Interface do usuário do sistema comercial

O jogo mudou. Faça sua jogada. O jogo mudou. Faça sua jogada.
A Blue Trading Systems oferece soluções de negociação abrangentes para comerciantes profissionais de derivativos. Oferecemos um software de negociação robusto e de alto desempenho desenvolvido ao lado de comerciantes ao longo de uma década de negociação rentável nos mercados de derivativos de Chicago e Nova York.
Uma solução de negociação de alto desempenho e baixa latência para comerciantes de futuros profissionais.
Nossa solução de negociação abrangente e de alto desempenho para comerciantes de opções profissionais.
Estamos continuamente melhorando o desempenho do nosso software para lhe dar a solução mais rápida possível. Estamos trabalhando arduamente para garantir que nosso software permaneça receptivo, mesmo quando o mercado é mais volátil.
Leia o nosso white paper.
Cofre, Atualizações rápidas.
Nós mantemos um ciclo de liberação rápida ao longo do ano, mas cada lançamento passa por um rigoroso período de testes. Tanto a nossa equipe de suporte como os nossos desenvolvedores estão envolvidos para garantir que cada versão seja o mais segura possível. Então, quando você decide que está pronto para atualizar, você sabe que irá funcionar sem problemas.
Aprender mais sobre.
Email, bate-papo ou telefone, nossa equipe de suporte dedicada está pronta com uma compreensão incomparável de seus problemas de negócios e tecnologia. Você terá a proteção de nossos veteranos da indústria para resolver rapidamente quaisquer problemas que surjam.
Aprender mais sobre.
Volatilidade & amp; Gerenciamento de riscos.
A BTS Edge oferece uma sofisticação e flexibilidade sem precedentes na configuração de curvas de volatilidade e sintonizando sua resposta às mudanças nas condições de mercado, levando mais rapidamente a preços que refletem o verdadeiro valor de mercado, o aumento da confiança dos comerciantes e relatórios de risco mais realistas e precisos.
Saiba mais sobre Gestão de Riscos em.
Trader Designed Interface.
Nós oferecemos abordagens intuitivas que ajudam com as decisões comerciais e ajudam a explorar as oportunidades de mercado. Nossas ferramentas fornecem uma sólida base tecnológica para os fabricantes de mercado de opções, os grupos de negociação proprietária e os corretores, bastante simplificando o fluxo de trabalho comercial.
Saiba mais sobre nossa interface de usuário em.
Negociação eletrônica.
Nosso novo sistema de comércio eletrônico foi construído desde o início em C ++ para alcançar os perfis de latência necessários para competir no mercado de derivados eletrônicos de hoje. Trabalhamos continuamente para otimizar e expandir nossa oferta de negociação eletrônica de baixa latência. Os ciclos de liberação rápida garantem que respondemos rapidamente às mudanças nas condições da indústria.
Saiba mais sobre comércio eletrônico em.
Assine a nossa lista de discussão.
Testemunhos.
Eu tenho sido um usuário há muito tempo do software BTS desde os primeiros dias da Blue Capital. Por quase 15 anos, o software BTS foi indispensável para mim. Seus sistemas são confiáveis, flexíveis e atendem a todas as necessidades de um comerciante moderno. Combinados com a equipe de quads e equipe de suporte de classe mundial, o BTS certamente encaixa e aprimora qualquer estilo de negociação.
"O pedido de piso do BTS é o melhor que eu vi em mais de 10 anos de negociação no chão. A interface do usuário é muito rápida e fornece um fluxo de trabalho comercial altamente otimizado que me permite identificar e atuar em oportunidades de negociação mais rápido que os concorrentes usando sistemas mais lentos ".
-Jimmy Lynch, SAJ.
O BTS Edge fornece uma das ferramentas de gerenciamento de riscos mais dinâmicas que a indústria tem para oferecer. Como SPX Index Market Makers no CBOE, dados rápidos e confiáveis ​​são cruciais para nossa atividade comercial. BTS nos fornece a capacidade de fazer ajustes e ver os resultados em um período de tempo rápido onde a velocidade é crítica. Nos sentimos muito confortáveis, sabendo que as saídas de risco são verdadeiras, dado os pressupostos que colocamos no sistema. A capacidade de ajustar a nossa resposta à volatilidade é muito útil quando temos grandes posições e precisamos fazer ajustes para compensar a mudança que prevemos na volatilidade.
-Steve Balz, Risk Manager Alphagen Securities.
Treze anos e 3,5 bilhões de contratos mais tarde, o Advantage Futures aumentou para se tornar uma das maiores empresas de compensação de futuros de volume na indústria para uma base de clientes diversificada e em rápida expansão. Advantage Futures foi fundado no princípio de que cada cliente recebe atendimento ao cliente personalizado, tecnologia avançada e operações customizáveis ​​de back office. Todos os dias, o time Advantage Futures oferece serviços abrangentes e de execução de clareamento e execução para permitir que comerciantes como você se concentrem nas negociações. Comercializar um FCM com uma infra-estrutura robusta, tempo rápido e transparência financeira.
Decodificação de dados de mercado direto de CME e ICE ultra rápido, de um dígito, de um dígito.
BTS hospedado planos fornecidos pelo nosso parceiro de rede GuavaTech.

Interface do usuário do sistema comercial
Obter através da App Store Leia esta publicação em nosso aplicativo!
UI para uma aplicação comercial em C # WPF.
Eu criei uma aplicação comercial no WPF, pelo que tenho vergonha de que seja um olhar gasto, uma vez que está longe de ser impressionante. Gostaria agora de redesenhar a interface do usuário para o meu aplicativo, e torná-lo semelhante a um exemplo de captura de tela de um aplicativo comercial.
Alguém pode sugerir sugestões sobre o caminho que eu devo seguir para criar uma IU de natureza similar? por exemplo, se houver um aplicativo C # WPF de fonte aberta que tenha uma aparência semelhante, isso seria ótimo. ou se houver uma biblioteca que tenha listView, barra de rolagem e barras de progresso legais, ..
PS: não tenho microsoft blend.
Espero que você tenha completado seu pedido até agora. Se não:
Tente entender o exemplo da aplicação de Implementação de Referência de Estoque da Stock por MSDN construída usando WPF, MVVM e Prism e você terá uma vantagem para criar seu tipo de IU e implementação.

Interface do usuário do sistema comercial
O presente pedido é uma continuação do pedido de patente U. S. Ser. No. 12/787 195, arquivado em 25 de maio de 2018, agora Pat. U. S. Pat. No. 8,374,952, concedida em 12 de fevereiro de 2018, que é uma continuação do pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. No. 11/417 546 arquivado em 3 de maio de 2006, agora Pat. No. 7,752,122, emitido em 6 de julho de 2018, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência, que é uma continuação do pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. N ° 09 / 289,550, arquivado em 9 de abril de 1999, agora a Pat. No. 7,212,999, emitido em 1 de maio de 2007, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência.
Este aplicativo também está relacionado ao pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. N ° 12/327 944 arquivado em 4 de dezembro de 2008, agora Pat. N ° 8,175,955, concedido em 8 de maio de 2018, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência, que é uma continuação do pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. No. 11/417 546 arquivado em 3 de maio de 2006, agora Pat. No. 7,752,122, emitido em 6 de julho de 2018, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência, que é uma continuação do pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. N ° 09 / 289,550, agora Pat. U. S. No. 7,212,999, arquivado em 9 de abril de 1999, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência.
Este aplicativo também está relacionado ao pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. N ° 12/560 842 arquivado em 16 de setembro de 2009, agora Pat. No. 8.185.467, emitido em 22 de maio de 2018, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência, que é uma continuação do pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. No. 11/417 546 arquivado em 3 de maio de 2006, agora Pat. No. 7,752,122, emitido em 6 de julho de 2018, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência, que é uma continuação do pedido de patente de invenção norte-americana Ser. N ° 09 / 289,550, agora Pat. U. S. No. 7,212,999, arquivado em 9 de abril de 1999, intitulado "Interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico", cujo conteúdo está totalmente incorporado aqui por referência.
O presente invento refere-se, de um modo geral, ao campo das interfaces gráficas de utilizador e mais particularmente ao campo das interfaces gráficas de utilizador para sistemas de comércio electrónico.
Os pólos comerciais são a força vital de uma economia de mercado. Quantidades de bens e ações em empresas são compradas e vendidas por milhões de investidores através de faixas comerciais nas bolsas todos os dias. Quando um produto ou item comercial específico é mais valorizado, o valor do item é impulsionado como resultado de lances mais agressivos pelos compradores. Quando um item é menos valorizado, o valor do item é diminuído como resultado de ofertas mais agressivas para vender o item. O comerciante bem sucedido antecipa a subida ou queda do valor de um item e executa sua própria transação antes que o resto do mercado esteja ciente do potencial ganho ou perda de valor do item. Assim, a antecipação do mercado e especificamente da demanda futura de um item de interesse é fundamental para o sucesso de um comerciante.
As transações para cada item ocorrem em um depósito comercial para esse item. O poço comercial é uma área designada em uma troca em que os clientes enviam suas ordens, ofertas ou ofertas, para o item para um corretor no poço. A troca registra todas as transações e relés ou publica para os comerciantes individuais a oferta pendente com o valor mais alto e a oferta pendente com o valor mais baixo para o item, juntamente com a quantidade especificada na ordem. A troca não divulga informações sobre todas as ofertas e ofertas pendentes para os comerciantes, porque, em parte, essa informação é o que dá aos fabricantes de mercado uma vantagem sobre os comerciantes e permite que os criadores de mercado mudem suas próprias direções de negociação rapidamente, pise em frente pedidos de clientes e use pedidos de limite de clientes para proteger os fabricantes de mercado de perdas. No entanto, para um comerciante individual, ter apenas as informações de ordem mais recentes para um item complica a tarefa do comerciante de verificar as tendências nas ordens de um item porque o comerciante tem poucas informações sobre o volume de ofertas e lances ou a taxa em que esses volumes estão mudando.
Outras informações também são usadas pelo comerciante para antecipar o mercado, incluindo atualizações de câmbio atuais, dados de transações históricas para o item, o número de comerciantes no poço e o senso do comerciante sobre a atividade do poço. No entanto, muitas vezes é difícil para um comerciante reunir rapidamente essas informações de fontes diversas e, muitas vezes, não relacionadas, ou mesmo efetivamente processar toda essa informação, a fim de tomar uma decisão de transação informada. A partir desta informação e outras informações externas, o comerciante deve tentar determinar tendências na compra ou venda do item para antecipar o mercado e a demanda por um item específico.
Assim, é necessário um sistema em que informações de tendências da demanda do mercado para um item individual são fornecidas aos comerciantes em um formato intuitivo que permite que os comerciantes interpretem rapidamente como a demanda do mercado está mudando para um item. Um sistema também é necessário, que fornece informações contextuais sobre o item ou o mercado para o comerciante, enquanto o comerciante está negociando em um item específico de forma que permita ao comerciante interpretar rapidamente as informações e depois agir em conformidade.
O presente invento é uma interface de usuário para um sistema de comércio eletrônico que permite que um comerciante remoto visualize as tendências nas ordens de um item e forneça informações de negociação de forma fácil de ver e interpretar o formato gráfico. A interface de usuário da presente invenção opera em um sistema no qual os comerciantes individuais colocam ordens, incluindo lances e ofertas, em terminais de clientes remotos, e esta informação é encaminhada para um servidor de transação. O servidor de transação recebe informações de pedidos dos terminais remotos, corresponde a uma oferta para um item para uma oferta para um item que responde ao lance correspondente à oferta e comunica informações de oferta e oferta pendentes de volta aos terminais do cliente. Assim, de acordo com a presente invenção, cada terminal do cliente exibe todas as ofertas e ofertas pendentes para um item, em contraste com os sistemas e métodos convencionais em que apenas o lance mais alto ea oferta mais baixa eram conhecidas pelo comerciante individual. Isso permite que o comerciante veja as tendências nos pedidos de um item e, assim, permite ao comerciante antecipar a demanda pelo item.
Por exemplo, numa concretização, um gráfico é formado com um eixo de valor. Os ícones de lances e ícones de oferta para todos os lances e ofertas pendentes são exibidos no gráfico em locais correspondentes aos valores das ofertas e ofertas. Quando um item está sendo "lance", ou seja, a demanda pelo item está crescendo, todos os novos lances são exibidos para o comerciante remoto. O comerciante vê imediatamente a demanda crescente do item como ocorre e, portanto, pode inferir que o item pode aumentar de valor e pode digitar um pedido para comprar o item imediatamente, enquanto o valor para o item ainda parece baixo. Em contraste, em sistemas convencionais, o comerciante só sabia da existência da oferta mais alta e, portanto, não saberia que a demanda pelo item estava aumentando. No entanto, ao "abrir o livro", todas as ordens pendentes são exibidas para todos os comerciantes remotos e cada comerciante é capaz de ver imediatamente a demanda crescente e maximizar sua posição no mercado de acordo.
