TT vs ESpeed injunction denied - Judge says TT patent valid

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by market_hacker, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. from John Lothian.....

    Trading Technologies Espeed Lawsuit Preliminary Injunction Denied, but Judge
    Supports TT Patents' Validity

    Bloomberg's Ann Saphir broke the story this morning about Trading
    Technologies' preliminary injunction request in a lawsuit against Espeed
    being denied. However, Northern District of Illinois Judge James B. Moran
    issued a strong validation of TT's patents and their validity. The motion
    for the injunction was denied "for now," leaving open the subject could be
    revisited if Espeed chooses to confront TT in the marketplace and causes
    irreparable harm.

    According to an industry source, the judge "basically dismissed all the
    defendants (Espeed) arguments and upheld TT's patents and the validity of
    their patents."

    FOW also has a breaking news story about this at A FOW
    subscription is required to access this story.
  2. greedy TT bastids :mad:
  3. As if $500+ per month lease for the software wasn't enough to support them. Some other ISV's have added way more value for a lot less money, imho. Every time I think about them I get furious...............know what I mean?

    TT will end up like Tradestation, another kludge of a product, imo. Tradestation spent more time and effort getting rid of competition than they did developing innovative software. I don't think TT is any different.
  4. market hacker,

    I don't have a subscription to FOW, but I noticed there's an article in there about "Calls grow for TT/eSpeed documents to go public."

    Does it indicate the results of any motions on this? Thanks.
  5. Im adding derivatives to the mix, although Harris is quite a character and one of the good big guys out there,,,, im thinking this TT isnt all that, ive been hearing about data lags and bogging down.....Is it really that much better than jtrader and others,,, what would you recommend?
  6. Not so sure I read that the same way from the blurb...

    Basically, TT's injunction was denied -- reason unmentioned above. The rest is noise to me.
  7. I think the reason is mentioned obliquely, not enough proof of "irreparable harm" for the injunction.

    But I know what you're saying , the entire text of my post was straight from lothian. I'm working to get more hard information on the ruling itself.

    My understanding is that getting injunctions is difficult even with valid patents, but its not clear what is meant by the bloomberg article when it says
    "Judge James B. Moran
    issued a strong validation of TT's patents and their validity"
  8. Maybe the judge knows patent law? Or, maybe not and he's just playing along. Being a judge doesn't mean a person is especially intelligent, just that they have been elected or appointed that position.
  9. hup


    just a layman but as i understand things the suit is not about the validity or invalidity of tt's patents but, assuming they are valid, whether espeed is infringing them. this whole tt thing has a long way to go. cftc chairwomen has already stated that any action deemed anti-competitive will be struck down. i presume patents fall into this category but i don't know. the motion made by espeed that was rejected in illinois was affirmed in another case in ny this week - brokertec vs. espeed.
  10. A patent does exactly creates a monopoly....and therefore is definitely "anti-competitive. That's the whole point of a protect an original invention...and to provide the patentholder the opportunity to earn money for his creation prior to allowing other competitors the right to benefit.

    The CFTC chariwomen can't "stike down" a valid patent due to their believe it is "anticompetitive".

    #10     Feb 12, 2005