Imported from previous forum
Hello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Javier,
While certain U.S. patents have been asserted in litigation against FAST, no court has held that FAST is covered by any of those patents. Consequently, to our knowledge there are no royalties owed by, or other conditions placed upon, users of FAST at this time. Moreover, U.S. patents are not effective outside the U.S., so FAST users whose use is limited to Europe, for example, would generally not be obligated to pay royalties related to a U.S. patent.
Regards,
FPL Program Office
Hello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Javier
With respect to the CME on implicit tagging, there are no license fees required. As one of the authors and originators of this patent, we created this patent as a defensive patent to protect the concept on behalf of the industry and FPL. At this time I do not believe the CME Group, the assignee of the patent, has any intent in attempting to realize a revenue from this patent.
The other issue reported by the FIX Protocol Program Office is likely more important for you to understand.
Very pleased to hear of another product/service offering using the FAST Protocol.
Jim N
Javier,
While certain U.S. patents have been asserted in litigation against FAST, no court has held that FAST is covered by any of those patents. Consequently, to our knowledge there are no royalties owed by, or other conditions placed upon, users of FAST at this time. Moreover, U.S. patents are not effective outside the U.S., so FAST users whose use is limited to Europe, for example, would generally not be obligated to pay royalties related to a U.S. patent.
Regards,
FPL Program OfficeHello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Jim,
Thank you very much for your answer. We are gathering as much information as possible about the legal situation of the protocol.
King Regards
Javier
With respect to the CME on implicit tagging, there are no license fees required. As one of the authors and originators of this patent, we created this patent as a defensive patent to protect the concept on behalf of the industry and FPL. At this time I do not believe the CME Group, the assignee of the patent, has any intent in attempting to realize a revenue from this patent.
The other issue reported by the FIX Protocol Program Office is likely more important for you to understand.
Very pleased to hear of another product/service offering using the FAST Protocol.
Jim N
Javier,
While certain U.S. patents have been asserted in litigation against FAST, no court has held that FAST is covered by any of those patents. Consequently, to our knowledge there are no royalties owed by, or other conditions placed upon, users of FAST at this time. Moreover, U.S. patents are not effective outside the U.S., so FAST users whose use is limited to Europe, for example, would generally not be obligated to pay royalties related to a U.S. patent.
Regards,
FPL Program OfficeHello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Hello,
Thank you very much for the answer, we really appreciate it. Do you know if is it possible to obtain a court statement declaring that no patent covers the protocol?
Regards
Javier,
While certain U.S. patents have been asserted in litigation against FAST, no court has held that FAST is covered by any of those patents. Consequently, to our knowledge there are no royalties owed by, or other conditions placed upon, users of FAST at this time. Moreover, U.S. patents are not effective outside the U.S., so FAST users whose use is limited to Europe, for example, would generally not be obligated to pay royalties related to a U.S. patent.
Regards,
FPL Program OfficeHello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Hello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Hi Javier,
I saw something about this before, when I was looking around at patents related to FIX, FAST, and so on. Apparently, there is a good bit of litigation in progress right now involving a company called RealTime Data which holds patents that it claims are being infringed upon by a number of different financial firms.
Here’s a recent press release, from ICAP’s Patent Brokerage, that says RealTime Data is auctioning covenants not to sue:
The relevant patents are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System”
U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506, entitled “Systems and Methods for Data Compression Such As Content Dependent Data Compression”
U.S. Patent No. 7,400,274, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption”
U.S. Patent No. 7,417,568, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption”
Anyway, hope that helps.
Cheers,
Russ
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
Russ,
Thank you for posting this information - very valuable and should be a wake-up call to every user of FIX/FAST.
Several people have mentioned to me that such litigation was in the works, but I have never been able to ascertain the details you just provided.
When the High-Performance Interface Working Group was started, I repeatedly sought to have FPL address intellectual property protection and specifically raised what I had heard about this litigation. FPL responded with silence.