A interface do usuário da presente invenção apresenta essas informações em um formato intuitivo, permitindo que o comerciante tome decisões informadas rapidamente. Em uma forma de realização da vista de prioridade, os ícones de lance e oferta são exibidos correspondentes a um eixo de valores. Isso resulta em ícones de lances exibidos na parte inferior da tela e os ícones de oferta estão sendo exibidos na parte superior da tela. O comerciante é capaz de discernir imediatamente o número e volume de lances e ofertas pendentes para o item e sua diferença de valor. As ofertas e as ofertas são preferencialmente exibidas em diferentes cores, formas ou outras características visuais, melhorando ainda mais a capacidade do comerciante de verificar rapidamente o estado atual do mercado. A tela é atualizada com freqüência para exibir os lances e ofertas mais recentes. Numa concretização, os ícones são formados tendo uma aresta que é inclinada em direção ao eixo de valores. Quando todas as ofertas e ofertas pendentes são exibidas, a disposição dos ícones forma naturalmente as bordas de um triângulo que aponta para o diferencial de valor no eixo de valores. Ainda noutra forma de realização, as ofertas e ofertas próprias do comerciante são exibidas em uma primeira cor ou outra característica visual, e as ofertas e ofertas de outros comerciantes são exibidas em uma segunda cor ou característica visual. Isso permite que o comerciante determine rapidamente sua posição relativa no mercado. Finalmente, em uma forma de realização preferida, um tamanho dos ícones representa a quantidade do lance ou oferta, permitindo um meio visual fácil de determinar as quantidades relativas que cada oferta e oferta representam.
Em uma forma de realização da vista de valor / quantidade, um eixo de valores e um eixo de quantidades são usados ​​para determinar a localização dos ícones de oferta e oferta. Os ícones desta forma de realização são marcadores ou tokens e proporcionam uma aparência diferente para o comerciante. Fornecer visualizações alternativas permite que um comerciante selecione uma visão com a qual o comerciante é o mais confortável de negociação.
Uma análise de quantificação de valor é exibida em uma forma de realização adicional em relação ao eixo de valor em um local correspondente ao valor atual que a análise representa. O analítico é de preferência exibido como um marcador chamado linha de ação, em uma cor ou outra característica visual diferente das outras características utilizadas para representar outros objetos que estão sendo exibidos. A linha de ação é selecionada por cada comerciante individual e pode refletir a relação de valor para ganhar, a volatilidade, o volume de vendas ou qualquer outra métrica do comerciante, ou pode ser selecionada a partir de uma lista de métricas predeterminadas. A linha de ação responde às mudanças nos dados que mede, atualizando em tempo essencialmente real. A linha de ação permite que o comerciante determine imediatamente a avaliação atual do item em relação à própria avaliação do item do comerciante. À medida que as ofertas ou licitações se aproximam da linha de ação, o comerciante está preparado para concluir uma transação de acordo com a avaliação própria do comerciante.
Em outro aspecto da invenção, os dados de mercado e outros dados contextuais são exibidos enquanto o comerciante está visualizando uma das interfaces de usuário acima mencionadas. Um gráfico histórico é exibido no fundo de uma interface de usuário para fornecer informações adicionais ao comerciante que está determinando o estado do mercado e como ele pode afetar o valor do item. Por exemplo, o gráfico histórico pode representar os vários índices de mercado, valores históricos do item ou outros e qualquer outro valor histórico, quantidade ou tendência de volume. O gráfico histórico pode representar o valor médio do item durante um período de tempo ou pode representar um valor ou valores para qualquer outro item ou grupo de itens. O gráfico histórico é exibido em relação a um eixo vertical de valores e é exibido horizontalmente em resposta ao tempo. O gráfico histórico é atualizado para fornecer as informações mais recentes ao comerciante enquanto o comerciante está negociando. Assim, de acordo com a presente invenção, o comerciante é capaz de tomar decisões instantâneas em relação a um item enquanto recebe informações críticas sobre outros itens ou a performance passada do item atual e outros índices. Esta é uma grande vantagem em relação aos métodos de negociação convencionais em que essa informação não é fornecida simultaneamente e, se apresentada de forma alguma, é difícil de processar rapidamente.
Uma forma de realização alternativa fornece uma visão de pit de comércio que exibe ícones de comerciante para cada trader e posiciona os ícones do comerciante refletindo o nível de atividade do comerciante. Os corretores de piso e outros espectadores também são exibidos e identificados para permitir ao comerciante entender de relance as respectivas posições e atividades de todos os usuários atualmente conectados ao servidor de transação para esse depósito comercial. Selecionar um ícone de comerciante fornece informações sobre o comerciante e pode abrir uma janela para permitir que os comerciantes se comuniquem entre si usando um ou mais métodos, incluindo correio eletrônico, bate-papo de texto ou comunicação por voz através de uma conexão de rede. A visão comercial do pit permite ao comerciante remoto verificar imediatamente com quem o comerciante está negociando, quão ativos eles estão, e permite ao comerciante antecipar melhor o mercado.
BREVE DESCRIÇÃO DAS FIGURAS.
FIG. 1 é um diagrama de blocos de uma forma de realização preferida do sistema de comércio electrónico da presente invenção.
FIG. 2 é um diagrama de blocos de uma forma de realização preferida do gestor de transacções da presente invenção.
FIGS. 3 a-3 c são capturas de tela ilustrando uma forma de realização de uma Visão de Prioridade de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 3 d ilustra uma janela de pop-up de compra.
FIG. 3 e ilustra uma janela de pop-up de ordem de venda.
FIG. 4 é uma captura de tela que ilustra uma forma de realização de uma Visão de Valor / Quantidade de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 5 é um fluxograma que ilustra uma forma de realização preferida de um método de exibição de íons de oferta e oferta de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 6 é um fluxograma que ilustra uma forma de realização preferida de um método de gerar um ícone de pedido de oferta de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 7 é um fluxograma que ilustra uma forma de realização preferida de um método de geração de um íman de ordem de oferta de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 8 é um fluxograma que ilustra uma forma de realização alternativa de gerar um ícone de ordem.
FIG. 9 é uma captura de tela que ilustra uma visão de painel de poço de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 10 é um fluxograma que ilustra uma forma de realização preferida de gerar e colocar um ícone de comerciante de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 11 é uma captura de tela que ilustra uma janela de comunicação de acordo com a presente invenção.
FIG. 1 ilustra o sistema de comércio eletrônico de acordo com a presente invenção. Os terminais do cliente 104 são acoplados a um gerenciador de transações 100. Os terminais do cliente 104 são computadores pessoais, terminais como parte de uma rede ou qualquer outro dispositivo de computação. Os comerciantes usam os terminais do cliente 104 para interagir com os pontos de negociação geridos pelo gerenciador de transações 100. O gerenciador de transações 100 gerencia as solicitações de transação geradas pelos terminais do cliente 104, encaminha informações para, de e entre os terminais 104 e o gerenciador de transações 100 e armazena e recupera informações de um banco de dados 108 ou bancos de dados 108.
FIG. 2 ilustra uma concretização mais específica do gerenciador de transações 100. Os clientes 104 são acoplados ao gerenciador de logon 204 para fornecer a cada cliente acesso ao gerenciador de transações 100 e permitir que cada cliente 104 designe um ou mais pontos de negociação 220 a que deve ser conectado. O gerenciador de transações 100 hospeda um ou mais servidores de transações 200. Cada servidor de transação 200 é responsável pela negociação de um item especificado, apoiando essencialmente um depósito comercial específico. Os agentes de informação de resumo 224 para cada servidor de transação 200 proporcionam um estado atual da atividade de cada poço 220 para um comerciante conectado ao gerenciador de logon 204. O comerciante pode selecionar um poço 220 ao qual deve ser conectado com base nas informações de resumo. Uma vez que o processo de logon está completo, os clientes 104 são acoplados a um servidor de registro 212 para o depósito comercial especificado 220. O registro para cada poço 220 exige que o cliente 104 forneça uma chave de acesso que recebeu do gerenciador de login 204 durante o logon.
Depois de se cadastrar para um poço 220, o comerciante pode adicionar, modificar ou excluir ordens para o item que está sendo negociado no pit comercial 220. Um tipo de pedido denominado "lance" é uma ordem para comprar uma quantidade específica de um item com ou abaixo de um valor específico. Outro tipo de pedido denominado "oferta" é uma ordem para vender até uma quantidade específica de um item igual ou superior a um valor específico. Outros tipos de pedidos são possíveis dependendo do tipo de item que está sendo negociado no pit comercial 220.
Cada poço 220 inclui um servidor de transação 200. O servidor de transação 200 recebe ordens, combina ofertas e ofertas (quando um lance e oferta são correspondentes, é chamado de comércio ou execução) e encaminha informações tanto para o banco de dados 208 como para os terminais do cliente 104 conectados ao poço comercial 220. Os terminais do cliente 104 geram ícones para ordens de oferta e oferta (chamados ícones de oferta e oferta), gráficos históricos e ícones de comerciantes e determinam a colocação de ícones de oferta e oferta e ícones de comerciante sensíveis às informações recebidas do servidor de transações 200. O banco de dados 208 ao qual o servidor de transação 200 é acoplado armazena as informações correspondentes a cada comerciante, informações sobre cada pedido enviado ao longo de um período (como o início dos dias de negociação), informações sobre cada troca durante um período (como últimos 180 dias) e as informações correspondentes ao item que está sendo negociado. Cada comerciante pode ter informações associadas à conta do comerciante armazenada, incluindo um nome, conta de e-mail, endereço, número de telefone, métrica de quantificação de valor pessoal ou histórico de atividade analítica e várias outras informações únicas para o comerciante individual e que podem ser usado pelo presente invento para criar um ambiente comercial virtual.
As informações correspondentes a todas as ordens incluem se a ordem foi uma nova ordem, as modificações a uma ordem existente ou a exclusão de uma ordem previamente enviada, o tipo de ordem (por exemplo, lance ou oferta), o valor, a quantidade, o tempo e data de envio do pedido e qualquer outra informação específica para o pedido. As informações correspondentes a cada comércio incluem o valor, quantidade, comprador e vendedor. As informações correspondentes ao item que está sendo negociado incluem o maior valor de lance pendente eo menor valor de oferta pendente para o item, bem como uma lista dos valores de todas as ordens abertas para o item. A informação do item é armazenada no banco de dados 208 em uma estrutura de dados, como uma tabela de pedidos. O servidor 200 atualiza as informações na tabela de pedidos em resposta a receber informações dos terminais do cliente 104. A informação atualizada é então transmitida de volta para os terminais do cliente 104. Outras informações, como informações usadas na criação de gráficos históricos, também podem ser armazenadas no banco de dados 208. As informações que podem ser globais para mais de um poço 220, por exemplo, informações pessoais do comerciante, também são armazenadas no banco de dados do sistema 108, para permitir que a informação seja acessada por cada pit comercial 220.
Para os comerciantes registrados no mesmo depósito comercial 220, todas as ordens (ou ofertas ou especificações de um valor e quantidade) são transmitidas ao servidor de transações 200 para esse poço 220. O servidor 200 analisa os pedidos de correspondências com ordens pendentes ou abertas. Se houver uma correspondência entre ordens de diferentes tipos, por exemplo, entre um lance e uma oferta, então uma transação é promulgada e os terminais do cliente 104 são notificados para remover os ícones correspondentes. Todas as ordens pendentes são transmitidas a cada terminal do cliente, permitindo que um comerciante veja todas as ordens pendentes de todos os comerciantes para um item em um poço comercial em um determinado momento. As visualizações do cliente são atualizadas continuamente ou em intervalos específicos para fornecer informações atualizadas sobre as ordens pendentes e o estado do mercado no poço 220. Como mostrado na FIG. 2, vários pólos comerciais 220 são fornecidos no sistema de comércio eletrônico, e um único comerciante pode estar conectado a tantos poços 220 ao mesmo tempo que desejado. O número de poços comerciais 220 que podem ser mantidos de acordo com a presente invenção é adaptável escalável ao número de servidores que são fornecidos no sistema. Os itens de comércio incluem qualquer commodity possível, por exemplo, minerais, futuros ou ações de uma corporação. Outras configurações de rede podem ser usadas para implementar o sistema de comércio eletrônico como é conhecido pelos especialistas na técnica.
Os terminais do cliente 104 proporcionam a ligação interativa entre os comerciantes e os pólos comerciais 220 e exibem as várias interfaces de usuário da presente invenção. FIG. 3a ilustra uma vista de prioridade 312 que é projetada para permitir que os comerciantes postem de forma intuitiva as ordens 300, 304 e os marcadores de exibição 336 que representam métricas de quantificação de valor e dados de tendência contextual 316 de acordo com a presente invenção. Na forma de realização da vista de prioridade, as ordens 300, 304 são exibidas num local correspondente ao seu valor em relação ao eixo de valor 332. Os valores podem representar preço, taxa de juros ou qualquer outra métrica pelo qual um item pode ser avaliado. Por exemplo, a oferta 304 (1) tem um valor de US $ 28,45 e o ponto mais baixo do bordo inferior 308 do ícone 304 (1) está alinhado com o valor 28,45 no eixo de valor 332. Nesta forma de realização, os bordos superiores 309 das ofertas e os bordos inferiores 308 dos ícones de oferta são angulados. A oferta mais à direita é a oferta com o valor mais alto e a oferta mais à direita é a oferta com o valor mais baixo. Isso permite que as arestas 308, 309 dos ícones 300, 304 formem um triângulo que aponte para a separação em valor entre a última oferta mais baixa e a última oferta mais alta. A quantidade de cada ordem é representada pelo tamanho do ícone, como seu comprimento ou altura. Os ícones com um tamanho maior representam ordens com uma quantidade maior. A quantidade específica e outras informações de uma ordem exibida na tela podem ser conhecidas selecionando essa ordem, que invoca uma janela pop-up para exibir o valor preciso e a quantidade da ordem selecionada. Em uma forma de realização alternativa, a informação de ordem específica é exibida na barra de tarefas da ordem 328, em resposta a um comerciante selecionando um ítem de oferta ou oferta, desde que a empresa tenha efetuado o pedido selecionando a ordem. Alternativamente, se o espaço permitir, a quantidade e o valor podem ser exibidos no próprio ícone.
