I thought It was a proper response.. read between the lines.. you appear to be searching not for a specific answer that corroborates your view.. ( I say under slight influence of drink.. forgive me) perhaps rephrase your question? (apologies if Im missing your point.. Olympic fever means Im running a hi temperature at the moment, so I may not be analysing clearly). Paul (I wish I had golden running boots like Mr U.Bolt in the 100m!!.. 27mph!!! holy moly!!)
Its based on the single click to place an order and the static price ladder as the bids and offer move around that static price ladder.....i do no like it but 10 cents does not hurt my PF so i pay it.
Because it auto centers programatically the static ladder becomes partial time hence it won't infringe the patent, however not sure about the single click part though? Since the ladder display with a static price axis and single action order entry as a combination does not exist anymore?!
It is all dependent on the license agreement between NT and TT. If NT agreed to a licensing deal that stipulated that any product they sell with a particular DOM (described however they described it), will incur a user charge of $0.20 per rt, then that's what they're stuck with. A licensing agreement is not necessarily dependent on whether the patent appears to be valid or not, or even if there product would actually infringe it. Many licences will contain clause preventing the licensee from challenging the patent (seems obvious really). Indeed, it is possible to have a licensing agreement that does not expire even if a patent is invalidated by the actions of a third party - depending on how much of a sucker the licensee is. In the current situation, the validity of the patent claims have so far been upheld, and infringement has been found against Man Financial and Patsystems, and at least initially eSpeed. In NT's case, it is unlikely that they will get out of their licensing agreement unless the patent is invalidated, or they can prove to a court that the agreement is so drastically unfair it should be rescinded.
BF, Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was espeed as per the links posted earlier, that won against TT based on the fact using auto centering does not infringe the patent. Which is why it raised the question since that is how the NT Dome functions hence it should not infringe the patent. Iâll also ask the NT forum and further verify this issue.
It seems that the judgements so far have been that some of eSpeed's products did infringe the patent, but their current products don't. A finding of wilful infringement against eSpeed has been overturned on appeal. Wilful infringement can lead to damages of up to three times the actual damages being awarded. There are more appeals coming though - eSpeed is appealing a permanent injunction against the products that were found to be infringing. It seems eSpeed wants the option of still using the technology, but paying a royalty to TT. Meanwhile TT is appealing the claim construction used by the Court, the finding of non-infringement against the majority of eSpeed's products, and the decision of no wilful infringement. It seems unlikely eSpeed wilfully infringed, as apparently they designed and sold the infringing product before the patent was granted, and when is was granted they stopped selling it, and redesigned their products. Also, I noted that the USPTO has agreed to re-examine the patent. So it is possible that they may revoke it.
Came across the following quote by Ayn Rand and found it very interesting and relevant to this thread.. it is by far the best argument I've ever heard about intellectual property rights. "5.2.2 Copyrights and Patents (Intellectual Property) Rand supported the existence of patents and copyrights, sometimes referred to more generally as "intellectual property," similar to the ones that exist under US law today (which is not to claim that she would necessarily agree with every aspect of current US law on these subjects). In an article on the subject, she wrote: The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it -- i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal. A man is not forced to apply for a patent or copyright; he may give his idea away, if he so chooses; but if he wishes to exercise his property right, the government will protect it, as it protects all other rights. ... The patent or copyright notice on a physical object represents a public statement of the conditions on which the inventor or author is willing to sell his product: for the purchaser's use, but not for commercial reproduction.[*] While approving of the general idea of patents and copyrights, Rand was very critical of the contemporary handling of them by the government, calling the US patent system in the 1960s "a nightmare." It is not known what she thought (or would have thought) about more recent modifications of patent and copyright law."