I again raised the issue of intellectual property ownership and protection in relation to the new fixed-income initiative that an unnamed “consortium” is promoting under FPL’s auspices. This is a case of intellectual property being developed outside of FPL, and then mixed with the FIX Protocol, with ultimate ownership and liability indeterminate and impossible to manage, respectively, as presently prosecuted. Again, FPL is silent in the face of my expressed concerns.
In other words, in the best light, FPL’s Global Steering Committee has been lackadaisical about protecting contributions to and use of protocols under its stewardship. No reasonably-informed person could read CME’s covenant not to sue without seeing the gaping holes in the protections it offers.
This is just bad work on FPL’s part, all the way around. An organization truly dedicated to transparency, openness, and fair dealing would already have provided to all members, contributors, and users the information you provided here today. Its failure to do so should give everyone pause. Even Javier’s question that opened this thread provided an opportunity for FPL to come clean. Thankfully, you have given him the information he needs.
When FPL ran and hid rather than dealing openly with my questions about the fixed-income initiative, I decided then and there that I would make no further contributions to the protocol of any substance, until the grave issues surrounding ownership and licensing of the protocol are resolved in a way that provides reasonable protections to all members of the community. Frankly, as a user of FIX, if I could get away from it without sacrificing cherished relationships, I would. I would certainly like to see an alternative emerge that leaves behind the heavy baggage that FIX now represents, on multiple fronts. But no such alternative exists at the moment, so I am stuck with it, as are other users sensitive to the network effects it has achieved.
I hope the members of the GSC will use this discussion as an opportunity to change course.
Sincerely,
John
Hello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Hi Javier,
I saw something about this before, when I was looking around at patents related to FIX, FAST, and so on. Apparently, there is a good bit of litigation in progress right now involving a company called RealTime Data which holds patents that it claims are being infringed upon by a number of different financial firms.
Here’s a recent press release, from ICAP’s Patent Brokerage, that says RealTime Data is auctioning covenants not to sue:
Realtime Data Offers Covenant Not to Sue through ICAP Patent Brokerage
The relevant patents are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System”
U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506, entitled “Systems and Methods for Data Compression Such As Content Dependent Data Compression”
U.S. Patent No. 7,400,274, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption”
U.S. Patent No. 7,417,568, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption”
Anyway, hope that helps.
Cheers,
Russ
Russ,
Thank you for posting this information - very valuable and should be a wake-up call to every user of FIX/FAST.
Hi John,
I don’t think you could write a ‘Hello World’ program without violating at least ten patents in this day and age. I was just trying to provide Javier with some color on existing litigation and/or patents that might relate to his question…
I think the problem here is with the entire system of software patents, not the FPL or FAST. I would be perfectly comfortable using FAST in any system I was developing, patent trolls or not.
Cheers,
Russ
I also think that some of these patents are a case of someone patenting things that are a natural progression and not a new invention.
It is a bit like Prince patenting abbreviated speech because he wrote “Nothing compares 2 u” and then suing everyone who writes an SMS.
John you are right that we must take these threats seriously. Your passion is something that FPL needs. Don’t disengage; but equally be prepared to accept that not everyone has the same view as you do - when you talk about FPL being offshore, I think you meant London, which is still a very open and transparent place.
George.
Russ,
Thank you for posting this information - very valuable and should be a wake-up call to every user of FIX/FAST.
Hi John,
I don’t think you could write a ‘Hello World’ program without violating at least ten patents in this day and age. I was just trying to provide Javier with some color on existing litigation and/or patents that might relate to his question…
I think the problem here is with the entire system of software patents, not the FPL or FAST. I would be perfectly comfortable using FAST in any system I was developing, patent trolls or not.
Cheers,
Russ
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
> John you are right that we must take these threats seriously. Your passion is something that FPL needs. Don’t disengage; but equally be prepared to accept that not everyone has the same view as you do - when you talk about FPL being offshore, I think you meant London, which is still a very open and transparent place.