Se houver várias ordens com o mesmo valor, as ordens são empilhadas ou colocadas adjacentes uma à outra em resposta ao tempo em que a ordem foi colocada. Por exemplo, as propostas 300 (5), 300 (6), 300 (7) têm valores iguais a pouco menos de US $ 27,35. Portanto, os três ícones de lances 300 são empilhados verticalmente. Um método preferido de empilhamento coloca os pedidos mais antigos mais próximos do espaço horizontal que ocorre naturalmente e separa as ofertas e as ofertas. A separação horizontal entre as ofertas e as ofertas ocorre naturalmente porque todos os lances exibidos estão sempre em um valor menor do que as ofertas exibidas. Se uma oferta for colocada em um valor igual ou superior a um valor de oferta, uma transação será feita imediatamente e os ícones serão removidos. Por exemplo, na pilha contendo ordens 300 (7), 300 (6) e 300 (5) na FIG. 3 a, a primeira e, portanto, a oferta mais antiga no tempo foi de 300 (7) e é colocada no topo da pilha, mais próxima da separação horizontal entre as ofertas apresentadas e as ofertas. As outras duas apostas empilhadas 300 (6), 300 (5) estão posicionadas abaixo da oferta mais antiga 300 (7), correspondente ao tempo em que foram enviadas e ordenadas por ordem do mais antigo ao mais novo. Na pilha que contém as ofertas 304 (2), 304 (3) e 304 (4), a oferta mais antiga 304 (2) está posicionada na parte inferior da pilha mais próxima da separação horizontal. e a mais nova oferta 304 (4) está posicionada no topo da pilha. O método acima de encomendar lances e ofertas é um método preferido, no entanto, outros esquemas de pedidos poderiam ser utilizados dentro do escopo da presente invenção.
O comerciante que usa o terminal do cliente 104 de acordo com o presente invento, mostra todas as ordens pendentes 300, 304 para o item que está sendo comercializado. Esta é uma diferença significativa entre a presente invenção e os sistemas convencionais porque um comerciante que usa um sistema de acordo com a presente invenção é capaz de visualizar as tendências nas ofertas e oferece além da compra e venda do item que está sendo negociado. Por exemplo, na FIG. 3 a, um comerciante pode analisar rapidamente as ordens pendentes 300, 304, e determinar que há um número quase igual de lances 300 (8) como ofertas 304 (8). Assim, o comerciante pode inferir que o mercado é estável e o valor para o item não será dramaticamente conduzido para cima ou para baixo no futuro próximo. Consequentemente, o comerciante pode decidir não tomar nenhuma ação. No entanto, como mostrado na FIG. 3b, se a demanda for construída através de um número crescente de lances sendo feitos, como mostrado pela exibição de um número aumentado de ícones de lances 300, ou lances estão sendo feitos para grandes quantidades, como mostrado pela exibição de ícones de lances 300 com maior tamanho, e se o fornecimento retroceder, conforme indicado pela exibição de um número reduzido de ícones de ofertas 304, o comerciante pode antecipar que o valor para o item aumentará. Consequentemente, o comerciante colocará lances para as ofertas atualmente baixas de valor 304. Assim, ao visualizar todos os ícones de oferta pendentes 304 e os íons de lances 300 conforme eles são feitos em um item, o comerciante pode antecipar o mercado e ajustar rapidamente seus planos de negociação para tirar proveito da informação. Em contraste, em sistemas convencionais, o comerciante só conhece o último lance mais alto e a última oferta mais baixa. No exemplo da FIG. 3 a, o comerciante só conhecia a existência da oferta 300 (1) e oferece 304 (1). Somente o fabricante de mercado saberia sobre a existência das outras ofertas e ofertas. Os comerciantes individuais, portanto, desconhecem as tendências das licitações e experimentam maiores dificuldades em antecipar o mercado.
O comerciante também pode ver a diferença entre os ícones de oferta 304 e os íons de lances 300 para determinar a que valor as vendas podem ser feitas e para a quantidade. No exemplo da FIG. 3 a, o comerciante pode determinar que existem várias propostas 300 (5), 300 (6), 300 (7), com um valor ligeiramente inferior a $ 27,35. Portanto, se o comerciante tiver uma série de itens para vender, o comerciante pode fazer ofertas nesse valor e ter certeza de uma venda de todos os seus itens. No entanto, se esse valor for muito baixo, o comerciante pode escolher manter todos os itens até que o valor do item tenha aumentado, o que seria refletido na exibição de ícones de lances adicionais em uma posição de maior valor na tela. Em contraste, se um comerciante estivesse usando um sistema convencional, o comerciante teria que oferecer seus itens de forma incremental, sem saber antecipadamente quando as vendas provavelmente serão feitas.
O eixo de valor 332 indica o valor no qual um item está sendo negociado. Esse valor pode representar diferentes medidas qualitativas para um item, como o preço bruto do item; Para os títulos, o valor poderia ser o custo do vínculo ou a taxa de juros implícita da obrigação, ou o valor ser usado como medida de volatilidade implícita do item, por exemplo, uma medida genérica da despesa relativa de uma opção . Cada comerciante pode usar sua própria escala de valor. Por exemplo, um comerciante pode usar o custo de uma obrigação como um eixo de valores e outro pode usar a taxa de juros implícita do vínculo. Independentemente da escolha de valor de um comerciante, os diferentes pedidos são exibidos na tela do comerciante em termos do valor que o comerciante escolheu. Além disso, as escalas de valor são completamente personalizáveis. Por exemplo, um arbitral de ouro poderia criar uma escala que mede a diferença entre o preço de futuros do metal, menos o preço à vista do metal. O arbitrageur poderia então aplicar o custo de transporte, incluindo seguro e armazenamento, para a diferença de preço no futuro / caixa para gerar uma taxa de juros implícita para o ouro. Assim, o eixo de valor para arbitragem seria uma taxa de juros. Em outro exemplo, um comerciante que está interessado em comercializar óleo de soja pode comprar e vender soja, mas, usando um eixo de valor que responde pelo custo atual de esmagamento de soja, armazenamento de soja, transporte, etc., pode realmente ser comercializado em óleo de soja . Assim, diferentes comerciantes no mesmo pit comercial 220 veriam o mesmo lance e ofertas, mas organizados em relação ao seu próprio eixo de valor específico. Assim, a presente invenção proporciona uma enorme flexibilidade na construção de uma visão do valor de um item que é diretamente representativa do próprio interesse do comerciante no item.
A vista de prioridade 312 oferece várias outras vantagens para um comerciante. As ofertas 304 e as propostas 300 são exibidas em diferentes cores, formas, texturas ou tamanhos, ou outras características visuais distintivas, para permitir ao comerciante verificar rapidamente o estado atual do mercado para este item. Além disso, as ordens feitas pelo comerciante são exibidas com uma característica visual diferente da característica visual usada para exibir pedidos de outros comerciantes. Isso permite ao comerciante distinguir facilmente entre seus próprios pedidos e as ordens de outros comerciantes. Por exemplo, na FIG. 3 a, o comerciante é capaz de determinar imediatamente que as ofertas 304 (3) e 304 (7) são as próprias ofertas do comerciante 304 e, portanto, devem ser descontadas de qualquer análise de mercado. Na FIG. 3 a, o comerciante também pode determinar rapidamente que o próprio comerciante é o comerciante com a maioria das ofertas 300 no lugar, o que sugere ao comerciante que o valor do item pode ser conduzido para baixo se o comerciante remover suas propostas 300 do poço 220 .
As ordens podem ser colocadas por um comerciante usando a interface de usuário da presente invenção de várias maneiras. Numa concretização, como mostrado na FIG. 3 a, o comerciante pode enviar diretamente um pedido usando a barra de tarefas do pedido 328. As opções para especificar o valor e a quantidade de uma oferta ou oferta e o período de validade são fornecidos. Depois que a informação é inserida, o comerciante seleciona o Pedido de Lugar e a ordem é enviada ao servidor de transação 200 para o poço 220 e um ícone de oferta ou oferta 304, 300 é gerado e exibido no local desejado com o tamanho desejado. As informações da ordem são comunicadas ao servidor de transações 200 e de lá para os outros terminais do cliente, de modo que a nova oferta / oferta apareça nas telas de todos os outros comerciantes neste mesmo poço. Numa concretização preferida, o comerciante envia um pedido simplesmente selecionando um token de oferta 324 ou um token de lance 320 usando um dispositivo apontador. Depois de ser selecionado, o comerciante ajusta o tamanho da oferta ou o token de compra 324, 320 até o tamanho do token corresponder à quantidade desejada da ordem. De preferência, uma janela pop-up ou outro indicador de tela é exibido para mostrar em termos numéricos a quantidade do tamanho atual do token, para facilitar o processo de criação de um token de ordem adequadamente dimensionado. Em seguida, o token é arrastado para um local na tela que corresponde ao valor desejado da ordem. Again, a screen indicator displays the current value for the token at its current location as it is being dragged to allow precise placement of the token at the desired value.
In the embodiment of FIG. 3 a , a value marker 344 follows bid token 320 as it is moved to a location in the display. The value marker 344 indicates the value of the new order as the order is being placed. This allows for the trader to easily and precisely move the token 320 , 324 to the desired value. After reaching the desired value, the trader releases the pointing device button and a Buy pop-up window 350 , as shown in FIG. 3 d . is displayed with the bid order information. The Buy pop-up window 350 allows the trader to modify the order information (value, quantity, expiration), cancel the order or submit the order with the presently displayed information. If the order is to sell an item, a Sell pop-up window 354 is displayed, as shown in FIG. 3 e . After the order is submitted to the transaction server, it will be displayed on the screens of all traders in this trading pit connected to the transaction server 200 .
An additional feature of the user interface of the present invention is the provision of contextual data. Contextual data comprises historical trading data of the item, historical or current trading data of other items, historical or current trading data of an average of items. For example, the trader may wish to have the Dow Jones Average™ displayed on the screen, and updated in realtime. Viewing contextual data along with the outstanding offers and bids allows the trader to better anticipate the market. For example, if the Dow Jones™ average is used as the contextual data, and is falling sharply, the trader may decide to begin selling his items even though the value of the item in the pit 220 has been stable. This allows the trader to anticipate where the market is headed. Any type of data useful to the trader can be displayed as contextual data. The contextual data 316 is preferably displayed as a historical chart 316 along a vertical axis of values and against a horizontal axis of time. The historical chart 316 can be displayed against any time period, for example, hours, minutes, etc. The historical chart 316 is updated periodically as the data for the item is updated. If the historical chart 316 includes the current item, as shown in FIG. 3 a , bar lines are displayed in the data to indicate the high and low values of the item for that time period. A volume graph 340 is displayed at the bottom edge of graph. The volume graph illustrates the volume of transactions in the pit 220 , and gives additional information to the trader regarding the state of the market for the item.
Yet another feature of the user interface of the present invention is the display of a marker 336 . The marker 336 is representative of a value quantifying metric specified by the trader. The metric determines a current action value for the item which identifies the value at which the trader should act if the value of the item rises above the action value or falls beneath the action value. For example, in FIG. 3 b , the value quantifying metric generates an action value of $68.57. The marker 336 is displayed at this value to indicate to the trader the location of the action value in relation to the current bids 300 and offers 304 . In the example of FIG. 3 b , the marker is displayed as an action line 336 . As can be seen, the outstanding bids are below the action line 336 and the current offers are above the action line 336 . This indicates to the trader that no action should be taken.
The value quantifying metric can be an algorithm or formula based upon factors the trader believes are important in ascertaining the true worth of an item This metric can be set to reflect value-to-earnings ratio, volatility, volume of orders, per cent gain, or any simple or complex design. The trader can input a custom metric or can select a metric from a predesignated list of metrics. Metrics may also be purchased from 3 rd parties and incorporated into the client terminal 104 . This allows new metrics to be added at any time. The action value displayed by metrics are dynamically determined either by the client terminal 104 or the server 200 , and updated whenever new data is received regarding a component of the metric. Thus, the trader is given the latest information to update the trader's action line 336 , allowing the trader to make current, informed decisions regarding possible orders. For example, in FIG. 3 c , the metric has been updated from the time of FIG. 3 b . The action line 336 has moved corresponding to the new action value of $80.21. As can be seen, displaying the updated action line 336 allows the trader to immediately determine that the outstanding offers are now below his action line 336 , and therefore that these offers should be purchased despite the fact that the offers themselves remained at the same value from the time of FIG. 3 b to the time of FIG. 3 c.
As discussed above, a trader may be connected to several trading pits 220 at once. If a trader has multiple connections, the trader can view the different pits 220 simultaneously, or if the trader wishes to concentrate on a single item, the trader can have only one pit 220 displayed. Additionally, the trader can disable the different options for a view to suit the trader's preferences, and maximize visibility for a trader's particular terminal 104 .
