Going to cut and reverse on this one, you have won me over on the patent issue and I am impressed at your knowledge on the field that certainly exceeds my own. Can I take it that should TT introduce a pence per lot charge for their front end usage you will happily pay it with out so much as even a slight groan
I'm a complainer by nature so i'm sure i'd groan. But I think it would be a lot like paying taxes. I don't like paying taxes but i'm a fan of driving on roads and public education so sometimes you take the good with the bad. The patent system is like that. I sort of thought SCOs suit was a bunch of bullshit and there are a lot of issued software patents that i disagree with. But there's no question that without that protection people would be less willing to dump their time and energy into innovation. Despite the fact that i think big companies abuse and game the patent system, i suspect that they would have an even bigger advantage in a world without patents. If you think about it, the correct competitive response in a world without patents is to crush small competitors and copy their innovations and price them out of business. If that kind of environment who would want to waste their energy with a startup? Instead you would have small groups of gigantic companies that are fat and lazy.
oh gawd, I love that handle.. and then this coming from you! lol This is a good spirited post not a flame.
market hacker - some good points raised but i still dont buy it. look at the pc industry. an example is the ibm pc. had they stopped everyone else producing clones of the ibm pc, then ibm would not have been as successful as it was in this area. this is exactly where apple got it wrong. apple did stop other manufacturers from developing similar clones and as a result failed miserably, despite having the better technology. there are many other examples such as dec and their vms operating system, and microsoft hiring the same developers & architects when they released windows nt. my point here is that sometimes - especially in the technology and software industry, encouraging people to use, alter and evolve technology can be a good thing for the whole industry as well as the party who hold the intellectual property rights to that technology. lets look at the facts. a few years ago every body admired tt and recognized it as the superior platform. a lot still do. however, their reputation has been tarnished by their pathetic actions. believe me - people dont make purchasing decisions based on logic and technology. people buy on emotions, and justify with the facts that support their emotions. this WILL hit sales. this WILL affect their profitability. this will in turn affect their longevity in the market place, and may result in traders losing a great platform in the long term - why? through bumfields greed. greed is always the down fall of the great. those who are familiar with classical civilization could well be thinking of the downfall of rome at this point. bumfield is the adolf hitler ot the software industry. he has deluded himself that he is invincible based on his previous successes. he is now decided to take on russia here, only in this case there are several russia's he is going after. (sorry - i saw 'downfall last night - about the final days of the 3rd reich) tt (a tiny technology company) v the worlds largest financial institutions. bumfield deserves EVERYTHING coming to him.
Hi Fred, thanks re: my points. Since you've called harris pretty much every name in the book and in this post equated him to hitler I doubt there's much i could say that would ever persuade you. godwin's law by page 9 i guess Normally I wouldn't bother replying to a post that mention's hitler, but you seem like you're actually willing to discuss this and i've seen you make good sense in other posts and respect you so here goes, maybe we'll both get something out of it... Did you know i used to work for Apple computer? Fun place. This old b-school case study chestnut is similar to pointing out chart formations in hindsight. Apple was making like 30% margins on each machine in a growing industry. And their superior interface imho was on the MAC. The PC was pretty well out there by the time the mac came out. I'm not saying Apple wouldn't have had a shot to own the industry through licensing. But It's hard to expect somebody to just give up that kind of margin plus disrupt their companies cash flow in the hopes of *maybe* becoming a dominant industry standard against IBM.. What if the PC had still won? With out those margins apple might not have even survived and there would be no iPods! Do you see what i mean about hindsight? I'm not saying you're wrong about Apple, I'm just saying I don't think it is as clear cut and easy a decision as it is often portrayed. I could go on and on about that but it's offtopic... It doesn't seem to me that the cloning of the ibm pc really worked out all that great for IBM. If IBM hadn't been idiots and had made sure they owned the rights to the subcontractor they hired to write the OS (microsoft) it wouldn't have mattered that they used industry standard parts and who knows we might see a 500B market cap IBM today. But for the sake of argument, let's say IBM had been smart enough to own DOS. Then to follow the approach you suggest and still benefit in an economic way the proper approach for IBM would be to license their OS and hardware design. TT *has* been attempting to license it's technology. Since people don't like to pay for what they can steal companies can force the issue with something like a patent. I'm a little fuzzy on how that ended up being good for Digital (DEC) . Could you explain? BTW harris' open letter was an attempt to license the technology to the entire industry for the good of the industry and TT (obviously). And not just MD Trader but the entire spectrum of TTs intellectual property. Maybe you don't agree with the asking price, but at least it was an attempt. It's pretty unusual to just lay your entire game plan out in a letter and say "hey wouldn't it be better if the industry as a whole owned this instead of just a single powerful party?" OK yes facts are good. The *fact* is that regardless of emotion, if a trader has a tool that gives an execution advantage it goes a long way to winning in the market place. It seems like you are arguing that TT should just let people infringe on their intellectual property out of the kindess of their heart and so that people will like them. Can you picture Sony doing that if someone knocked off the playstation? What about drug companies? Seriously I have a hard time believing anybody with a patent would just sit by and let people infringe on it for free. Now if you can think of a more PR friendly way to get infringing parties to license other than taking them to court when they refuse I'm open to hearing it. In fact, in all seriousness, please explain to me what you would do as the CEO of TT. Pretend that you have friends and family that have invested with you and 200+ employees that have busted their ass for 5+ years. Pretend you care about doing right by them. (fiduciary duty). How would *YOU* run the company? Because i'm not seeing how just letting everybody steal your best idea is good for business. And it is a hell of and idea, otherwise people wouldn't be so upset about the possibility of losing it. I am sincerely interested to hear your answer on this point. I think it is the key to me understanding where you are coming from. It would be hard to tell your employees, "yeah your stock options aren't worth much, but hey TT is admired and look how good the industry is doing!" I can't debate this as i am not familiar with classical civilization and debates about hitler comparisons are fruitless in my experience. Well we agree on that last sentence anyway.