Thank you, George, but my willingness to contribute meaningful work or ideas to FIX is conditioned upon mutual trust and honesty. FPL has broken trust and been deceitful with me…and all of its members, contributors, and users. One or more members of the GSC had the gall to delete my open message to its members - a message that was respectful and made legitimate inquiries - in order to avoid dealing forthrightly with the issues I raised. FPL has refused to answer reasonable questions about the ownership and terms of use of the protocol. It has concealed information concerning this litigation. I have called for new leadership. I renew that call.
FPL and the FIX Protocol are both assets of the same Jersey trust. Whatever may have been the motivations for choosing that domicile, I seriously doubt that openness and transparency were among them.
I am perfectly comfortable holding minority or unpopular views. Markets are about knowing the truth and doing what’s right, even when people disagree.
What is needed now is an open and honest discussion. As long as my voice is the only one demanding answers, the GSC will continue to stonewall and dissemble. I hope others will join me in demanding the truth and that FPL live up to its promises.
John - I won’t speak publicly about the IP issues around the Real Time Data patents, but as someone who was there and argued against the creation of the irrevocable Jersey Trust I can reassure you no one was working to do anything other than 1) create an environment where the assets of the FIX Community would be protected in perpetuity and maybe more importantly given that the previous legal entity was UK based 2) provide tax certainty for the FIX organization going forward. That our law firm chose an elaborate structure so that the FPL Trading entity could potentially earn money on events, merchandising, etc. while the main part of the organization remained tax exempt speaks more to the incredibly complex legal structures and tax laws that permeate most countries than any attempt to somehow obfuscate and make opaque the legal and ownership structure.
Now, one can argue as I did at the time that we would have been better off just forming a US not-for-profit, but that was properly vetted and given its due consideration.
And yes there have been attempts by members to create a revenue stream from the standard independent of voluntary FPL membership fees and these attempts will continue periodically as GSC members come and go. But know this - the GSC you so despise and publicly malign has at each attempt held sway and prevented any attempts to make the FIX Protocol anything other than freely available for anyone to use regardless of membership status. The members implicitly agree to carry the free riders in the belief that there is a benefit to all and a self interest in increasing the network economic effect of the standard.
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
Jim,
Only in an immaterial sense is the trust irrevocable. Further, your suggestion that the trust is perpetual or “the assets of the FIX Comunity” are protected in perpetuity is false.
The trust has a maximum life of 100 years, but can be terminated tomorrow if the trustees see fit. Most importantly, the protocol specifications are assets of the trust that the trustees may dispose of tomorrow if they find it in their interests to do so. So there is no perpetual protection of the supposedly open and free nature of the protocol whatsoever. Later today the trustees could decide to impose fees for specification access that only its Too Big Too Fail members could afford. Nothing protects the “FIX Community,” as you put it, from that insult.
I am glad to hear that you argued against this structure. It’s a shame you did not prevail. But someone’s desire to avoid taxes alone cannot explain the “incredibly complex legal structure” built around the FIX protocols. Some other motive was at work. What was it?
I do not despise the GSC. Neither have I maligned it. I have called for new governance for the protocol. I stand by that call.
I have no desire to hang you on an inadvertent, poor choice of words, but referring to non-members as “free riders” denigrates them. Are users of Google free-riders? Users of HTML? You well know and understand that those seeking network economies often use freely-available goods and services in order to acquire those economies. They seek to profit in other ways, e.g., in the case at hand, from higher commissions, lower operating costs, etc.
The legitimate questions (see http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/33214597) I raised in the aftermath of FPL’s announcement of its collaboration with an unnamed, secretive consortium remain unanswered. The consultant employed by that consortium has publicly suggested that the ownership of the FIX Protocol may be shifted to another body. FPL has been silent in the face of his assertion. I cannot help but wonder why.