FIG. 4 illustrates an alternate view of the user interface in accordance with the present invention. The value/quantity view 420 illustrates the market for the item using a first axis of values 408 and a second axis 412 for quantity. Thus, the location of each offer icon 400 and each bid icon 404 represents the value for the offer or bid and the quantity for which the offer or bid is made. Optionally, the action line 336 is also displayed, as well as the contextual data. The alternate view provides a different intuitive perspective on the state of the market. By providing alternate views, as shown in FIG. 3 c , the electronic trading system of the present invention allows the different preferences of different traders to be met. Orders in this view are placed by selecting an offer token 416 or a bid token 417 and moving the token to a location which corresponds to the desired quantity and value. If the trader wishes to purchase immediately, the trader can simply drag a bid token 417 to the location directly over any offer token, and a window pops up displaying a bid order with value and quantity equal to that of the offer token. If the trader wishes to sell immediately, the trader can simply drag an offer token 416 to the location directly over any bid token, and a window pops up displaying an offer order with value and quantity equal to that of the bid token. The trader can then execute the transaction.
FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating a preferred embodiment of the user interface in accordance with the present invention. The client terminal 104 , through data received from the transaction server 200 , displays 500 at least one outstanding bid icon corresponding to a quantity and value of the bid. The client terminal 104 also displays 504 at least one outstanding offer icon corresponding to a quantity and value of an offer. Thus, by displaying at least one outstanding bid and offer icon, the “book” is opened and traders viewing the client terminal can readily spot trends in supply and demand for an item and quickly anticipate the market.
FIG. 6 illustrates an embodiment of a method of generating an order icon in accordance with the priority view 312 of the present invention. First, the client terminal 104 receives 600 the order type. The order can be either a bid or an offer. The trader specifies the type by selecting an offer or bid token to place the order, or by manually indicating the order type on the task bar. Second, the client terminal 104 receives 604 a quantity specified for the order. The quantity, as described above, is specified by the trader either by entering the number directly into the order task bar or by adjusting the size of the order token. In an embodiment where the order information is entered into the taskbar, an order icon will be generated 608 whose vertical size matches the quantity specified after the order has been processed by the server 200 . The client terminal 104 then receives 612 a value for the order. Again, the trader can specify the value by entering the information into the taskbar or can drag the order token to the location corresponding to the value. Finally, the client terminal 104 displays 614 an order confirmation window displaying the value, quantity, and expiration information. The trader can modify the order in this window and then must either cancel the order by closing the window or pressing the cancel button or submit it by pressing the OK button. The client terminal 104 which receives the value and quantity and order type information transmits 616 the information to the server 200 . The server 200 then processes the order information, and updates the order table.
Once the server 200 transmits updated order information to a client terminal 104 , the client terminal 104 , in the priority view, determines 618 whether a slot is open adjacent an existing order which has a lower value, if the order is a bid, or a higher value, if the order is an offer. In the priority view 312 , the horizontal axis is divided into slots, each slot having a width equal to an order icon 300 , 304 and each slot separated by a standard set-off unit. Incoming orders are sorted by the value of the order. For offers, the offers with the lowest values are positioned closest to the axis of values 332 , and for bids, the bids with the highest values are positioned closest to the axis of values 332 . When a new order is received, the client terminal 104 re-sorts the outstanding orders and places the order icons 300 , 304 in the appropriate positions. If a new order is equal to an existing order of the same type, the order is stacked onto the existing order. FIG. 6 illustrates a more detailed methodology of the sorting mechanism, using the example of placing a new bid. However, the methodology is equally applicable to placing a new offer.
A new bid is designated for the slot adjacent an existing bid which has the least value of the set of existing bids having values greater than the value of the new bid. The client terminal 104 determines 618 whether this determined slot has an existing bid within it. If it does not, the icon is placed 636 at the determined slot. If the slot does contain an existing bid, the client terminal 104 determines 620 whether the existing bid has a value less than the requested bid. All existing bids that have values less than the requested bid are moved 640 to the adjacent slot positioned away from the axis of values 332 . In the example of FIG. 3 a , the adjacent slot would be a slot positioned to the left. All other bids having values less than the requested bid are shifted 640 correspondingly. If the client terminal determines 624 that the existing bid has a value equal to the existing bid, the requested bid is stacked 632 below the existing bid or bids, away from the horizontal separation between bids and offers as described above. If the client terminal 104 determines 628 that the existing bid is greater than the requested bid, a new slot is determined 628 for the requested bid, and the process is repeated.
As shown in FIG. 7 , upon receiving new bid information, the transaction server 200 determines 700 whether there is an existing offer in the order table having a value less than or equal to the requested bid. If there is not, the new bid is added to the table, and the information regarding the new bid is sent 702 to the client terminals 104 for display. If there is an existing offer whose value is less than or equal to the requested bid, i. e., if the new bid is the highest value bid outstanding, the server 200 determines 704 whether the existing offer has a quantity which is less than the quantity represented by the bid. If the offer does have a quantity less than the bid, the server removes 706 the offer from the order table and adds a new bid to the order table with the quantity reduced by the quantity of the offer removed.
The server 200 records 720 a trade between the trader submitting the new bid and the trader submitting the removed offer, at a value equal to the offer value and a quantity equal to the offer quantity. All of the outstanding client terminals 104 are sent the information regarding the trade. The client terminals 104 then remove the existing offer icon and add a bid icon which has a size corresponding to the difference in quantities between the existing offer icon and the requested bid icon. The transaction server 200 determines 700 again whether there is another existing offer in the order table having a value less than or equal to the requested bid to determine if another transaction can be made with the quantity remaining in the bid.
The server 200 also determines 708 whether the offer has a quantity greater than the quantity of the requested bid. If it does, the quantity of the offer is reduced 716 by the quantity of the bid, and the updated offer information is sent 717 to the client terminals 104 for display. A trade is recorded 720 between the trader submitting the new bid and the trader who submitted the offer at a value equal to the offer value and a quantity equal to the bid quantity. All of the outstanding client terminals 104 are sent the information regarding the trade and update the user interface displays accordingly.
If the quantities of the bid and offer are equal, the offer is removed 712 from the table and the transaction is complete. A trade is recorded 720 between the trader submitting the new bid and the trader who submitted the offer at a value equal to the offer value and a quantity equal to the bid quantity. All of the outstanding client terminals 104 are sent the information regarding the trade, and update the user interface displays accordingly.
As shown in FIG. 8 , in the value/quantity view, the client terminal 104 receives 800 a value, receives 804 a quantity, and receives 806 an order type for a new order. A confirmation window is displayed 807 , and, upon confirmation of the order, the order information is transmitted to the server 200 . Again, this may occur responsive to the trader entering in the information directly or dragging an order token to the proper location and after confirming the order. The server 200 receives the order information, updates the order table, and sends the updated information to the client terminals 104 . The client terminals 104 display a new order icon at a location corresponding to the value and quantity of the order with respect to the axis of quantities and axis of values. If the new order is an offer, and there is an existing bid for a value higher than or equal to the value of the offer, a transaction is completed, and a new offer or a modified bid token is displayed responsive to the quantities that the original offer and bid icons represented.
FIG. 9 illustrates a trading pit view 900 called the pit panel view 900 , in accordance with the present invention. The pit panel view 900 provides a visual interface to other members of the pit 220 . All users who are currently registered to the pit 220 are displayed in the pit panel 900 . This is critical information to a trader regarding the activity of the pit 220 . If the pit 220 is crowded, the trader can expect volatility in trading. If the pit 220 is empty, the trader can expect light trading and relatively stable values for the item.
The pit panel 900 displays trader icons 912 , observer icons 904 , and floor broker icons 908 . Observers are users who are registered at the pit 220 but who are not actively trading and floor brokers are individuals who have expertise on a pit's item and traders, and who assist traders in executing unusual trades, negotiating a deal with multiple traders, or providing history and information on traders to others. As the observers do not trade for themselves, their icons 904 are placed on the outside of the pit icon 916 . Floor brokers who do not trade also have their icons 908 placed on the outside of the pit icon 916 .
The trader icons 912 are displayed on the pit icon 916 . The pit icon 916 is preferably displayed as a series of concentric polygons, where each polygon represents an activity level or levels. Traders who are more active are placed closer to the center of the pit icon 916 . The most active trader, in the example of FIG. 9 , trader 912 ( 1 ), is placed in the center of the pit icon 916 . In a preferred embodiment, each polygon represents a range of activity levels. For example, the innermost polygon contains the traders with the second through ninth highest activity levels. The next polygon contains the traders having the tenth through twenty-sixth highest activity levels, and so forth. By grouping traders into activity ranges, and thus shifting a trader's icon out of a polygon only in response to the trader's activity level shifting out of the range represented by the polygon, icon changes and consequent flicker in the display of the pit icon 916 are minimized. However, a trader is able to easily ascertain who the active traders in a pit 220 are and how active the traders are by noting the relative locations of the trader icons 912 in the pit icon 916 .
Each trader icon 912 has order indicators 913 to show the quantity of orders a trader has outstanding. Preferably, there are separate indicators 913 for bids and offers, each showing the volume of outstanding bids or offers the trader currently has placed. Other order indicators 913 may be optionally displayed, for example, indicating the sum of all quantities of orders or the volume of orders entered over a specified period of time. Selecting a trader's icon 912 will also highlight the trader's orders on the priority view, value/quantity view, and other views provided in the system that display orders and which can all be displayed concurrently. Double clicking on a trader icon 912 generates a communication window as shown in FIG. 11 which allows the trader to send an email message 1108 , send an instant message 1104 as part of a text chat session, communicate by voice over the network connection 1112 , or set up a later telephone call or other optional communication to the selected other trader. Thus, the pit panel 900 provides a sense of community in the pit 220 by visual representing useful information, and provides additional information to the trader which the trader can use in anticipating the market.
FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating a preferred embodiment of generating and placing a trader icon in accordance with the present invention. First, a trading pit icon 916 is displayed 1000 . Next, the client 104 determines 1004 whether a predetermined period of time has passed. The pit panel data is updated periodically, and the client 104 waits for that amount of time before re-generating the display with the new data. If the server 200 determines 1004 that the predetermined period has expired, a first trader icon is selected 1008 . The client 104 determines 1010 whether the trader is still connected to the server 200 from the data provided by the server 200 . If the trader is not, the trader icon 912 for the trader is removed 1011 , and the client 104 determines 1020 whether there are more traders. If the trader is still connected, an activity level is determined 1012 for the trader. Activity levels are determined as a combination of the volume of outstanding orders, the value of outstanding orders, recent activity, or other measures which determine how active a trader has been. Once the activity level has been determined, the client 104 displays 1016 the icon 912 for the trader at the location corresponding to the activity level. In an embodiment where order indicators 913 are displayed, the order indicators 913 are updated to include the latest order data. In the preferred embodiment, as discussed above, the pit icon 916 is comprised of concentric polygons or rings, the traders are ordered by activity levels, and each polygon represents a range of activity level orders. After the activity level of a trader is determined, the traders are reordered responsive to their activity levels, and the trader icon 912 for each the trader is placed in the polygon designated for the order of the trader. The client 104 determines 1020 if there are more traders. If there are not, the client 104 determines 1024 if there are bystanders and, if there are, selects 1028 the first bystander icon 904 , 908 and determines 1032 whether the bystander is connected using data that is provided by the server 200 . If the bystander is not connected, the bystander icon is removed 1040 . If the bystander is connected, the client 104 determines 1036 whether there are more bystanders. If there are not, the client 104 returns to the step of determining 1004 whether a predetermined time period has ended, as the pit panel 900 view has been updated to reflect the current users and their current activity levels.

Trading Technologies: User Interface for Stock Trading.
Before writing more about Trading Technologies v. CQG, I will first note that TT is my former client and I personally filed the original complaint in this very case 12 years ago (2005). Although TT is no longer my client, I am bound by and respect the rules of professional ethics and the duties owed to former clients.
The new non-precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit affirms the district court ruling that TT’s asserted claims are patent eligible.
The patent claims here cover a computerized method and system used for trading stocks and similar products. When buying and selling stocks, speed and accuracy are both critically important and in this invention, TT created a Graphical-User-Interface design (and operational software) that helps traders buy and sell stock more quickly and more accurately. See U. S. Patents No. 6,772,132 and No. 6,766,304.
The court writes:
It is not disputed that the TTI System improves the accuracy of trader transactions, utilizing a software implemented programmatic [method]. For Section 101 purposes, precedent does not consider the substantive criteria of patentability. For Section 101 purposes, the claimed subject matter is “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” Enfish , for the claimed graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading system “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” Id .
The opinion is authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judges O’Malley and Wallach. The court’s opinion is a short and interesting read:
Precedent has recognized that specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter. & # 8230; [I]neligible claims generally lack steps or limitations specific to solution of a problem, or improvement in the functioning of technology.
For some computer-implemented methods, software may be essential to conduct the contemplated improvements. Enfish … Abstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.
We reiterate the Court’s recognition that “at some level, all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Alice , quoting Mayo . This threshold level of eligibility is often usefully explored by way of the substantive statutory criteria of patentability, for an invention that is new, useful and unobvious is more readily distinguished from the generalized knowledge that characterizes ineligible subject matter. This analysis is facilitated by the Court’s guidance whereby the claims are viewed in accordance with “the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole’.” Alice , quoting Diamond v. Diehr .
As demonstrated in recent jurisprudence directed to eligibility, and as illustrated in the cases cited ante, the claim elements are considered in combination for evaluation under Alice Step 1, and then individually when Alice Step 2 is reached. Applying an overview of this evolving jurisprudence, the public interest in innovative advance is best served when close questions of eligibility are considered along with the understanding flowing from review of the patentability criteria of novelty, unobviousness, and enablement, for when these classical criteria are evaluated, the issue of subject matter eligibility is placed in the context of the patent-based incentive to technologic progress.
