TT License Fees on 1/1/06

[chipper338]

I readthe recent alert about the TT fees. I reviewed the proposed fees and although NT negotiated fees much lower than then TT originally wanted, I feel they are still outragously large.Therefore, starting tomorrow, I will no longer use the SuperDOM and on 1/1/06 I will use the version ofNT w/o the SuperDOM.

How many people feel this way? Perhaps if enough of us refuse to use the SuperDOM, NT can showTT that their fees are outragous and the NT subscribers refuse to participate, thus lowering TT's revenues.

Sincerly,

Chip Atchison



TT License Fees
NinjaTrader has negotiated with TT transactional license fees for all futures, equities and options contracts starting January 1, 2006 as shown in the table below. These fees are ONLY applicable to NinjaTrader products that utilize the SuperDOM trading screen. NinjaTrader will make available a version of NinjaTrader that excludes the SuperDOM trading screen as of January 1, 2006. The details of how the transactions will be tracked and paid still needs to be finalized but ultimately each individual NinjaTrader subscriber will be responsible for their transactional charges. These are the lowest fees possible from TT.

[Antraman]

imported post

I think the amount of money that is going to be generated by TT will be so huge that they would hardly care about a small software company refusing to use one of their patented products.

Quoting Harris Brumfield:

"We think 70% of the volume at the big four futures exchanges is using the MD Trader concept."

If NinjaTader has proof its SuperDOM could be considered "prior art" to TT's MD Trader system, then they may have a patent case, if they don't have the proof, well, its a done deal already.

I think Ninja did good to negotiate a lower usage fee...it could have been worse...mighty worse.

[chipper338]

imported post

Hi Antraman,

You are correct in that NT negotiated a good deal and I congratulate them on that.

However, don't be too sure HB is telling the truth. From the NT statement that he asked the exchanges for $.25/trade and from your quote it sounds like HB is fulll of old fashioned legal bluffing.

In terms of patent infringement, you have to remeber that NT did use the MD Trader system. However, IB and I feel sure CyberTrader didn't use the MD Trader s/w. Even thoughthe s/w from both vendorshave a SuperDOM sytle, IB has Booktrader, it certainly doesn't mean that their s/w infringed upon the TT patents.

So it will be interesting to see how many vendors actually used the MD Trading s/w. Perhaps NT can tell give us a feel for it.

Anyway, no vendor in his right mind is going to give away that much money to HB just to avoid a legal bluff. HB will be in court for a long time and will spend a lot of money bluffing his way into many court losses.

So don't short-change yourself, we at NT can make a difference!

Help NT negotiate lower fees with your feedback!

thanks,

Chip Atchison

[chipper338]

imported post

I just calculated the impact of the TT fees on my monthly NT fee.

I average 4 futs trades a day with 2 cars per trades. I also average 4 stock trades per day with 700 shares per trades.

So my monthly TT fees will be

Futs: 4 trades * 2 sides * 2 contracts * 20 days * $1/side/car = $320

Stocks: 4 trades * 2 sides * 700 shares * 20 days * $0.001/share/side = $112

So my montly NT fee will jump from $50 to $482.

NOT GOOD!

[trymph]

imported post

Youre absolutely right!!! $1/contract/side is outrageous.......I grew up on the trading floors in Chicago and the clearing houses never charged more than $.50/contract/round turn (they were taking the risk of backing the trader AND clearing services for that fee; whats this guy providing for his fee?)..........I've seen traders switch clearing houses for $.02 better deal and it was common for the big traders to get a yearly cap for total comm. This guy was a big trader.......ask him what he paid and I'll bet he never paid more than $.20/round turn..........He's raping the entire street with his so called invention.....What if we bring were to bringsuit against Microsoft for representing spread sheet values on an X/Y axis?? Right it would be ridiculous to claim inventing a X/Ygraphical representationof values.This guy is going to put Dom software companies out of biz first then himself......Pats wont pay and all they had to do is make their DOM static rather than price scrolling up/down the ladder......Refco was fighting him too b4 they went down............its totally ridiculous!!!!

Ray keep workn on that chart entry basedGUI cause otherwise your out of biz IMHO or at least never ever seeing a DOM GUI on a puter screen again.....



Switching to basic entry/management b4 paying that kind of fee!!!

Regards

Bruce

[yeneuro]

imported post

I'm glad to see you guys refuting and refusing to pay the additional amount.

I'm with you on this

[NinjaTrader_Dierk]

imported post

Fee on futures is $0.1 per side.