– John
John - I won’t speak publicly about the IP issues around the Real Time Data patents, but as someone who was there and argued against the creation of the irrevocable Jersey Trust I can reassure you no one was working to do anything other than 1) create an environment where the assets of the FIX Community would be protected in perpetuity and maybe more importantly given that the previous legal entity was UK based 2) provide tax certainty for the FIX organization going forward. That our law firm chose an elaborate structure so that the FPL Trading entity could potentially earn money on events, merchandising, etc. while the main part of the organization remained tax exempt speaks more to the incredibly complex legal structures and tax laws that permeate most countries than any attempt to somehow obfuscate and make opaque the legal and ownership structure.
Now, one can argue as I did at the time that we would have been better off just forming a US not-for-profit, but that was properly vetted and given its due consideration.
And yes there have been attempts by members to create a revenue stream from the standard independent of voluntary FPL membership fees and these attempts will continue periodically as GSC members come and go. But know this - the GSC you so despise and publicly malign has at each attempt held sway and prevented any attempts to make the FIX Protocol anything other than freely available for anyone to use regardless of membership status. The members implicitly agree to carry the free riders in the belief that there is a benefit to all and a self interest in increasing the network economic effect of the standard.
[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
> I think the problem here is with the entire system of software patents, not the FPL or FAST. I would be perfectly comfortable using FAST in any system I was developing, patent trolls or not.
I fully agree with you, Russ, that the software-patent system is broken. But FPL’s management and licensing of FIX/FAST only makes matters worse in this case. Patent trolls go after deep pockets. Small companies tend to be relatively safe, unless and until they become large companies. Among the dangers from this litigation is that large companies or FPL itself could be forced to agree to terms that ultimately injure smaller participants.
Hiding a ticket in a drawer, literally or figuratively, is a sin in our business. When mistakes are made or unexpected liabilities incurred, the unvarnished truth to all those that may be harmed is needed. With respect to this litigation, FPL hid the ticket. That is, unless FPL wants to say it didn’t know, which would then raise a distinct set of questions.
Tomorrow FPL could decide that FIX is no longer free. That’s a fact. Its claims to ownership of FIX are simply false.
Why can’t the ownership and terms of use of FIX be clean, transparent, and unambiguous? Why haven’t my questions about whether the ownership of FIX will change been answered?
Hello!
We’re working in a piece of software that makes use of the FIX/FAST protocol. I’m a bit worried about the patents that cover the protocols. The sole information I’ve been able to find is the FIX –CME agreement, but we’re wondering about the possibility of that it’s covered by another patent that requires the payment of royalties or has any other kind of conditions to be used.
Thanks a lot for any help you can provide.
Hi Javier,
I saw something about this before, when I was looking around at patents related to FIX, FAST, and so on. Apparently, there is a good bit of litigation in progress right now involving a company called RealTime Data which holds patents that it claims are being infringed upon by a number of different financial firms.
Here’s a recent press release, from ICAP’s Patent Brokerage, that says RealTime Data is auctioning covenants not to sue:
Realtime Data Offers Covenant Not to Sue through ICAP Patent Brokerage
The relevant patents are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System”
U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506, entitled “Systems and Methods for Data Compression Such As Content Dependent Data Compression”
U.S. Patent No. 7,400,274, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption”
U.S. Patent No. 7,417,568, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption”
Anyway, hope that helps.
Cheers,
Russ
Hi Russ,
Thank you very much for the link and the references to the patents. It has been extremely useful. I think it will be interesting to see the result of the current litigation.
King Regards
Of course, no discussion of patents is complete without a reference to U.S. patent #4,195,707. I’d tell you what it is, but that would spoil the fun - try running “patent 4,195,707” through google for a laugh.
Yes, it’s a real patent.
Cheers,
Russ
we should be thankful that the teachings of this patent are available to us for free use as the patent term has expired 
/Rolf
Of course, no discussion of patents is complete without a reference
to U.S. patent #4,195,707. I’d tell you what it is, but that would
spoil the fun - try running “patent 4,195,707” through google for a
laugh.Yes, it’s a real patent.
Cheers,
Russ