The patents are also currently being challenged on 101 grounds in CBM proceedings before the USPTO. Although I feel that it should have a direct impact, it is unclear to me whether this decision will impact the PTO proceedings addressing the identical question. (For instance, the court here holds that the patent covers a technological invention – and CBM proceedings can only proceed for non-technological inventions.) Patentees may also consider petitioning the court to make this decision precedential.
About Dennis Crouch.
Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. View all posts by Dennis Crouch →
Pós-navegação.
146 thoughts on “ Trading Technologies: User Interface for Stock Trading ”
We just printed a Deathstar yo-yo on our 3D printer.
The machine had no capability to print a Deathstar until we loaded the. stl file, which instructed the machine how to do it.
Later, we loaded a new. stl file to print cable clips, something the machine could not print before the new instructions were added.
Do I have a new 3D printer?
I’m not really asking.
Of course you are not.
Not that you are confusing the work product and the machine making the work product or anything trivial like that, eh?
Get your money back from that Holiday Inn that you stayed in last night.
Yea, but the output on a computer monitor is not a “work product” because you say so.
Yea because the printed matter doctrine is grounded in statute, as your separation of powers fetish demands.
Yea, as if my human consumption test is not grounded in the fact that its the most accurate meaning of the word “abstract”
Yea as if the 11 CAFC judges and 8 Supreme Court justices don’t have 19 different ideas of the proper subject matter analysis for information inventions.
Yea as if I ever discuss inventions as “software” rather than as “information” based.
anon your script is tired. the regulars here know that I know enough to reasonably participate, and the terrain that you are so sure of is entirely in your mind since here in objective reality, the terrain is a random walk that no lawyer or judge can predict until the opinions come out. You are as adrift as me, or anyone else and I suggest your fantastic world is far more elaborate than mine….
Yea because the printed matter doctrine is grounded in statute, as your separation of powers fetish demands.
This made me chuckle.
As explained in the easy to follow Set Theory explication, whether of not it is grounded in statute is only a limitation of the pervasiveness of what Congress actually wrote.
Em outras palavras, # 8211; your barking up the wrong tree.
That you might find even some small delight in that only shows your own lack of understanding.
So the judicial exceptions are not limitations of pervasiveness? Uh huh….
Where did you see me say anything about ” limitations of pervasiveness” in regards to either the judicial doctrine of printed matter or to the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter?
Try please to keep up Mr. Snyder.
You are NOT as grounded – not even close – because you still refuse to acknowledge, let alone understand law , its history and the facts on the table.
Instead, your own personal feelings are what drive you.
You got burned, and like a woman scorned, you have a fury that blinds you.
I’ve had multiple interactions with the patent system anon, and you know I’m not free to talk about them, but five minutes of effort would lead you to the public record filings, which can clarify your quite incorrect conclusions.
Beyond that, your endless appeals to authority are meaningless becuase nobody has a grip on information inventions, which is amply illustrated day after day by the case reports we all see.
As to my emotional blindness? White hate clarifies rather than obscures quite often, and especially in matters of ideology.
You really should strive to do better.
& # 8220; and you know I’m not free to talk about them ”
Not talking directly about them does not hide the rather evident fact that you have been emotionally scarred by them.
& # 8220; your endless appeals to authority are meaningless ”
Do you even know what that means?
& # 8220; White hate clarifies rather than obscures quite often, and especially in matters of ideology. & # 8221;
I am most definitely not the one that needs to strive to do better (hint: that would be you). My views remain grounded in actual law, actual history, and yes, actual facts.
anon you are a human Mobius strip, and apparently a kind of lazy one.
Says the guy who says nothing – nothing that accords with law, the history of law, or facts pertinent to the discussion.
But, hey, you “feel” strongly about this (with your “ white hate “, and you have concocted a brand new scheme and perhaps most critical of all, you slept at a Holiday Inn last night…
MM, I enjoy many of your posts. Where would you stand on these two inventions as far as 101:
(1) Invention #1 is a control circuit for window made of electrochromic smart glass, the control circuit works by monitoring a logic state of a register that is tied to a photovoltaic. If it’s sunny outside the state changes to “sunny” and the control circuit sends a current into the window to render it opaque. The control circuit is a GPU executing software.
(2) Invention #2 is a window made of photochromic smart glass. The amount and distribution of dye in the window is selected so that window is opaque when it’s sunny.
Both inventions operate the same under the same conditions.
Is either invention patentable? They operate according to logic, in one the logic is embodied in the GPU, in the other it’s embodied in the selection of the dye.
You didn’t ask me, but neither would be an invention because the previous invention of the “smart glass” would render them obvious.
The very point of smart glass is to adapt opacity to conditions - doing so by totally conventional means is not an invention.
If you mean in a subject matter sense, both are clearly within the scope of the patent act.
Apologies for the blurt.
Mr. Snyder, you quite miss the point attempted (even as you recognized the difference between patentable (as per “the rest of the statute”) and patent eligible.
You do realize of course the notion that soft ware is equivalent (in the patent sense, and yes, that is in fact different than “the same as”) both firm ware and hard ware right?
You have heard of this thing called ASICs, eh?
I drove my car through Beverly Hills. It was a big improvement to my car, obviously, over the time I drove it through the south side of Chicago.
It must have felt like a new machine to you. Therefore, it had to be one. Also, a big of protons.
The “experience” was totally different I tell ya…
Good day for GUI design and related innovations.
Claim 1 of US Patent 6,772,132:
1. A method of placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price, using a graphical user interface and a user input device, said method comprising: setting a preset parameter for the trade order displaying market depth of the commodity, through a dynamic display of a plurality of bids and a plurality of asks in the market for the commodity, including at least a portion of the bid and ask quantities of the commodity, the dynamic display being aligned with a static display of prices corresponding thereto, wherein the static display of prices does not move in response to a change in the inside market; displaying an order entry region aligned with the static display prices comprising a plurality of areas for receiving commands from the user input devices to send trade orders, each area corresponding to a price of the static display of prices; and selecting a particular area in the order entry region through single action of the user input device with a pointer of the user input device positioned over the particular area to set a plurality of additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange.
This is why Alice is such a disaster. It’s impossible to tell from reading claims what’s patentable and what’s not. You have to somehow “divine” whether something “is an improvement to way computers operate”, especially when the claimed subject matter doesn’t actually improve the computer itself: it only improves the way trades are made using the computer. The same with Enfish. Both of these were really improvements to the functioning of software — the computer itself was not “improved” in any way. When I look at both the claims here and in Enfish, I think they’re invalid under Alice. Yet, the courts hold the other way. Por quê?
“Much of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes. We do not see in Bilski or.
Alice, or our cases, an exclusion to patenting this large field of.
The claim there:
A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising:
means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including:
a plurality of logical rows, each said logical row including an object identification number (OID) to identify each said logical.
row, each said logical row corresponding to a record of information;
a plurality of logical columns intersecting said plurality of logical rows to define a plurality of logical cells, each said logical column including an OID to identify each said logical column; e.
means for indexing data stored in said table.
Can anyone look at this claim and tell me what’s patentable about it (under Alice, that is)? The only way to do it is research the “improvement” made to some “software”, and then somehow correlate that “improvement” with the claim.
How the hec k is an Examiner supposed to do this? And what do I tell my client? Currently, I’ve been telling them that I have no idea whether their claim is valid or not; they’ll have to wait until litigation.
Also, why aren’t the claims under Alice valid under this theory? They involved computer software that was an improvement over other software.
why aren’t the claims under Alice valid under this theory?
This is just my opinion, but I read Trading Techs as the CAFC throwing up their hands and saying “heck if I know what Alice means. Let’s just treat Alice as confined to its own facts and try to sketch out a 101 test based on our own precedents, unburdened by the more confusing aspects of Alice .”
In other words, if you are having a hard time reconciling this case to the holding in Alice , join the club. I do not think that they can be reconciled.
I think that this case represents a bolder presentation of the trend we have seen emerging in the CAFC over the last three months of some of the judges realizing that they have tried to implement Alice , and it just cannot be done. Mayo and Alice are just too entirely self-contradictory.
Instead of continuing to beat their heads against the wall trying to implement an inherently undiscernible standard, it appears to me that certain judges (Taranto, Reyna, Newman, Moore, and O’Malley) are just going to give up on it and forge a new test. Meanwhile, Dyk, Wallach, Mayer, and Hughes are sort of apostles of Alice and are going to do their level best to see that Alice is implemented in a strong sense by resolving any internal contradictions in Alice always in favor of unpatentability.
Mayo and Alice are just too entirely self-contradictory.
Tell everyone what’s “self-contradictory” about those cases, Greg.
Also, the fact that PatentBob is “confused” about something isn’t evidence of anything except, maybe, that the earth hasn’t completely blown up.
Greg – a lot like you – does not respond well to counter points presented to his views.
Except when he deigns it so, that is.
Greg, the difference between Alice and here is simple. In Alice, the claims were directed to a business method, non statutory. Here, an improvement to the way computers operate.
Now, this is why I believe the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit as a whole are following Flook/Bilski (Stevens) reasoning and not the Bilski majority which never bothered to explain its reasoning.
I am hard pressed to see how these claims are any more an improvement to how a computer operates than were the Alice claims. Both amount to a discovery that you could do X on a computer. This is not like Enfish where you have (arguably) created a method of indexing data that makes it faster to find certain kinds of data. The claim itself purports to be a method of placing a trade order, not a method of improving computer function. I know that Judge Newman’s opinion characterized these claims as improving computer function, but I think that it is to ingenuous to take that at face value. The invention claimed in Alice improved as much computer function as the invention claimed here.
Greg: I know that Judge Newman’s opinion characterized these claims as improving computer function, but I think that it is to ingenuous to take that at face value.
That’s because Judge Newman l i e d. Claro e simples.
Claims don’t improve computer functions brosefulous.
Bom ponto. I should have said “the invention claimed in Alice ,” rather than “the Alice claims.” I hope my meaning was clear enough, despite the lack of clarity with which I presented my argument.
Something about “niggling and pedantic” comes to mind…
It’s all good I don’t mean to be pedantic. The reason I correct people on this point is to try to combat the near constant conflation with words scribbled on a page with an invention. Expunging that conflation helps prosecution.
And quite right you are to do so. I wish more people would trouble themselves not to confuse deceptively similar ideas, and to call me out when they see me indulging a muddle. Clear distinctions beget clear thinking, and clear thinking avoids erroneous conclusions.
Your reply is deceptive, my friend Greg – as you avoid conversations with the people that do the very thing that you “wish more people would do.”
Ned is off again on his anti-business method Windmill Chase…
anon, Hotel Security.
Not windmills at all.
Most definitely Windmills Ned – even Crouch called you out for misapplying Hotel Security.
Please Ned. The fancy screens they designed have NOTHING to do with how the computer operates. Nada. O que. Assim. Sempre.
You have to somehow “divine” whether something “is an improvement to way computers operate”,
Because a certain class of incompetent and/or ethically bankrupt patent attorneys is apparently incapable of writing claims that describe an eligible invention.
If you’ve invented something that “is an improvement in the way computers operate”, it’s a bit odd — to say the least — to recite limitations about “displaying prices.”
And I know this will sail right over your flat head. It’s super nuanced!
& # 8220; certain class of incompetent and/or ethically bankrupt patent attorneys ”
talk about your curse-ades….
Does anyone know the procedural posture of this case? I was perplexed to see that the sole issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly decided that the claims were patent-eligible. I would expect to see a 101-only opinion on appeal when the district court goes against the patentee on 101 because the case is over at that point.
But with a 101 win for the patentee, there remain a whole bunch of validity, infringement and damages issues left to resolve. Why the trip to the Federal Circuit at this point? Ordinarily that would be an improper interlocutory appeal. I must be missing something.
Ordinarily that would be an improper interlocutory appeal.
If the district judge allows it, it’s not improper, as far as I know.
Perhaps you have in mind the procedure of 28 USC 1292(b). That could well be how this case ended up at the Federal Circuit, but here the court did not mention that statutory exception to the final judgment rule.
I looked at the defendants-appellants’ brief and the attached district court judgment. It appears that the case proceeded to trial after the 101 ruling, and the patentee won a $15.8 million judgment. Best I can tell, the defendants-appellants limited their appeal to the 101 issue (maybe I missed something). If so, I’m a little surprised that there wasn’t any claim construction, validity, infringement or damages issue worth appealing.
MD: I want in the Decision a discussion why program-writing is “technologic”
You’ll never see any such thing because addressing the manner in which old programmable computers are programmed to execute ineligible logic (remember: that’s the sole reason that programmable computers were created) will give away the game.
It’s also why you never see anyone asserting claims to “A method for instructing an instructable computer to execute logic, comprising typing instructions into said computer with a keyboard, wherein said typing includes the following keystrokes …” and similar such claims. And that’s true no matter how awesomely valuable and earth shattering the “new logic” é.
…to execute ineligible logic…
Once again, how goes your copyright on logic?
A simple question, Malcolm, but one that simply eviscerates your dissembling.
Are you ready to explain how [Old Box] – with no change – somehow has new capabilities?
Hint: use the inherency doctrine in your answer.
Hint: oldbox has no new capabilities. It’s still oldbox, even when it has new software.
