Trading Technologies awarded patent for DOM

Discussion in 'Trading Software' started by bundlemaker, Aug 12, 2004.

  1. If IB wasn't updating the API every week it wouldn't be an issue for small guys like myself. But sooner or later the Futures, Bracket, Ninja, Auto,Button, etc... trader front ends of the world will get a cease and desist letter.

    I knew I should have gone full auto... :)
     
    #11     Aug 12, 2004
  2. jeffgil

    jeffgil

    I read John's email yesterday as well and certainly think the issue will pertain to something else down the road rather than the price ladder issue. Harris probably has something he wants to protect in the future and is lying the groundwork for future ideas/developments etc.... He's big....I used to be on the floor and remember some of the size they would do...BIG.
     
    #12     Aug 13, 2004
  3. FredBloggs

    FredBloggs Guest

    anyone got the number of a good lawyer?

    ive just came up with this amazing new way to graphically represent price. its a vertical bar with 2 little notches on for the open and close! waddya think?

    e-signal - your ass is mine! i want $1 for every price bar your lousy charts produce - the world over :D



    ive got a price ladder and i aint afraid to use it!

    so much for TT - i thought they were a decent company - obviously just a bunch of tight fisted shysters
     
    #13     Aug 13, 2004
  4. Maybe off topic, but hell, I started the thread....

    Did you notice that Citi Bank has service marked "Thank You". Pretty soon we'll be breaking the law if we open our mouths. Every day wake up I can't believe the bizarre stuff going on.
     
    #14     Aug 13, 2004
  5. nitro

    nitro

    You cannot patent look and feel - only implementation.

    nitro
     
    #15     Aug 13, 2004
  6. thx Nitro,

    I didn't know that. Out of curiosity, if what you say is true, then isn't it rather difficult for a patent holder to prove illegal implementation in a software based product. I mean, like just one line of different code could be argued as different implementation. How might this play out?
     
    #16     Aug 13, 2004
  7. The Patent Office is getting more and more out of control - they're authorizing patents without knowing enough about the areas the patents cover.

    Some of the claims in the TT patent sound broad enough to even cover standard L2 displays which have been around forever.
     
    #17     Aug 13, 2004
  8. nitro

    nitro

    YW,

    You know better than that. If you can afford big expensive sleazy lawyers, have connections in the right places, etc etc, you can get your way. In America, money buys...

    How do you think MSFT has stayed a monopoly for so long? Do you remember AAPL suing MSFT over the "trash can" ? It is one insane world.

    nitro
     
    #18     Aug 13, 2004
  9. TGM

    TGM

    I was on the 21st floor of the Cbot when TT first rolled out x-trader/mdtrader. It is interesting to see how this evolved. We moved from the globex terminals right away (TT was more cost effective and functional for me at least).

    Interesting enough, not long ago I talked with a product manager and programmer from another company that was last to do a ladder trader (rhymes with Fadestation). He told me they programmed their's totally differently to avoid any potentially patent infringements. Apparently, you have to replicate so many lines of code and what not for infringement? They put out a couple of innovations on theirs as well. I wonder if they have pattens on them??

    Should be interesting.
     
    #19     Aug 13, 2004
  10. You are absolutely right... and how many people really give a damn about it? Not so many, which is the reason why this is happening...
     
    #20     Aug 13, 2004