i agree, they don't control patents. however, going forward the patent office has already indicated that it will be looking for "experts" to weigh in. "experts" in this case could be a regulator, such as cftc, whose oversight responsiblities and "knowledge" base would be positive input. similar to other arenas where patent issues have arisen.
in this particular area, the issue that has not been resolved is how does the cftc respond when a patent recipient acts in a manner that the cftc believes is anti-competive, monopolistic, etc.
(i am not suggesting anyone is doing that currently, however, we all know trading cases where that has occured and the resulting legal actions). a patent in-and-of-itself does not always have value. it's what's done with the patent that allows for its monetization. And in the US futures markets, the CFTC has absolute authority over the actions of it's participants - traders, ISVs, exchanges, etc. I suspect any violator of cftc rules that tries to claim, "Well I have a constituitionally protected right to behave like this by virtue of my patent regarding....?" will have made a losing trade .
in this particular area, the issue that has not been resolved is how does the cftc respond when a patent recipient acts in a manner that the cftc believes is anti-competive, monopolistic, etc.
(i am not suggesting anyone is doing that currently, however, we all know trading cases where that has occured and the resulting legal actions). a patent in-and-of-itself does not always have value. it's what's done with the patent that allows for its monetization. And in the US futures markets, the CFTC has absolute authority over the actions of it's participants - traders, ISVs, exchanges, etc. I suspect any violator of cftc rules that tries to claim, "Well I have a constituitionally protected right to behave like this by virtue of my patent regarding....?" will have made a losing trade .