no offense meant with the hitler thing. it was meant as a metaphor rather than a literal comparrison. btw - are you sure you are not a lawyer? you make a good case! my ethos on this whole issue is that i firmly believe that real and lasting success can not come from selfishness or a negative attitude. this is why i think harris is wrong and why it will be his eventual downfall - which will probably be to the detriment of a lot of traders. but first my stand point may become clearer to you with the following answers... bear with me though folks, as it is all relevant (imo) to tt as we will become clear.... the ibm & apple thing... back then it was still the very early days of apple vs ibm. there was still time to dominate the market. ibm saw the advantage of not being over protective as they saw additional and greater revenue streams from supplying those copying the pc with components - especially hard drives and other peripherals. they saw the oak tree, not the acorn. but yes, ibm did make a big error with the os & microsoft. i believe sony (but could be wrong here) had a similar stance with the walkman, seeing additional revenue in tapes and other components for other manufacturers. both saw it was in their interests to grow and nurture the market, rather than rape it. dec - they were in trouble. they knew it. allowing msft to getaway with windows nt offered their employees future security. i could go on & on about unix etc but im sure we all get the picture. as you point out. the correct thing to do would have been to license the technology out on an oem basis (original equipment manufacturer), just as oracle license their data bases to many application developers, allowing them to utilize the database technology in their own applications. so this is my point. we have many examples in the it industry of companies seeing the bigger picture and oem'ing their property, or letting it slide if they see bigger opportunities by letting people copy their ideas the fact that NO ONE would pay harris' price just suggests harris was being greedy and over charging. yes. i agree. harris does have a duty for his employees hard work & effort. but if he really had their interests at heart, would he be taking a bulldozer approach? i dont think he would. on a final note - what are his alternatives? could he have benefited had he just 'let it slide'? yes. i think he could. if a software developer copied the tt code LINE FOR LINE then i think he should be upset, but i doubt they have. other screen companies have simply wrote to the exchange api using a similar graphical front end with a similar look & feel. are the others as good in terms of ergonomics and execution speed? i couldnt say as i dont use tt. but if tt truly has the best code then no they wouldnt be as good, and tt would remain the rolls royce dealership of the industry, rather than the shyster car dealer it now appears to be. so, in answer to your point, i think tt would benefit from this. traders would use the lesser technology who couldnt justify the big step to tt. using a better interface, they become more profitable, and some will eventually graduate to tt. now, that future market is about to disapear. nice one harris! every large trading operation (cos thats where the money is, not the retail trader at home) would have easily been able to justify the cost of tt if it was superior. harris would remain at #1. no problems. what are all the banks and major prop firms (harris' prized customers) now thinking? are they looking at the annual/monthly subscription and wondering if they should add legal charges on that cost, or are they thinking of developing an inhouse or different platform at less pr grief and cost? yes. well done harris. you really have thought of your prized employees & customers havent you!! (ps - youd all better agree with this cos it took ages to type!!) happy days.
This was just sent to refco xtrader users.... ----------------------------------------------- Memorandum To: TT/Refco End Users From: Trading Technologies There have been many misleading rumors concerning TTâs position with respect to common TT/Refco end users. Before drawing any conclusions, please consider TTâs following position. TT exercised a mutual contractual right to discontinue service to Refco because TT views Refco as an infringing competitor. While TT is as committed as ever to severing our relationship with Refco as long as the relationship is adversarial, TT does not (or never would) intend to cause a major burden to the innocent TT/Refco end users. In this regard, TT is taking steps to protect these end users by giving them ample opportunity to decide what course of action is in their best interest. Each end user should have the opportunity to either stay at Refco and use non-TT software or go to another FCM and use TT software.** Both processes take time to accomplish. TT believes that end users who decide to stay at Refco deserve a chance to do due diligence on non-TT software and comfortably make that choice and transition. Likewise, TT believes that end users who choose to go to another FCM, which could take time due to negotiating new clearing agreements and ordering new data lines (6-8 weeks), deserve a chance to comfortably transition to another FCM and use TT software. TT will extend Refco licenses to July 15, 2005 so that Refco is able to extend the licenses to TT/Refco end users to prevent the innocent end users from a major burden. Also, all TT software will be made free to Refco and to TT/Refco end users from May 1âJuly 15, 2005 to accommodate the end users during this transition period. However, TT does not control Refco â whether TTâs license extension is passed on to the TT/Refco end user is dependent on Refco. ** To be clear, TT is not authorizing the use of software that infringes upon TTâs patents.