List of vendors selling BMT indicators | Trading Reviews and Vendors


futures.io - futures trading strategies, market news, trading charts and platforms


Trading Reviews and Vendors


Discuss and review vendors of commercial trading products, trading rooms and services, trading indicators or third-party paid add-ons




 

List of vendors selling BMT indicators

  #40 (permalink)

Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,704 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,231 given, 25,847 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


DoctorGM View Post
Hi Folks,

I am a newbie to this forum and I came across this thread while researching the excellent work of Fat Tails. I am an inventor because I have many issued patents (US and Internationally) and my inventions are used by my employer in shipping products. I also sit on Patent Committees, I read about 150 invention disclosures per year and I've even spoken at the USPTO (by invitation twice - to teach about my inventions - not to teach them about their work - big difference). I only say this so that you know I have some background in the area of Intellectual Property. There is a difference between Patents and Copyright (both are IP). A patent is the idea in a preferred enablement. Copyright can be similar but generally applies to original creations (works of art, logos, code, etc.). Both are protected and are the property of the creator.

It would take too many pages of text here to get into details but essentially, anything that can be patented has to be novel, useful and enabled (meaning it is do-able). So you can have the "idea" that you will use a rocketship to get to Mars but the guy or organization that actually enables a workable rocketship is the one who gets the patent.

Once something is in the public domain (by way of publication, presentation or patent), it is no longer available to be claimed in a patent except in the case of *reduction*. So if someone patented a method that requires 5 steps, and you figure out how to do it in 4, then you have a new idea that can be patented. If you do it in 6 and those 6 steps contain the original 5, you are infringing.

In the case of indicators, someone who copies code directly or only makes minor changes and claims it as their own is in violation of Copyright (and they are a scumbag). Someone who takes a non-patented (think non-protected) idea and substantially modifies the code, method or functionality has created and original work which is theirs.

There is much more that can be said - so much so that our courts are tied up with the infinite verbiage that this area of law has created. But I hope this brief explanation helps.

BTW, I too was following a previously mentioned well-know vendor and even bought DVD's and went to seminars, etc. All newbies do that. It didn't take me very long to smell a rat. Thankfully, due to my natural skepticism and my ability to research, I never shelled out many dollars and I never traded their signals.

Incidentally, when I compare the value I get from futures.io (formerly BMT)F to the value I've received from my previous "education" activities, there is no comparison. futures.io (formerly BMT)F is among the best of deals in the industry :-)

-Dr.GM

@DoctorGM: Thank you for your comment. Before I go further, I would like to bring up a specific case.

There is a pretty simple indicator called CFGMomentum Oscillator. It is basically an average of the RSI with the N-bar change of the RSI added. This is the main line, from which two signal lines are generated by smoothing the main line with a SMA. The whole thing can be coded in 15 minutes and is just a variation of many other indicators that have been built on the RSI.

The whole thing got interesting when I realized that there was a patent to protect this outburst of ingenuity.

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0003375191 / 1992-07-22
Title: Relative strength index : advanced / by Andrew E. Cardwell, Jr.
Description: 1 v.
Copyright Claimant: Cardwell Financial Group (employer for hire)
Date of Creation: 1990
Date of Publication: 1990-04-27

Variant title: Relative strength index : advanced
Names: Cardwell, Andrew E., Jr.
Cardwell Financial Group
(copied from the home page of the United States Patent Office)


By the way the indicator has been published under a different name in a book by Constance Brown. But this was not a case of multiple discovery as she had worked with Andrew Cardwell in her earlier life. The formula is therefore public knowledge.

I am primarily astonished that such a patent is acceptable by the patent office. For me this just a sign of decadence. Will we next see patents of moving averages? Or will the "inventor" of market profile claim the intellectual ownership of all probability distributions?

Much of the stuff for which vendors pretend that it is the secret path to riches barely stands the test of high school mathematics. Or in other words, it is both primitive and useless, as its sole purpose is to fill the pockets of dubious vendors. Of course, there are some serious guys around, who believe in what they are doing and who offer reasonable advice. Usually they do not "protect" their ideas by copyrights, as they do not feel that this is necessary. They are keen to publish their findings and discuss them. There are other ways to make money than to sell scam to unsuspecting amateur traders. What about trading the markets?

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
 
Page generated 2018-08-16 in 0.08 seconds with 11 queries on phoenix