Legal framework

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
All,

Perhaps we can include on the agenda for tomorrow’s call - or another call soon - a discussion of the legal framework for any work product that emerges from the HFT Working Group.

Three issues, at minimum, should be addressed:

  1. Avoidance of substantive infringement claims, to the extent possible.

  2. Avoidance of claims that our work together, or the licensing arrangements for any product(s) of that work, is anticompetitive in nature or effect.

  3. Ultimate ownership of any and all contributions or work product (I would prefer the least restrictive/most open arrangements possible).

Best,
John

3

Hi John,

Are these not already covered for all the work available in the FIXProtocol website / under FPL ? Would not the outputs of HFT working group also fall under the same terms of license ?

For each person who is participating, its upto them to get permission from their employer for their participation. If somebody posts a proposal, piece of code or concept to our discussion forum, then their employer cannot come and sue FPL / hold other members of this working group responsible for their employee’s actions.

Regards,
K. Mahesh

All,

Perhaps we can include on the agenda for tomorrow’s call - or another call soon - a discussion of the legal framework for any work product that emerges from the HFT Working Group.

Three issues, at minimum, should be addressed:

  1. Avoidance of substantive infringement claims, to the extent possible.

  2. Avoidance of claims that our work together, or the licensing arrangements for any product(s) of that work, is anticompetitive in nature or effect.

  3. Ultimate ownership of any and all contributions or work product (I would prefer the least restrictive/most open arrangements possible).

Best,
John

4

[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
Mahesh,

The FPL website and various materials published there do address intellectual property. FPL claims the copyrights, for example, to FIX specifications.

To the best of my knowledge, however, the issues I raised (which may represent only a fraction of the legal issues that need to be addressed) are not adequately addressed in current FPL terms. This is, after all, a new effort, and we are perfectly capable of infringing someone else’s property, even if innocently and unintentionally.

Further, a substantial amount of litigation has taken place around standards in recent years, and thus new precedents established. I do not know to what extent FPL’s current terms have been updated in light of these precedents.

As a matter of due diligence, I am suggesting that the legal framework be consciously addressed early in this process.

Best,
John

Hi John,

Are these not already covered for all the work available in the FIXProtocol website / under FPL ? Would not the outputs of HFT working group also fall under the same terms of license ?

For each person who is participating, its upto them to get permission from their employer for their participation. If somebody posts a proposal, piece of code or concept to our discussion forum, then their employer cannot come and sue FPL / hold other members of this working group responsible for their employee’s actions.

Regards,
K. Mahesh

All,

Perhaps we can include on the agenda for tomorrow’s call - or another call soon - a discussion of the legal framework for any work product that emerges from the HFT Working Group.

Three issues, at minimum, should be addressed:

  1. Avoidance of substantive infringement claims, to the extent possible.

  2. Avoidance of claims that our work together, or the licensing arrangements for any product(s) of that work, is anticompetitive in nature or effect.

  3. Ultimate ownership of any and all contributions or work product (I would prefer the least restrictive/most open arrangements possible).

Best,
John

5

John, relevant questions and not only for HFTwg but in general. I’ll check with the FPL Program Office and provide an update at the next meeting (not this afternoon).

Best,
Rolf

All,

Perhaps we can include on the agenda for tomorrow’s call - or another call soon - a discussion of the legal framework for any work product that emerges from the HFT Working Group.

Three issues, at minimum, should be addressed:

  1. Avoidance of substantive infringement claims, to the extent possible.

  2. Avoidance of claims that our work together, or the licensing arrangements for any product(s) of that work, is anticompetitive in nature or effect.

  3. Ultimate ownership of any and all contributions or work product (I would prefer the least restrictive/most open arrangements possible).

Best,
John

6

[ original email was from John Harris - john.harris@bondmart.com ]
Thank you, sir.

John, relevant questions and not only for HFTwg but in general. I’ll check with the FPL Program Office and provide an update at the next meeting (not this afternoon).

Best,
Rolf

All,

Perhaps we can include on the agenda for tomorrow’s call - or another call soon - a discussion of the legal framework for any work product that emerges from the HFT Working Group.

Three issues, at minimum, should be addressed:

  1. Avoidance of substantive infringement claims, to the extent possible.

  2. Avoidance of claims that our work together, or the licensing arrangements for any product(s) of that work, is anticompetitive in nature or effect.

  3. Ultimate ownership of any and all contributions or work product (I would prefer the least restrictive/most open arrangements possible).

Best,
John