Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Futures Markets Face Trading Patent Claims

Posted by timothy on from the cover-charge-for-ideas dept.

Jack.Gavigan writes "Trading Technologies, who own patents which they claim cover various electronic trading systems, have published an open letter to the futures industry, asking that the top futures and options exchanges (Eurex, LIFFE, CME and CBoT) pay 2.5c for each trade transacted on their electronic platforms. This is going to be interesting - we're not talking about a couple of online bookstores here. Billions are traded every day in the global futures markets." Update: 12/15 19:18 GMT by T : As reader Bryan Sloane points out, the original headline incorrectly said "Options" rather than "Futures," as it should have and now does.

23 comments

  1. That settles it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Got to get me some patents.

    1. Re:That settles it by vandon · · Score: 1

      1. File a patent for a method of using a patent to screw others. To license the technology, you must pay 50% of all royalties, lawsuit winnings, and collected fees from your patent to me.
      2. File a patent for a method of filing a patent. The license fee is 50% of all profits you ever make.

    2. Re:That settles it by zev1983 · · Score: 1

      Damn! Now there's prior art...

    3. Re:That settles it by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      that doesn't seem to matter

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  2. This is what is needed... by DHalcyon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to kill software patents, suing guys with lots of dollars and lawyers for patent infringment.

    1. Re:This is what is needed... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      i agree. i have been waiting for this to happen.

      *waves goodbye to software patents* SEE YAH. DON'T BOTHER TO WRITE!

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:This is what is needed... by evilmousse · · Score: 1


      > ...to kill software patents, suing guys with lots
      >of dollars and lawyers for patent infringment.

      almost there..
      we also need a scenario where they won't just settle in agreement of how to fleece the masses.

    3. Re:This is what is needed... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "This is what is needed to kill software patents"

      What's needed to kill a lot of the worst software patents that you know about, is an attempt to challenge them at the patent office.

      In the last few years, both the european and the US patent offices have gone through a "lax" period of granting stupid patents, which they've later regretted and tightened-up on those laws. My reference here is Lord Sainsbury, who admitted as much in last week's Computer Implemented Inventions meeting in London.

      The interesting thing about this particular conversation is, that while those patents would not be valid under current rules, they cannot be reexamined until someone brings them to the attention of the relevant patent office and says "I believe this is wrong because..."

      And as far as I can tell, this applies to everything that we'd call a dumb software patent. One-click shopping. IsNot. "x with a computer". Filename expansion. File structures. There's a pretty good chance that these are not valid under current rules, and that on request, they could be subject to a reexamination by the patent office.

      Lookup your patent office's literature, and find out if there's a facility to report patents which you believe were erroneously issued.

  3. I first thought this was about trading patents.. by human+bean · · Score: 1

    After all, you never know if a patent is going to be valuable, and they do expire, so an options or futures market might be just the thing for making money off of them.

    Darn, I wanted to see the blue sheet on software algorithm patents...

    --

    *whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"

  4. This is why patents are no good! by kompiluj · · Score: 1

    The problem is, as you can see, that patents are not beneficial to anyone involved. They hurt the Open Source, but they hurt Big Business also. The governments should not listen to what big companies say, because they don't know what they are doing. In best interest of all parties involved, the patents on software and business methods should never be allowed.

    --
    You can defy gravity... for a short time
  5. forget it by Bishop · · Score: 1

    The exchanges will settle with the patent scum. The exchanges will pay a one time fee for a lifetime patent license. The license will cost far less then going to court. As an added bonus the patents will be ligitimized raising the cost of entry for any potential competitors.

    Even if the exchanges do go to court the patent itself will be challenged not the patent system.

    sorry.

    1. Re:forget it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As an added bonus the patents will be ligitimized
      Not without a court ruling, even they could still be challenged. The bigger problem here is that the lawyers the exchanges turn to for advice are going to be in on the "IP" scam. The only reasonable solution to the USPTO's overbroad interpretation of legal rulings is to is to kill all patent attorneys.
    2. Re:forget it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to volunteer to run the gallows, electric chair, gas chamber, or serve as a member of the firing squad.

    3. Re:forget it by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Actually I don't think they will. Financial houses are notoriously cheap when it comes to operations that the customers don't directly see, like IT. Just ask anyone who has worked in a bank IT group. They will be very very resentful of some leech's attempt to insert themselves into the money stream. These patent trolls have bitten off more than they can chew on this one. I expect to see this group of patents defeated, especially with the huge amount of prior art since electronic trading is not a new technology by any means.

    4. Re:forget it by Bishop · · Score: 1

      Sorry I should have put "ligitimized" in quotes.

      Good point about the IP lawyers.