Does new software have new capabilities? It may, but they are abstract. Are those capabilities machines? No. Manufactures? Talvez. Compositions of matter? No. Processes? Talvez.
Are they too abstract to patent? Some say yes, some say no, and I say no if a machine uses the information, and yes if a person does.
The law was not written with software inventions in mind, nor have courts come to a working agreement about it. Until that happens, your opinion is just as worthless as mine. So sad.
“Hint: oldbox has no new capabilities. It’s still oldbox, even when it has new software.”
Absurdo. New capabilities for my old box is why I installed the new software.
If the box could not previously run your new software, and you change it in some way so that now it can, then oldbox has new capabilities.
If the oldbox can run software designed to be executed on it, regardless of what that software does, oldbox is still the same oldbox.
How many ways does this need to be illustrated? Looms and patterns? DVD’s and DVD players? Lathes and CNC codes? TV’s and TV transmissions?
If the TV can suddenly display signals from the flux on anon’s tinfoil hat, it would be newbox. If it can still only show that which is broadcast as TV signals, its oldbox.
You think you’re so smart, Martin! But watch this: printed matter doctrine! inherency! Grand Hall! box of neutrons! and most importantly, the Wright Brothers.
Consider yourself decimated!
/patent maximalist off.
Not yet, anon’s keyboard must have worn out or he/she is on the way to Trump’s inaugural, but I assume by tomorrow AM I will have been asked and answered but good…..
Or, you can try to understand the terrain upon which you want to do battle…
…and there is a clear difference between the capability of “running software” and the capability that running particular configurations of software provide – much like the importance of not just haphazardly throwing protons, neutrons, and electrons together, and putting them together in a specific configuration.
That’s Malcolm’s purposeful dissembling aside, of course.
Sim. Those are all new machines. It is merely a point of view.
You can call something a music box or you can call it a pop goes the weasel player. If you invent a pop goes the weasel player you can claim the precise configuration of fingers on a drum and the precise dimensions of the harp elements.
If you later determine a gearing arrangement and a drum finger placement that plays a different tune, that’s a new invention.
Is a manual typewriter different than an electric? Sure it is. Whats different about them? Well, for one thing, the electric has additional parts.
Likewise, a computer with only WORD is a different machine from one with both WORD and EXCEL.
Likewise, a computer with only WORD is a different machine from one with both WORD and EXCEL.
mmmm hmmm. Sure it is.
My car is a different machine when Rihanna is installed in the CD player than it is when Rihanna and Ariana Grande are installed in the CD player.
Totally different machines. Mesmo.
Yay – nothing like not paying attention to the point already made (like so many times that even Malcolm has volunteered admissions against his interests as to knowing and understanding the legal points of the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.
But hey – you just don’t care about the actual law, that much is clear – no matter how that lack of caring has left you scarred with your own emotional wounds from being sued, eh Mr. Snyder?
& # 8220; Hint: oldbox has no new capabilities. It’s still oldbox, even when it has new software. & # 8221;
Eminently no true.
Summed up in one word: configure.
(hint: do you configure your television set? Or is there inherency at play there?)
This makes zero sense. Bolding the word inherency does nothing to clarify. Either the computer is being “improved” or it is not. It certainly is not.
The software may be an improvement over prior art software, or the “bond trading system” as a whole may be improved, but the computer’s ability to run any variation of instructions within it’s designed I/O instruction set is not changed an iota, nor is your TV “configured” when you change a channel. If you change the power supply, or the display driver, or the tuner, or the input interface, you have changed the TV. If you merely change the input signal, you change nothing about the TV.
And the screw isn’t changed when it is a component of an invention either. It is still a screw. Whats your point?
component 1 : computer.
component 2: software.
component 1 + component 2 = new machine.
component 1 : Old computer.
component 2: New software.
component 1 + component 2 = Old computer + New Software.
Why such violence to the English language and common sense?
Because new software is hard to place in “Inventions Patentable”, so the patent bar can get paid instead of the copyright bar?
Plus I’m pro-software patent bub. Just not when the software achieves utility by processing information consumed by human beings.
You want to patent mpegs and clever self-driving algorithms, and clever phone number algos and a million other things, have at it.
The machines are still old machines unless there is new physical structure, because machines are physical things, as a child knows.
And yet – your own “I am pro-patent” stance fails because you want something different as the law – something completely untethered to law, history, or heck, even facts.
There are new physical structures. You just have difficultly seeing them because they are small. They are the electrical and/or magnetic fields that are installed or modified as a result of the software installation.
He refuses to acknowledge that software has – as it must, since it works – the critical part of the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter: the functional relationship.
This functional relationship is NOT “only in the mind” because computers do not have minds.
This is the beauty of one of my favorite words: anthropomorphication .
On another thread I posted the following link – it further debunks the misconception about software as somehow “thinking:”
Mr. Snyder will of course clench tight his eyes to such facts, simply because they do not align with his personal agenda.
Has the deadline passed for a cert petition to reverse McWrong ? It must be getting close. This decision is just as bad as McWrong (which was, unfortunately, precedential). One reason to confine this case to non-precedent was surely to minimize its importance and decrease the otherwise phenomenal likelihood that the Supremes will crush the opinion into dust.
Just how bad is it? Well, try to wrap your head around all this nonsense:
The court found that these patents are directed to improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no “pre-electronic trading analog,”
News flash: graphics were used to present data before electronics. Also, data was presented using graphics generated electronically eons before this patent was filed. That technology and those “analogs” were in the public domain and that is all that matters for the analysis.
The district court explained that the challenged patents do not simply claim.
displaying information on a graphical user interface.
LOL Now get ready for this next part. Scrivener’s delight!
The claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface.
There is a things displayed on parts of the screen! Therefore: “structured.” Yes, friends, the US patent system is a j0ke. Electronic displays that have no distinguishing physical structure (relative to the prior art) are deemed by the fiction writers on the CAFC to be “structured” based on the information displayed thereon. Clever!
paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure.
Oh, wowee zowee! The things are in locations for a reason! And what’s this about “prescribed”? Is that different from “recited”? Of course it isn’t. But it sounds so much more … serious! And the more window dressing the better when you’re trying to keep things as opaque as possible.
The short version of the word salad I quoted is : the claim recites a user interface in functional terms. Why not just say that? Well, we all know the answer to that question …
that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.
That’s nothing but boiler plate bal0ney recited by every patentee using functional claiming to protect logic “on a computer.”
But here’s where the decision goes completely off the deep end (this is page 7). First Newman attempts to compare this claim to the claim at issue in the CAFC’s equally r0tten DDR decision, i. e., she suggests that the claim solves “a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”. Isso é absurdo. The claim tells you right off the bat what it is: “a method for displaying market information.” If these guys thought they were solving a “computer networking problem”, don’t you think they would have simply claimed that instead of this narrow pile of ineligible g@rb@ge?
Mas espere! That’s not all. The best part comes at the end of this paragraph where Newman states “ the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept.”
Say what?! Since when? As the CAFC itself has explained on literally dozens of occasions: the novelty of the ineligible abstraction or concept doesn’t matter for squat. The Supreme Court as well is crystal on this point. So where did Newman dig this up? Unbelievably, she tries to pin it on Mayo! And even more unbelievably, the cite she provides is completely off point (“the patent must “amount to significantly more in practice than a patent upon the [ineligible concept itself]”).
The rest of the analysis is an absolutely unintelligible attempt to distinguish this case from reams of cases where the CAFC has found the claims ineligible (and remember: those cases don’t include the dozens of Rule 36 smackdown of ineligible claims that the CAFC has published, including a couple more this morning).
The farce continues.
“The court found that these patents are directed to improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no “pre-electronic trading analog,”
News flash: graphics were used to present data before electronics. Also, data was presented using graphics generated electronically eons before this patent was filed. That technology and those “analogs” were in the public domain and that is all that matters for the analysis.”
These remarks seem to indicate that you have fixated on the word “pre – electronic.” However, the phrase has additional words including “trading analog.”
In the olden days traders did not have a graphical display. First everything was done over the phone and with little slips of paper Later there were text based alpha-numeric displays (sort of a green on black motif). Also, there was a lot of yelling and slips of paper and offensive sport coats:
Sure, there may have been yearly charts prepared, but those weren’t used while trading.
“But wait! That’s not all. The best part comes at the end of this paragraph where Newman states “the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept.”
Say what?! Since when? As the CAFC itself has explained on literally dozens of occasions: the novelty of the ineligible abstraction or concept doesn’t matter for squat. The Supreme Court as well is crystal on this point. So where did Newman dig this up? Unbelievably, she tries to pin it on Mayo! And even more unbelievably, the cite she provides is completely off point (“the patent must “amount to significantly more in practice than a patent upon the [ineligible concept itself]”).”
Since you and the Supremes keeps saying things are abstract because they are old…. like hedging for example.
Reread Bilski, including the Oral Argument… One of them said is was abstract because it was in his old text book.
you and the Supremes keeps saying things are abstract because they are old…. like hedging.
“Hedging” is both old and abstract. Nothing controversial about that.
And the Supremes never said that the correlation the infringer “thought about” was old.
Try to keep your facts straight, Les. I know it’s very difficult for you.
And the Supremes never said that the correlation the infringer “thought about” was old.
Referring to Mayo here, of course.
No. They said it was abstract because it was old. My facts are straight. These are such absurd rulings, they are hard to forget.
They said it was abstract because it was old.
No, they didn’t. This is myth.
You are confused. Lembrar? You and your cohorts have been telling everyone you are confused for years now. Never forget that.
Part of the reason you are confused is because you have a reading comprehension problem. Another factor is that you don’t even try to understand what the Supreme Court is saying.
At least stop spreading the misinformation. It’s not like we can’t see what you’re doing.
& # 8220; You are confused. Lembrar? You and your cohorts have been telling everyone you are confused for years now. Never forget that. & # 8216;
You forget Malcolm, that your “one bucket” trick does not work and that what one person says cannot be attributed to another just because YOU place them all into one (cohort) bucket.
As for “At least stop spreading the misinformation.” & # 8211; heed your own advice first.
“In light of these precedents, it is clear that petitioners’ application is not a patentable “process.” Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk: “Hedging is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.” 545 F. 3d, at 1013 (Rader, J., dissenting); see, e. g., …. The concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea,…”
To simply, as you often do to claims, its old, therefore its abstract….
That’s from Bilski by the way, but the same inane logic is displayed elsewhere.
“Hedging is a fundamental economic practice.
Read this a hundred times.
And then remember this:
Fundamental economic practices are ineligible for patenting.
And adding “a computer” or “a display” does not suffice to change this result. Likewise, limiting the economic practice to some sub-field (e. g., trading in corn futures) changes nothing.
You want to patent a new cash register? Go ahead. Just describe the new cash register in objective structural terms distinguishing its structure from prior art cash registers. You’re in the clear. Of course, that requires some skill in a patent eligible art. Too difficult for you? Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. Just stick to writing software then and enjoy the special protection that Congress created for you.
Don’t change the subject. The issue is they ruled that it was abstract because it was old.
they ruled that it was abstract because it was old.
Again: that is false.
The fact that some abstract subject matter is “old” is probably the least helpful thing if you are trying to protect that abstraction by combining with some prior art non-abstract subject matter.
But new abstract subject matter doesn’t get you anywhere, either, unless you and your jurist/examiner are both out-to-lunch. This is perfectly clear if you read Mayo and Alice and use your brain, instead of your wallet, to help you understand.
It is not false. I pasted the text. If age isn’t a factor, then why mention it. Why not just end the sentence with hedging is a fundamental economic practice period, full stop. (which is of course nonsense by the way). The law of supply and demand might be fundamental. Hedging is not.
Answer: Because the ruling is: its old, therefore its abstract.
If age isn’t a factor, then why mention it.
To underscore just how incredibly junky those claims are.
Maybe you haven’t noticed but scrivening fancy legal jargon around ancient data processing tasks is a full-time job for the worst players who ever participated in any patent system, ever. Bilski was a wake-up call. The maximalists tried to hit the snooze button but they got hammered with Alice. Then the hit the snooze button again. Gee, I wonder what happens next.
You are not being inte11ectually honest with the point that you and Les are talking about, Malcolm.
He cornered you, and all that you had left was ad hominem.
Of course, that’s pretty much all that you had to begin with, which just leaves you the same – and in the same corner.
No, it was to bolster the assertion that it is fundamental. The implication was, its old, therefore its fundamental, therefore its abstract.
Anyway, you asked “since when” in regard to Judge Newman’s assertion …
There’s an answer: at least since Bilski.
Reread Bilski, including the Oral Argument.
Statements made in oral arguments aren’t holdings.
Bilski itself stands for very very little, by the way. Methods of betting and “hedging” and gambling on future events are ineligible abstractions. That’s a surprise to anyone? Also the fact that you can claim something as a “process” does not mean that it’s automatically eligible for patenting (Bilski’s attorney took the opposite position, in case you’ve forgotten).
“Hedging is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.” 545 F. 3d, at 1013 (Rader, J., dissenting); see, e. g., …. The concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea,…”
Maybe Malcolm (once again), you are trying to dissemble about a point that you have volunteered admissions against your interest upon.
You appear to want to plot a version of printed matter doctrine; whilst neglecting the “functionally related” aspect and your own admission about knowing and understanding controlling law as to the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.
You do know that such dissembling in a court would be unethical to say the least, and you would be sanctioned, right?
