Site Administrator Swing Trader Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Custom solution
Trading: Futures & Crypto
Posts: 50,247 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,803 given,
100,028
received
You guys are missing the majority of the issue.
Even if someone takes a MACD or CCI, if they spend hours customizing it and then they uploaded that to a private forum for private use by members only of that forum, they did this intentionally. So when that content is then stolen and posted elsewhere, as in this case, then it is wrong.
I don't want to keep posting on this over and over, because we don't need to give of these scum bags ideas or promote their websites by bringing this topic back to the top of the list. My attorney may not be as good as sharky's at only $275/hr, but this is part of what I routinely do - defend futures.io (formerly BMT) against these types of people and try to protect what has been created here, using DMCA take down notices, cease and desist, or otherwise.
Interesting. What is an invention? Do you consider an idea to be an invention? Do you consider having an idea means it is your property?
Studies show many people have THE SAME idea at the same moment (one example is startups in Internet). Some will make something out of it, some will not succeed, some won't try to use it. Finally, is an idea worth something? Investors very rarely pay an idea because they don't give it that much value. However they will pay the product, or at least the execution of a proof of concept.
So.... having an idea, being an inventor, is one piece of the idea/invention/product circle you are describing. The coder have a role too. The one you consider copying, or making it better. The seller too. The user too.
Just my 2 cents.
W.
The concept of multiple discovery is the hypothesis that most scientific discoveries and inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors. The concept of multiple discovery opposes a traditional view—the "heroic theory" of invention and discovery.
@ab456: Most of the commercial indicators do not dis-cover anything.
You may talk of discovery in the realm of science, but commercial indicators do not have anything in common with sciences or scientific discovery. I think it is rather approrpiate to compare them to a piece of art. Let us treat them as naive paintings or rudimentary poems derived from price action.
If the monkey below comes up with a poem of Rabindranath Tagore, would you call that multiple discovery?
The following user says Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
Not sure exactly how it happened...Just a couple pieces of advice. First, never drink large amounts of alcohol at a Las Vegas Star Trek convention. Second, think twice about telling any Spock jokes. He has no sense of humor.
The following 2 users say Thank You to RJay for this post:
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
The following user says Thank You to DoctorGM for this post:
@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?
The following 2 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
