a patent AND there was no other equally acceptable way to accomplish the same task.
You're welcome, it was a pleasure discussing it with you. I agree with you about the tenor of discussion on ET. I can see that you are actively thinking about what i'm saying which all anybody arguing a position could ask for.
This is rather troubling. I don't know who is correct. But its not good for the Futures industry.
So now were going to get altered WaterFall/Ladder type of displays, to skirt patent law...
Only in America....
Michael B.
So now were going to get altered WaterFall/Ladder type of displays, to skirt patent law...
Only in America....
Michael B.
This exactly makes my point about competition. The proper response for other screen companies when faced with patent protection is to innovate around it and find a better way.
And i think Cutten is right that one of the drawbacks of the price-ladder style is when prices run off the screen like during events like 9/11