…and it’s not as if you are attempting to make an argument to change controlling law – you are (purposefully) obfuscating on a critical point of law that you have admitted to knowing.
That’s worse than outright l i e i n g.
And you run rampant doing this same old same old.
MM, we agree on the last bit concerning novelty. Whether the ineligible subject matter is new or old is entirely beside the point. Newman fundamentally does not get it, and the rest of the court will not sign on to this opinion, so it is rendered non dispositive.
Patentees may also consider petitioning the court to make this decision precedential.
Fair enough, but they really should not have to in this case. I can understand the value of leaving the CAFC the option of making some opinions non-precedential, but that option should be used very sparingly (as opposed to Rule 36 judgments, which may necessarily be used frequently when case loads are high). Ideally, where there are more than (e. g.) 5 issues at stake in an appeal, with different issues pressing in contradictory directions vis-à-vis the ultimate verdict, the court may well say to itself “no lower court is every going to be able to tease out an applicable rule from this welter of competing drivers, so let’s just take this one out of the realm of precedent, so that district court judges need not break their skulls trying to reconcile it to other more intelligible precedents.”
There was nothing about this case that was similarly hard to follow, however. The only thing that is hard to follow about it is that it appears to confine Alice to Alice ‘s own facts. That is to say, it appears to ignore the controlling SCotUS precedent. If the CAFC really is going to cabin Alice thusly, they need to have the courage of their convictions and do so. It is cheating, as it were, to rule in contradiction of Alice , but to try to sneak their defiance past by making it “non-precedential.”
it appears to ignore the controlling SCotUS precedent.
Oh, it’s worse than that, Greg. Newman completely mischaracterizes the Supreme Court’s decisions in both Alice and Mayo.
This case drives a truck right through Supreme Court precedent. That’s why it’s not “precedential”. It’s this decision that is “limited to its facts.”
Not that it matters much. McWrong is also completely inconsistent with the Supremes and plainly opened the gates for Newman and her handful of like-minded colleagues on the CAFC to reach whatever decision re eligibility that they wish, at least when the claims have plenty of extraneous verbiage.
Meanwhile, junky “do it on a computer” claims that are indistinguishable from this one (after you sweep away the irrelevant bal0ney) are being Rule 36’d left and right by Newman and her fellow judges. It’s a farce.
It trespasses against the underlying logic of stare decisis to have lots of non-precedential decisions. And lately there are a lot. According to Dennis’ count, the CAFC handed down more non-precedential decisions in 2018 than precedential ones, and was on track to do so again in 2018 as of June. It is hard to maintain stare decisis when decisions are not made precedential.
A much bigger problem than “precedent” versus “non-precedent” are the Rule 36 opinions.
There are far, far more Rule 36 opinions upholding District Court and PTAB decisions that claims are ineligible than the contrary. Those Rule 36 opinions are published without listing the claims that were at issue and found ineligible, and without any statement whatsoever as to the basis for the holding.
It’s ridiculous and there’s no excuse for it except for laziness.
MM – I agree with you but would add a slight correction – the R.36 judgments are not even “opinions” but only judgments.
Hm, for whatever little it is worth, I disagree. The CAFC is not like the SCotUS— i. e. it does not get to choose which cases it hears. If someone files an appeal, the CAFC has to decide it. If the opinion below is sound, and the issue at stake is bog ordinary, there is no reason for the CAFC to use up the valuable time of its judges (or clerks) re-inventing the wheel. Just let the ruling below stand. Rule 36 affirmances are a perfectly sensible way to do that, and to dispose of the mass of cases that really do not merit an opinion.
Greg: Rule 36 affirmances are a perfectly sensible way to do that, and to dispose of the mass of cases that really do not merit an opinion.
I’m not asking for an opinion. All I’m saying is that it would be extremely helpful to everyone to know at least (1) what claims were at issue in this case whose judgment the CAFC has decided to affirm; and (2) under what statutes did the claims survive or fail.
This isn’t “re-inventing the wheel” em absoluto. This is just a basic courtesy to people who are trying to get a grasp on what the CAFC is doing. “Re-inventing the wheel” is kicking Supreme Court (and, in some cases, CAFC precedent) to the curb and writing a precedential opinion that is internally contradictory and reads as if the writer is thinking about subject matter eligibility for the first time, in a vacuum. That would appear to be what you’re asking for.
In other words, Rule 36 is not a problem. It is a solution, and a good one at that.
the R.36 judgments are not even “opinions” but only judgments.
Certo. Obrigado pelo esclarecimento.
the court here holds that the patent covers a technological invention.
But it’s non-precedential.
And it’s one of the least coherent subject matter eligibility decisions ever written, which is really saying something.
Non-precedential does not mean what you seem to be implying that it means – leastwise for the parties involved (if the same parties are involved at the PTAB, the fact that this decision was labeled non-precedential matter not one bit on whether the “law of the case” is binding.
Dennis, overall the opinion is sound. But when it says, “[T]he graphical user.
interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept,” the opinion blasts off into the surreal. This fully explains why the opinion was not and will not be listed as precedential.
overall the opinion is sound.
There is nothing “sound” about this opinion.
If you took this opinions statement of “the law” and filed it with the Supreme Court or even most panels on the Federal Circuit I would expect some serious blowback.
First, if the doctrine of equivalents were to be applied, how could this “invention” ever be examined? If a similar graphical representation were used in dozens or hundreds of other instances where changing one variable affects one or more other variables, and none of those were found in patent documents, how would prior art be uncovered?
Next, who is the appropriate PHOSITA here? Bond traders? Graphic artists? Statisticians?
Next, how does this differ from a slide-rule or any two-dimensional new, non-obvious and described technical graphic in terms of subject matter?
Next in what world is this an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole? They can’t mean the computer system, because it can only do what it did before the program was loaded and can only do the same things after the program was loaded. Thus the “system” they mean can only mean the bond-trading system, of which the computer is only one part, or they mean the use to which a person puts a patented article (i. e. a result). If someone uses the same display concept not for bond trading, but say for forecasting hotel room occupancy based on nearness to a holiday, are they infringing too?
This is a perfect example of where my proposed doctrine would be simple to apply: this invention generates information, which is entirely abstract, from computer program instructions, which are entirely abstract, for consumption by a human being, the value of which information is unique to each user, and therefore is impossible to fairly value, alone, or as a component of the software solution within which it is found.
It should be ineligible for patenting.
should be ineligible as an abstract result of an abstract method.
“Next in what world is this an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole? They can’t mean the computer system, because it can only do what it did before the program was loaded and can only do the same things after the program was loaded.”
Um, no…sometimes a “system as a whole” is both hardware and software, *integrally* functioning thanks to a truly *inventive* concept. You don’t get to strip away certain aspects of what make the system what it is, and then say that what’s left is abstract.
Some software and business method patents really are “junk” & # 8211; but that threshold isn’t where you seem to think it is.
So does this bond-trading system include the bond trader?
When a graphics engineer improves the screen resolution, does that improve the bond-trading system?
When the bond trader minimizes her trading screen and brings up Facebook, is it still a bond trading system? How about if instead of minimizing the trading app, she unloads it? Is it still a bond trading system?
How about if she loads the trading app from a USB stick that she then puts in her pocket. Is the computer on her desk still a bond trading system?
Who is the PHOSITA in this system? Is it the interface designer, who may know nothing about bond trading whatsoever? Or is it a bond trading expert we would have to frame the obviousness inquiry around?
Kind of odd that a person who knows nothing of bond trading might be the person skilled in the art of improving bond trading systems….
First, if the doctrine of equivalents were to be applied, how could this “invention” ever be examined?
Some claim terms do not have equivalents. If it really is as hard as you say to identify the relevant equivalents, then that may merely mean that there are not any. It is not objection to the validity of a claim that certain elements may simply lack equivalents.
Next, who is the appropriate PHOSITA here? Bond traders? Graphic artists? Statisticians?
Once again, this strikes me as a weak objection. Innovation does not confine itself to our pre-defined categories. Sometimes a given claimed invention draws on several different categories, in which case the PHOSITA simply will not fit neatly into one category either. On the other hand, we all knew people in college who were double majors in (e. g.) philosophy and physics, so people with overlapping expertise sets do exist.
[I]n what world is this an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole? They can’t mean the computer system, because it can only do what it did before the program was loaded and can only do the same things after the program was loaded.
Absurdo. A computer loaded with software does many more things than a computer without software. This point hardly seems worth asserting. I am not a comp. sci. major, but I have turned on a computer before that had no operating system loaded, and also turned on a computer with an operating system loaded. The two experiences were discernibly different.
Sometimes a given claimed invention draws on several different categories, in which case the PHOSITA simply will not fit neatly into one category either.
So we can get all loosey goosey on POHISTA and that’s not a wee problem?
I have turned on a computer before that had no operating system loaded, and also turned on a computer with an operating system loaded. The two experiences were discernibly different.
They are structurally identical. I have looked at my TV when it was tuned to channel 9, and it was all static. I have looked at it when it was tuned to channel 3, and the football game was on. The two experiences were discernibly different. Did I have two TV’s?
So we can get all loosey goosey on POHISTA and that’s not a wee problem?
I guess I do not agree with the characterization “loosey goosey.” The PHOSITA here is someone with experience in statistics and graphical display and bond trading. The fact that the PHOSITA does not fit into only one of those arts is not really a legal problem , just a complication.
The bit about PHOSITA really speaks to procedure and why a subject matter inquiry is not actually a 102/103/112 inquiry even whilst looking at novelty, non-obviousness, and complete description.
Until an invention is construed as to the actual location of the contribution of the putative inventor, you can’t model the PHOSITA, which means you can’t apply 102/103/112.
That’s why the Markman procedure should be expanded to include subject matter eligibility. 12(b)6 is ridiculously inadequate and unfair to both sides.
I have looked at my TV when it was tuned to channel 9, and it was all static. I have looked at it when it was tuned to channel 3, and the football game was on. The two experiences were discernibly different. Did I have two TV’s?
Judge Newman did not say that a computer with the claimed software is a second, new computer. She said that the software “improve[s] the functioning of a known system.” I would say that tuning to a station with a signal improves the function of your t. v., relative to tuning it to a channel without a signal.
I would say that tuning to a station with a signal improves the function of your t. v., relative to tuning it to a channel without a signal.
That’s interesting. I see no functional change whatsoever; the TV was built by it’s designers to tune to TV channels when they are present and to display static when no TV channels are present. Those TV channels must meet the precise specifications for wavelength and digitization; if they do not, they are something other than TV channels for that TV.
The computer was built by it’s designers to process instructions when they are present and to display nothing when they are not present. Those instructions must meet precise specifications for syntax, and if they do not, they are something other than program instructions for that computer.
If you devise improved TV channels or improved instructions, independent of the content of those channels or instructions, you have improved the systems. If you modify the content, you have created new content for use by those systems, and you should have some protection for your content so that it may not be stolen and used by others without reward to you. The proper intellectual property for content is copyright. The so-called “functional” aspects of the content – be they for entertainment, or bond trading, or computer-gaming, or anything else that the unmodified systems may process, are pure abstractions that have no place in a sane patent system IF they are being consumed by human beings.
Because machines cannot be said to have minds, and only minds can host abstractions, if information is consumed by non-human actors and contributes to a functional result, the nature of the abstraction is materially different. It may remain intangible, but it’s not a creation of mind, and that, to me, is all the difference in the universe.
The computer was built by it’s designers to process instructions when they are present and to display nothing when they are not present.
This is a perfectly fair point, and it seems to my mind to bespeak a sort of gestalt shift in how one looks at software. Is it really achieving a “technical effect,” or is it just “content”? The statute is written in a way that it can be construed consistent with either view. As it happens, the SCotUS favors your view (at least for the moment), and therefore your view is the law (or at least closer to the law than my own view).
I will say this in defense of my view. Fundamentally, the patent system has three goals: (1) to encourage discovery; (2) to encourage disclosure; and (3) to encourage dissemination (usually commercialization). That is to say, you want to find out new things, tell them to other people, and make the practical applications of those discoveries available to the relevant markets. When someone writes new code for the computers in my car that makes the car more fuel efficient, that is just as much in furtherance of those three goals as when someone else changes the shape or size of some engine part in a manner that also improves the fuel efficiency. Therefore, from the bluntly practical point of view, it seems to me sensible to treat the software invention the same as the mechanical invention.
I confess, however, I cannot offer a logical refutation of the argument you offer. It seems logically sound enough to me. I am just not sure that your approach ends up giving the sort of liberal encouragement to innovation that we should want to give.
Greg if I did not agree with this When someone writes new code for the computers in my car that makes the car more fuel efficient, that is just as much in furtherance of those three goals as when someone else changes the shape or size of some engine part in a manner that also improves the fuel efficiency. then I would be in the MM camp that no software or non-novel physical structure should be eligible.
I’m not in that camp, but I draw the line at human consumption of abstract content. Non-humans cannot consume content as abstractions, because only the human mind may host abstractions. |
Even if we manage to create machine sentience, and even if the technology we use is wet, I draw that line at the human mind as a universal principle.
Justo. Allow me to rephrase.
If someone invents an assay that lets me know whether my son will have peanut allergies when he is older, that is just as much in furtherance of those three goals as when someone else invents a vaccination to prevent peanut allergies. Therefore, from the bluntly practical point of view, it seems to me sensible to treat the invention that provides information to a human the same as the invention that physically alters the human’s thymic system.
