If that's the case then the 'original invention' is the continuous double auction as displayed in the order book. I question why someone is allowed a patent for displaying information differently. I remember that Apple was not successful in prosecuting Microsoft over the "look and feel" of their operating system, why then, should Harris Brumfield be awarded a patent for what I say is essentially the same type of thing?
It seems like you have a common misperception of the patent. The patent is not on the way the order book is displayed. It is on the way that you can enter orders relative to a *static* price axis. So when you go to click on a price you get the one you expected. Also, you are able to observe the the flow of prices relative to that static price. There was nothing like it before it was introduced and it was widely copied after the fact. And it must not be obvious because many firms copied it incorrectly at first. (price axis not static). I didn't believe it was patentable either until i learned a little bit more about patent law and now I have reversed my opinion. Your writing makes me believe you already have a pretty firm opinion on this matter so i won't waste our time debating it, I just wanted to make it clear what the patent was actually on in case you didn't already know. Also apple did not have a patent in that case against microsoft and was arguing from a much weaker position.
Thanks for educating me. I'm open to whatever is right in regards this and all other matters. If I'm wrong I want to know it.
Why wasn't barchart, candlestick get patented too? Why wasn't trafficlight - red,yellow,green sequence get patented too? it just make me sick know such simple presentation of price and entry of order get patent too. the purpose of patent is to protect companies that put in lot of money in research such like CPU and vigra, so that they are able to enjoy their fruit of hard work. But dome is just a user-friendly interface... maybe TT spend millions trying to make the price static...
Actually in fact it was developed by someone that was trading so much size that he had to find a better way to manage all his orders so in fact many many millions of dollars were used in developing it. It is my guess that because very few people had been in the position to have to trade this way is the reason that nobody invented it sooner. Oh and by the way, look up the creative bad ass GARRETT AUGUSTUS MORGAN the inventor of the first *patented* traffic signal, superior in every way to the colored gas lamps used in england.
cftc has absolute control of the futures markets in the US. i am neither in favor or against tt or any other vendor. i don't require dom, autotrader, autospreader, etc to trade. howerver, patents in the futures arena are relatively new. one of the cftc's responsibilities is to make sure markets are not manipulated - they get to decide was is and isn't manipulation. no court has ever intervened against the cftc (state or federal).
It astonish me that everybody wonders why. Law is made by and for monopolies / oligopolies so who are logically the winners of this game ? And why suddenly people complain for that whereas they don't complain about Oil Monopolies which racket much much more money and people .
Where did you here of data lags and bogging down? Usually, that is the result of the broker not keeping their technology up to par. Everytime I have seen a problem with TT it was somthing up with the broker. The exception was when TT first started up. But not lately. Of course some brokers like Fimat are running TT on their own network. FWIW, I have used them all from day one and even had to guinea pig several others that you guys have never had the misfortune of dealing with. The main thing is having efficient and great brokers in case something goes wrong they can get you out of positions etc. There are always going to be tech problems.
But the CFTC has no control over patents as they apply to futures markets...absolutely none. OldTrader