[NinjaTrader_Ray]

imported post

Futs: 4 trades * 2 sides * 2 contracts * 20 days * $1/side/car = $320

Your math is wrong. It's $0.10 per side, not $1 per side.

$32 not $320

[chipper338]

imported post

Ooops Sorry NT

I didn't have the rates in front of me when I typed it. So I accidently remembered the rate was $1 per side. My aplogies. Please forgive me.

Still, it's $.10 more than I care to pay for the same service. And with the stocks adding $112 per month in fees. I'm still going to pay $142 extra a month.

On the other hand, how many other vendors will have to pay fees to TT. I doubt HB was telling the truth about 70%. Can you NT guys help us out with getting a better feel of the situation?

Thanks,

Chip

[Antraman]

imported post

I think what really needs to happen is that the exchanges decide to refuse to pay HB the fees he asks, and force him to either go down the legal route, or open up the possibility to have TT up for sale.

I don't see how so many and so large exchanges can afford to allow one man to manipulate the exchange system to his advantage and become incredibly rich, at theirs and ours expense.

Failing that, the next best thing I think is for NT to develop an alternative electronic entry system that is just as easy and convenient to use as the DOM, such as through the Charting facility. We can move stops and targets in the Charts, so how much harder would it be implement an entry and exit function in the charts too?

But if none of that pans out, I am sure I can absorb NT's TT licensing fees into my money management without too much trouble. Hell, I pay $19.95 brokerage each way on my share trading through Comsec...

cheers,

[chipper338]

imported post

Hi Antraman,

It looks like you were correct. TT is wining agreements with futs brokers. In my humble opionon, it may have benefited HB to give away his MD_Trader system and let it become the industry standard. Then after patents are awarded, charge outragous fees. This reminds me of the drug dealer who give drugs away for free then charges outragous amountsonce the users are adicted.

May God have mercy on our souls.

Chip



I am presently a history of TT's lawsuits in reverse chonological order. Starting with the Augus 09, 2005 article.

"Trading Technologies International, Inc. (TT), today announced it has settled two lawsuits regarding the use of its patented electronic trading system."

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/n...7401&rel=1



My sentiments are echoed in the following article of July 20, 2005

"This guy is just off the scale when it comes to the things he’s doing,” Mr. Wasendorf says of Mr. Brumfield, citing, “lots of threats, lots of intimidation.”

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/n...7178&rel=1



Here's an article from June 24,2005 saying Advantage will stop using TT s/w. Which is counter productive for TT because they lose fees.

"Advantage Futures on Thursday agreed not to use software that infringes on TT's patents, according to a joint statement by the companies. "

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/n...6916&rel=1



A part of the June 16,2005 article spells out the risks for HB and the futs industry. The article also identifies an add by TT requesting $0.05/trade. Plus a word of warning to both TT and vendors that use TT about alienating traders with high fees.

"The outcome of the Refco spat could show which way the tide is turning for Mr. Brumfield and TT. If Mr. Brumfield wins, he would be much closer to his goal of presiding over an unprecedented flow of licensing fees. If he loses, he will have effectively given away the most valuable trading tool in the futures business."

"Still, enforcing TT's patents will not be easy if Mr. Brumfield has to negotiate separately with hundreds of firms using allegedly copycat systems. To that end, in December TT published a full-page ad in several newspapers, proposing that the four largest futures exchanges pay the firm five cents per trade, permanently removing the burden of litigation from their customers."

"But, monopoly or not, the standoff could be damaging if traders defect in large numbers from Refco in order to keep using TT's platform, as some observers predict."

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/m...6-18&rel=1



This statement from an April 14, 2005 article shows that HB has gained the monoply and now want to charge huge fees.

"Now, having established a virtual monopoly in that business, he's making an even bolder move: asking the four international futures exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade, to give him 2.5 cents for every transaction."

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/m...4-16&rel=1



From an August 17, 2004 article, TT has started the legal frenzy.

"It’s part of a broader trend among technology companies to stake a legal claim—and extract fees from rivals—for the ideas that underpin their companies (Crains, Feb. 10, 2003).

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/n...3560&rel=1



Here's a posible motive behind HB's lawsuits. It's from a July 17, 2003 article on HB.

"TT, which turned profitable only late last year after nearly a decade in operation, is itself vulnerable to a rapidly shifting futures industry landscape. Some observers, including failed competitors, believe the value of so-called independent software vendors, or ISVs, will fade as their services become less proprietary.

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/m...7-19&rel=1