If someone invents an assay that lets me know whether my son will have peanut allergies when he is older, that is just as much in furtherance of those three goals as when someone else invents a vaccination to prevent peanut allergies.
If the assay method is a new structure or use of existing structures, non-obvious, and fully described, it should be patented. If its a conventional assay, but a newly discovered correlation, what you have is a new piece of information, and a scientific discovery, but you don’t have a patentable thing, and the value of that information is unique to you.
A vaccine is a composition of matter, and even if it’s a known composition being used in a new way, the result of the method is still a physical change in the world, which is the same change in every instance where it’s used, not an abstract item of information of different value to each user.
Therefore, from the bluntly practical point of view, it seems to me sensible to treat the invention that provides information to a human the same as the invention that physically alters the human’s thymic system.
No, it’s bluntly impossible fairly to value that information, or to Constitutionally monopolize it if it was obtained by means in the public domain.
Your choice of vaccine is poor (for you), as the “same result” is simply not achieved “every time.”
Please “moderate” the “cut-n-paste” response and post it.
There are no “catch-words” that I can see.
“…also currently being challenged on 101 grounds in CBM proceedings…”
It’s hard to imagine how the PTAB could now reach the 101 question. The Federal Circuit says the claims are not patent-ineligible, shouldn’t that be dispositive? Assuming the PTAB and the court are using the same claim construction. Can anyone think of scenarios under which the PTAB could now possibly hold these same claims 101-ineligible?
Sure, the PTAB panel enters one paragraph discussing the CAFC decision followed by the sentence, “we are not convinced.”. They then go about their merry business of invalidating the claims without a care in the world. Thus throwing another year or more of delay into the litigation that started in 2005. Justice delayed is once again justice denied.
That “cut-n-paste” paragraph is easy to find too.
Yeah, PI, that line has been TM’ed by the PTAB, and it fully signals that the burden really has shifted to the patent owner to prove patentability.
Ned – and yet again I find you whining about something – without as yet showing that you understand that what you are whining about happens because certain sticks in the bundle of property rights that belong to a granted patent are taken at a very particular instant of time.
anon, the primary problem with your position is its lack of articulation.
The primary fault is yours.
Step one: show that you understand the rather plebeian property law concept of sticks in a bundle (you haven’t even come close to doing that yet)
The difference in standard would be one way of saying, yeah, CAFC found them eligible, but we are operating under a different standard.
I, generally, think collateral estoppel (and the variants) should be stronger – one attempt by a party and done.
Good point Slaffles – when that particular difference in standard applies.
In the matter of an instance of law, the law remains the same under “both” standards, isn’t that so?
Haven’t yet read the text of the Decision but from the extracts shown above the following leaps out at me.
First, on precedent: “….specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter.”
Second, the specifically claimed subject matter is eligible as:
“…a solution to a problem in the software arts”
So I want in the Decision a discussion why program-writing is “technologic” and why the “solution” is a technologic modification.
Perhaps it will help close the seemingly endless argument on these pages, whether writing code for a computer is, per se, a technologic act.
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972) involved a method for converting binary-coded decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals on a general purpose digital computer. The invention increased by 33% the efficiency of digital computers. Would that now be patentable under TT?
That depends on whether you would define “technologic” wide enough to include math per se. Você iria?
Math per se should not be confused with applied math.
In short, yes, but Benson was poorly reasoned, and that’s even setting aside the judicial creation of exceptions to 101 based on what were really enablement concerns in the pre-1952 caselaw. This is because Benson’s claims should have been patentable under even Benson’s own logic. The “nutshell” of the Benson Court’s reasoning is this:
“It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case.”
This second sentence is incorrect as a factual matter. The Benson claims did not cover all ways of “converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals” on a computer, just some of them. For an easy example of this, consider that the claims don’t preempt a BCD to decimal to binary conversion (what a human might do by hand). And don’t just take my word for it: the Benson Court itself acknowledged a nuanced distinction between this method and other methods of BCD to decimal conversion, stating earlier in the opinion that “[t]he method sought to be patented varies the ordinary arithmetic steps a human would use by changing the order of the steps, changing the symbolism for writing the multiplier used in some steps, and by taking subtotals after each successive operation.” So as noted above, the Benson court was wrong to think that the “practical effect” of these claims was to patent the idea of BCD to binary conversion.
Moreover, the Court also has the analysis backwards when it further stated that “[t]he mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer.” Quem se importa? It is irrelevant whether the claimed method could be performed without the claimed computer components, because that wasn’t claimed. What is relevant under Benson’s reasoning is merely whether the so-called idea of “BCD to binary conversion” was monopolized by this claimed steps. And it wasn’t.
But I would daresay that Benson’s claims would logically be found eligible under the majority of the 2018 Fed. Cir. precedent. First, the claims are not “directed to” BCD to binary conversion, but to a specific way to perform that conversion. The “essence” or “character as a whole” or “focus” or “basic thrust” of the claims is thus to this specific implementation, not the general concept of BCD to binary conversion. And frankly, this sort of focal point analysis has been the law before this TTI case; it is set forth as the initial step in the “directed to” inquiry in Internet Patents Corp, Enfish, Electric Power, McRO, Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, Merial, TLI, Fairwarning IP, Bascom, and Rapid Litigation Management. Moreover, even if this focal point analysis were disregarded, the Benson claims would be patentable at the “directed to” inquiry under the Enfish safe harbor (an improvement to computer functionality) or the non-preemption logic of McRO (an improved method of BCD to binary conversion, not the only method), and the Benson claims would in any event be patentable at the “inventive concept” inquiry using the logic of Bascom (a particular arrangement of elements providing a technical improvement over prior art ways of BCD to binary conversion).
E, Ultimately what Benson has come to stand for is that mathematical algorithms are not statutory processes. They have to be applied in a conventional process or machine to improve them.
That’s quite a casual (and patronizing) dismissal of my point that doesn’t actually address anything I said.
But I’ll do you a courtesy that you don’t do me and accept, for argument’s sake, your premise that Benson can be captioned as “mathematical algorithms are only statutory when applied in a conventional process or machine.” Even with this understanding of Benson, then at least some of Benson’s claims would be eligible, because they are implemented by way of “reentrant shift registers.” Do you disagree?
But in any event, I do not accept the apparent breadth of your premise. Benson’s reasoning all stems from the proposition that “one may not patent an idea.” Well, the term “mathematical algorithm” would not ordinarily be an equivalent term for an “idea” to a layman, so it seems that Benson does not use the term “mathematical algorithm” in the way we might ordinarily understand it. Instead, Benson implicitly defines that term using a quote from Mackay Co. v. Radio Corp. that states that “while a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.” The term “mathematical expression” as used in Benson refers to a formulation of a “scientific truth” in the language of math (e. g., e=mc2, which is not restricted to some particular applied domain). This is emphasized by the distinction drawn in this quote between scientific truths and “novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth” (which Benson implies would be eligible).
Benson defines an “algorithm” as “[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem,” not as the specific procedure for solving a specific problem. With this in mind, Benson describes the “algorithm” at issue in its claims as “a generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical problems of converting one form of numerical representation to another.” In doing so, Benson draws a contrast between “the generic formulation” and “programs [that] may be developed as specific applications.” Benson itself is not particularly clear on what this dichotomy implies, but I believe the intent is to suggest that specific applications of a general algorithm are eligible, despite the fact that the “generic formulation” itself is not (if this were not the intended reading, then what would be the point of this discussion of “specific applications”?).
From this language in the opinion, it is my view that Benson actually stands for the proposition that while a general idea or a results-defined mathematical statement would be classified as an ineligible “mathematical algorithm,” a specific implementation should not be. But Benson’s claims are – in reality – specific implementations of the general concept of BCD to binary conversion, not broad recitations of the general concept itself, so I think Benson’s ultimate finding of ineligibility does not follow from its reasoning. As a result, to the extent that Benson remains precedential (given the vast number of more recent cases), I read the case not as suggesting that any “mathematical algorithm” is ineligible (as we might use that term in lay parlance), but to suggest only that claims that can phrased using the language of math are ineligible when they are recited at a high level and by their ultimate results, while claims including the specific steps for achieving those ultimate results remain eligible.
E, what is important about any Supreme Court case is the way the Supreme Court itself characterizes it.
Thus, in Flook we learned that mathematical algorithms are non statutory, and that the bit about “wholly preempt” was not a requirement. Simply referring to a use, even somewhat specific, was not “enough.” There had to be an inventive application.
Later, in Diehr, we learn that math “applied” in a conventional process (to improve that process) was sufficient.
In Mayo/Alice, we again learned that “abstract” material must be applied in an inventive fashion. However, this did not displace Flook’s statement that mathematical algorithm’s are nonstatutory or that wholly preempt was not required. What we learned is that “abstract” includes math (and business methods.) But to me, by circular logic, the Supreme Court is dancing around Bilski’s majority holding (calling business methods abstract) by really following Flook and the dissent in Bilski that math and business methods are nonstatutory. I just call it as I see it.
Again, it is best not to focus on Benson’s reasoning. That has been eclipsed, especially the bit about “wholly preempt.”
Now, regarding Benson’s claims, they were construed to cover the mathematical algorithm, with the computer preamble as a limitation on use: in other words, do it on a computer. This is precisely the kind of use limitation that was demolished in Flook, and finally disposed of in Alice.
“Thus, in Flook we learned that mathematical algorithms are non statutory, and that the bit about “wholly preempt” was not a requirement. Simply referring to a use, even somewhat specific, was not “enough.” There had to be an inventive application.
Later, in Diehr, we learn that math “applied” in a conventional process (to improve that process) was sufficient.”
Yes, we learned if you change an alarm limit at the end of your method it is not an eligible method, but if you open a door at then end of you method, because a limit has been reached, then it is eligible….
.so, always add some insignificant post solution activity, like opening a door to make your claim eligible.
Les, the claims have to be more like Diehr than that. The claim as a whole must be directed to a specific inventive application and not to simply do it on a computer, or use it in a chemical process.
Diehr – the point you seem to not want to grasp is the “point of novelty” was – gasp & # 8211; Programas.
Ned : Here is Diehr’s claim 1:
A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising:
providing said computer with a data base for said press including at least,
natural logarithm conversion data (1n),
the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound being molded, and.
a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press,
initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding,
constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z),
repetitively performing in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, integrations to calculate from the series of temperature determinations the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is 1n v=CZ+x.
where v is the total required cure time,
repetitively comparing in the computer at frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and.
opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates completion of curing.
Other than opening the door, and the particular equation, how is it significantly different from the Claims in Alice?
You are even more off than normal Ned.
Do you recognize the parallel between what you just posted and the line from the Wizard of Oz (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain).
May I also remind you (yet again) to read (heck even print it out here so that everyone can read it) what your state attorney oath says (I guarantee that it does not place the Supreme Court above the Constitution!)
anon, your lack of understanding of the Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area is legendary. You interpreted Bilski as holding that “business methods are eligible subject matter.”
Of course, they are not and never legitimately have been.
You remain the one that is off and I was the one perpetually correcting you that the holding in Bilski was NOT directed to “business methods” but instead was to “abstract.”
Your attempt to redefine history.
Still waiting for you to provide your state attorney oath…
We both know why you are not doing that, eh?
Well, for one, Diehr involved a molding process.
LOL – a molding process that had as its “Point of Novelty” mere computer software….
& # 8220; That’s quite a casual (and patronizing) dismissal of my point that doesn’t actually address anything I said. & # 8221;
Easewaran, that’s Ned being Ned.
Logic is ineligible subject matter.
Carrying out logical operatings using an old machine that was designed for the sole purpose of carrying out logical operations doesn’t rescue the logic.
That’s how it’s done. Everything else is a farce. All this CAFC jurisprudence keeping s0ftie w0ftie junk afloat is nothing more than a house of cards built on a foundation of 100% pure bal0ney.
How is your copyright on logic coming along?
Sim. Pensei isso.
Logic is ineligible subject matter.
Carrying out logical operations using an old machine that was designed for the sole purpose of carrying out logical operations doesn’t rescue the ineligible logic.
That’s how it’s done. Everything else is a farce. All this CAFC jurisprudence keeping s 0 ftie w 0 ftie junk afloat is nothing more than a house of cards built on a foundation of 100% pure bal 0ney.
You want the very things that in the past you have refused to provide definitions for.
I wonder if you grasp the irony.
Comentários estão fechados.
Patently-O Authors.
Dennis Crouch Associate Professor, University of Missouri School of Law SSRN Articles Jason Rantanen Professor, University of Iowa College of Law SSRN Articles Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics.
Patently-O Tools.
About 25,000 individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.
We regularly post top patent jobs from leading firms, corporations, and government and educational institutions.
Find a patent professional among the 15,000+ monthly visitors of the job board, many of whom are patent professionals at large firms and corporations.

Customizable Trading Interface.
User Friendly Interface & Easily Customizable.
Envie-me Documentação.
Nós entraremos em contato com você em breve.
Detalhes do contato.
Rue du Clos 21-23.
+41 22 535 18 39.
Serviços.
Seamless FX.
Direitos autorais e cópia; Olfa Trade 2018.
Todos os direitos reservados.
A Olfa Trade é especializada em engenharia e implementação de soluções de TI para o setor financeiro e bancário. Com uma vasta experiência no campo do design e integração da plataforma de negociação, a plataforma de ponta da Olfa Trade dará à sua empresa a vantagem competitiva necessária para ter sucesso contra seus concorrentes.