  6. I doubt it. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    Trading Technologies isn't going to let such big fish slide away so easily. That's a hell of a lot of revenue to give up for a one-time fee.

    Something tells me there aren't a whole lot of potential licensees for these patents, anyway.

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    1. Re:I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are you talking about?

      it's TT that want the one-time fee (and the have no chance of getting any such deal).

      and it's a fee on volume not number of licensees. and the volume is huge.

      did you even bother to give the article a cursory glance?

  7. They are dead meat by iwadasn · · Score: 1


    I don't know who they are, but no politician is elected without wall street money. This thing isn't going anywhere, especially as it is no doubt groundless anyway.

  8. you left out one "scum" by zogger · · Score: 1

    It should be the scum stock exchanges will settle with the scum software patent guy. They are both scummy, in many and diverse ways.

  9. You missed a point... by McLae · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not 2.5 cents per trade, 2.5 cents per side. Two sides, total $0.05 per trade. And they sound so reasonable; this is the lowest offer they can accept. Lots of sparks when this hits the fan!

  10. Don't see how the exchanges are affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I posted in elitetrader forums as "DarthSidious" yesterday regarding this. See
    http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&t hread id=42517&perpage=6&pagenumber=2

    Also see CME's preliminary reply in this article (at the end)

    http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=14 90 3

    I am a futures trader, and have used different softwares on which TT is making patent claims. TT's patents are about "one click order entry using a Market Depth window". Now, this is nothing but a table, with bids on one side and asks on the other side, on which the trader can click to send order. But, the state of patents being what it is, they have a patent on it.

    But while TT's claims may hove some legs that it's "innovation" helped the industry, I do not see how they can claim to make money on it. It's kind of like Intel saying "we make processors faster & faster, make more of them than anyone else, so if you using a AMD processor w/Linux, you must pay me x cents a day". While it's true if there were no Intel, my computing experience would have been somewhat inferior today, they can't make me pay for it.

    TT's patent is on "fast order entry". The exchanges do not use order entry frontends. They provide the risk management, capital, and the technology which matches trades. I just don't see any exchanges paying them any revenue stream at all. Maybe a one time payment to get the patent use, and use that to further their business. But I don't see them affected by TT's claims at all.

    TT is probably just trying to make some noise and get someone to buy them out at a higher price, that's all.

  11. They're Pond Scum by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't let the rather informal nature of their letter fool you. These guys are trying to dress up a lone shark operation with smiles and sunshine. In reality, they're two shades above spammers and malware writers. Like them, these guys are abusing the system to extort profit for free off the backs of others.

    We wrote this letter to make our thoughts as clear and open as possible
    We're pulling a good smilely PR stunt. You already look like old sour pusses. Pay up.

    We believe that we are an important part of the futures industry we serve, that our position in this industry is unique, and that our value is growing.
    We're big. You need us. We're getting bigger. Big enough to take you on. Pay up.

    We believe this 2.5 cent solution is in the best interest of the futures industry.
    We believe you forking over you cash, hand over fist to us in exchange for squat is in the best interests of the futures industry. Pay up.

    Over the past several years, the futures industry has had no better friend than TT.
    Remember all that buggy software we installed. Your locked in now pal. Pay up.

    Protecting the results of TT's consistent innovation is a priority. Beyond the MD Trader patents that were recently received, another eighty patent applications have been filed, and TT continues to file more.
    You will never get rid of us. The USPTO patent factory will just keep churing out juicy gravy trains for us. Pay up.

    We believe in capitalism and what it does for the world.
    We believe in capitalism and what it does for the world. Pay up.

    Whenever we desire, TT, as a stand alone company, could raise the price of the patent-protected portion of our software and immediately have enormous cash-flow. This would be a last resort, but we would go this route if forced to.
    Even if we lose we can still make you pay through the nose. Pay up.

    On the other hand, various traders, FCMs, etc. have told us that they agree that TT's status is an urgent matter and that the 2.5 cent solution would be in the industry's best interest, yet they can't publicly support the solution. It would seem to us that they would be kicking, screaming, and speaking out as loud as possible.
    Lots of your people who own our stock will be heckling you about this. Pay up.

    Summarry of the Open letter
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! YOU IDIOTS!! You've let a upstart IT company become virtually the sole supplier of your lynchpin applications. We practically run the entire futures market by proxy. Now fork over the cash pops, before we hit the big red 'disconnect' button and let you get back to pen and paper!
    Pay up!! It's the American consumers way!!

    It would seem that only a LAMP solution can save the futures market now! But can they mobilise their legions of laywers to bust the Patentzilla before it tramples Wall Street underfoot?!? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of 'USPTO Wars!!',filmed in 'Unobviousvision'.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  12. Sig comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Defying gravity is easy. Defying the ground it hits you with is much more of a challenge.