Trading Technologies Launches New Equalizer (TM) Order Entry Tool X_TRADER® Pro plug-in application features extremely small footprint Allows for trading multiple contracts in one window www.tradingtechnologies.com/news-releases.asp
Dang, that's for the pro version. I'd be happy if Xtrader would remember some of my color settings. Does anyone know what the latest version is? I'm running 6.13.1.8 Guess I'll call my clearing firm and get them to put a later version on their site for me to dload to see if that fixes my problem.
Man Group Settles Trading Technology Patent Lawsuit Published: 01/12/2005 09:23:00 UK futures broker Man Group has agreed to settle a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Chicago-based Trading Technologies (TT) - a move that could pave the way for further high-profile legal action against other major exchanges and investment banks. TT filed a lawsuit again Man Group in April. The Chicago firm alleged that a program used by Man traders to buy and sell futures contracts infringed its patented MD Trader technology - an order-entry screen that displays multiple prices so that users can judge the depth of a market - which is part of its X_Trader order entry platform. In a brief statement, TT says the lawsuit was resolved with the entry of a consent judgement finding infringement and validity. Man has agreed to not infringe TT's MD Trader patents in the future, while the vendor has absolved the company and its clients from any past liability for infringement. The settlement also covers clients transferred to Man when the company bought Refco's futures business last month. TT had filed a separate patent infringement claim against the now bankrupt futures broker in March this year. TT has already secured a number of settlements and loyalty agreements with ISVs and smaller broker-dealers including Patsystems, FFastFill, Advantage Futures, Kingstree Trading and Goldenberg Hehmeyer. But its latest victory over Man - which is now the largest futures broker - could lead to further legal action by the vendor against the investment banks that dominate global futures trading. Last year TT asked the four biggest futures exchanges for a share of their revenues in return for protection from patent lawsuits. The vendor estimates that over 50% of electronic volume on the world's top four futures markets goes through its X_Trader system. Earlier this year rumours surfaced that these claims had sparked the interest of the US Justice Department which is said to be investigating TT for possible monopoly abuse. The vendor is still contesting a suit against bond trading network eSpeed and has filed other claims against ISVs GL Trade and Nyfix and futures dealer Peregrine Financial, among others.
It looks like this thread should come back to life soon: http://today.reuters.com/investing/...04366774_RTRIDST_0_FINANCIAL-TT-ROSENTHAL.XML
PFG, Inc. and TT Resolve Electronic Trading Patent Dispute "Under the settlement, TT acknowledged that it has never asserted infringement against PFGâs BEST Direct⢠online trading platform and agreed that the BEST Direct⢠product does not infringe the patents-in-suit. "
GB2377527 - Click based trading with intuitive grid display of market depth GB2390451 - Click based trading with dynamic display of bid and ask prices http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB2377527 http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB2390451
Equalizer(TM)? Does that mean I have to pay TT for my handle on ET being Equalizer? Hey, maybe I can get some dosh out of them for handle infringement!
Bump. The patent is going to get contested once again in court on June 28, 2007. Those dirty patent troll apes.
The claims construction finding in many of the present cases appears to have really gone against TT. Namely, in the motion for reconsideration, the claims are constructed such that *ANY* non-manual recentering movement of the price ladder brings the implementation outside of the scope of the patent. (because such movement is no longer static as required in the claims.) So you can imagine that a price ladder that is for the most part static can under rare circumstances, say when the bid or ask moves outside the displayed range, recenters automatically... then it will be outside the scope of the patent. Honestly, it looks like TT was not careful enough in drafting the original claims. c.f.: CQG, a defendant, posted a scan of the decison at: http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/Patent0207_pdf Not being a lawyer, one obvious question that comes up is -- should others using a DOM price ladder UI now seek to join themselves to this action though they were not originally named as defendants? Is this even allowed? The reason for this thought, of course, is because this ruling has no primary precedent value in other jurisdictions, so, a separate suit against another party in a different court may end up constructing the claims differently. Though likely the other court will greatly raise the bar before adopting a distinct construction.
As predicted given the Markman (claims construction) outcome, summary judgments have been granted in favor of eSpeed: http://www.espeed.com/articles/article20070627.pdf The following blog also references the same definition of "static" that I referenced in discussing the decision: http://www.chicagoiplitigation.com/tags/trading-technologies/ I would expect most of the other defendants would not have alwas static price axis and would enjoy the same benefit. In all honesty, it really indicates a sloppiness in TT's original writing of the claims (i.e., I think TT got screwed by its own sloppiness)... though on the other hand, there is also a petition to reexamine the patent in light of some screens that existed in Tokyo before the TT filing but that's another angle.