Thanks for posting this. I read through the patent interpration, and it is obvious the judge was not sold on the defense. He, in my opinion, does not adqautely examine the other software in use before the MD display by TT. But more importantly, his interpretation of the patents means that any other program with simultaneous use of a static price display and single action entry is in violation. His interpretation absolutely links them to validate the patents. When I read the patents, my initial understanding was TT was trying to patent all of these attributes individually, not the simultaneous use ot these attributes. I take this to mean you can copy X_Trader in its current form, as long as you change one attribute, such as requiring an entry confirmation. This would require two actions, such as a click and a keystroke, or perhaps two different keystrokes. Pressing, say, the enter key followed by the space bar, or perhaps an arrow key corresponding to a particular entry order folled by a return, would be sufficient to circumvent these patents (accoring to this ruling). And these keystrokes could be execured in less than half of a second. Regardless, I dont' see TT being able to strong-arm the exchanges ibased on the language in this ruling. It leaves the opportunity for near identical copycat to enter the market. P.S. I am neither a lawyer nor an X_Trader user (never have been).
That's the public version - the private one has a few added remarks (where there are blank spaces on that document) that add slightly more weight to TT's side of things. I'd like to post them but I'm not allowed - not *that* big a deal anyway to be honest.
February 27, 2005 BY DAVID ROEDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST BIG FISH: Trading Technologies, that cantankerous software provider trying to set Chicago's futures industry on its ear, last week carried its campaign for patent protection to the biggest futures brokers in town, Refco Group. It sued Refco, charging it has infringed on its patents by developing its own software. Trading Technologies already has settled two similar cases and a judge earlier this month made favorable comments about its chance to prevail in a third lawsuit, this one against the Cantor Fitzgerald operation Espeed. Trading Technologies is run by Harris Brumfield, who last December personified chutzpah by demanding payments of $130 million a year from the top exchanges, saying his software was so integral to their operations that they should pay up to indemnify themselves from patent lawsuits. At the time, the offer was laughed off. But if Brumfield proves a case against Refco, the exchanges could be forced to deal with him. http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeder/cst-fin-curious27.html (scroll down the page--second to last article)
so lrd ,do you think that espeed has some prior art or doyou think that they are just "blowing steam"?? all insider info welcome here as is any hypothetical stuff on a slow mon morning...
Got to be careful what I say here, but my sources are suggesting that eSpeed are much less bothered by the injunction ruling than original reports suggested they should be. The document that latest story was based on had eSpeed saying that the case was "still in its early stages" or something similar. But then I guess they would say that.
Infringement cases can drag on forever - the guy who patented intermittent windshield wipers needed like 15 or 20 years before he saw money from car companies. ( He was also a FX trader to make money to support himself.)
http://www.reuters.com/financeQuote...tfh78998_2005-03-16_17-16-31_n16703422_newsml to reiterate prior posts, in the u.s. cftc has absolute authority over the futures markets. any action, even that which occurs by exercising one's rights afforded by a patent, can be deemed anti-competitive(i am talking about one's actions, not the patent itself) by the cftc and therefore prohibited.
Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:47:19 AM ET Jury Finds eSpeed, Ecco Infringed TT Patents By Christopher Faille, Senior Financial Correspondent CHICAGO (HedgeWorld.com)ââ¬âA federal jury in Chicago found Wednesday [Oct. 10] that eSpeed Inc.'s trading softwareââ¬âand that of Ecco Ware Ltd., infringes on patents owned by Trading Technologies International Inc. After four weeks of trial and more than three days of deliberation, the jury sided unanimously with the Trading Technologies on all counts, and ordered eSpeed and Ecco Ware to pay $3.5 million in damages. Trading Technologies was represented in this litigation by intellectual property law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. In a statement Wednesday, the law firm called Trading Technologies "an amazing company" and said the verdict was "extremely rewarding." Representatives for eSpeed could not immediately be reached for comment. Nonetheless, an appeal seems likely. Just the day before the jury delivered its verdict, eSpeed's lawyersââ¬âfrom Winston & Strawnââ¬âhad sought a "directed verdict," i.e., they had asked the judge to take the case out of the jury's hands. In their memorandum laying out their motion for a directed verdict, Winston & Strawn set out what will likely be one of its grounds for appeal. They argued that Trading Technologies' case required it to show that eSpeed's products were incapable of any "substantial non-infringing use"ââ¬âin other words unable to operate without infringing on TT's patentââ¬âbecause if they were capable of a non-infringing use, the responsibility for infringement would lie with eSpeed's customers, not with eSpeed itself. Furthermore, eSpeed's lawyers argued that the evidence showed the products are open to non-infringing uses. Now that a jury has come down on TT's side, such arguments face an uphill battle, especially if they are deemed questions of fact rather than of law. This lawsuit was filed more than three years ago, and the judge in the case addressed some crucial preliminary questions in a decision in February 2005. At that time, he rejected eSpeed's argument that the crucial ladder display with single-click order entry was so obvious no patent was warranted. He declared that the display was sufficiently non-obvious as to meet "some initial resistance from traders because it was unlike the procedures with which they were familiar." After this initial hesitancy, though, futures traders embraced it enthusiasticallyââ¬âa reaction that, the judge wrote, also helps establish its value and so its validity. Story Copyright é 1999-2007 HedgeWorld Limited All rights reserved.