Yet I do not understand why I should not be able to use Dynamic SuperDOM while static DOM is enabled...
Yet I also do not understand the policy, when I've requested from support to enable Static DOM for IB paper money testing I was told I'd still have to purchase the "credit" to be able to use static DOM. So IB /Interactive Broker/ is not charging anything extra /well you have to fund your account with IB's minimum requirement so it is not entirely free/ using their paper money system but NT would charge 20c per round-trip. Sorry, I found this is unacceptable.
For anyone paying an additional 20c per round-trip on trades generating income shall become a business decision besides the technicalities.
In my case I find it to steep to pay an additional ~10% over my commission for a functionality I can get somewhere else seemingly with no extra cost doing what I need.
Sometimes I've wondered if NT is really in the having happy longterm customers business???
NT as a product and as an organization last my trust and now I have no idea how that trust could be reinstated.
- Our licensing agreement with TT states that any trade generated from our application when the static SupeDOM is enabled is liable for the patent fee thus you cannot use the dynamic SuperDOM and bypass the patent fee
- NinjaTrader does not differentiate between a brokerís live or demo system, in some cases we are unable to differentiate. Thus, the patent fees apply. However, we have our own built in simulator that bypasses this fee.
- Of course our goal is to have a happy long term customer base but of course, we canít please everyone.
- I do understand the nature of your requirement but unfortunately I canít accommodate you since I am legally bound to a licensing agreement I entered into nearly six years ago.
NinjaTrader my comments below:
"when the static SupeDOM is enabled is liable for the patent fee thus you cannot use the dynamic SuperDOM and bypass the patent fee" - your logic does not make any sense here...
I am coder or at least used to be one, therefore I know you can do anything with code what you want. It is always just a question of time and money, having said that the 2 DOMs shall not be exclusive if the code is smartly written, meaning static DOM being enabled does behave as you expect it such complains when no credit available, in the same time there is no good reason to disable the dynamic DOM.
"our goal is to have a happy long term customer base but of course, we canít please everyone." - partially agreed however if you read this thread through, your company has pissed off a lots of people who paid a good money for your product.
I am sure everyone who currently decided not to use NT at all or just for certain functions, has started with a lots of ambition, plans and took a while to get on the other side of the fence...
NinjaTrader entered into a licensing agreement with Trading Technologies. As part of their standard licensing terms, I have to charge 0.10 per side for any futures trade executed through any part of the NinjaTrader application when the static SuperDOM is enabled independent if it is used or not.
This is not a "coding" issue but a "licensing requirement".
Such a shame with a patent that was always pretty dubious imho. I can completely understand why ninja acquiesced, some much larger companies got embroiled in what I guess was expensive litigation.
It always struck me very like the Microsoft Apple look and feel lawsuits where A court ruled that, Apple could not get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface. Just as there was nothing new with a DOM there was nothing new in Apple & MS's operating systems (Xerox had done it all before). Seems to me a DOM is very much a Graphical User Interface.
I also seem to remember that TT pursued the exchanges at one point asking for a surcharge on every single transaction. Their argument being that as the exchange could not sure that any particular trade infringed there (dubious) patent they should extract a fee from all trades and pass it on just to be safe. (The threat was just to be safe from litigation of course).
I don't know how TT was able to get away with this. I have always been personally outraged by that idea, it is downright extortion, and for that I will never use any TT product. If we all boycott them, then let's see how much their patent is worth.
The following user says Thank You to monpere for this post:
I understand that they are in business to make money, and have the right to profit for their original work, but I think the TT leadership have a predator mentality, trying to wield legal advantage to squeeze money out of every avenue they can think of. Going as far as trying to charge the exchanges just because the end user may or may not be using a static dom? That is not just capitalistic anymore, that is predatory. Who do you think is paying for all those fees they are charging? And, I think we can all agree that TT is not charging everybody and their brother because they want to foster innovation from their competitors, they just want to rape everybody.