|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Brian,
On Dec 4, 2008, at 4:18 AM, brian_z111 wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> Assume we could copyright AFL algorithms.
You can't do that so why assume it. You can patent algorithms
(methods).
> I have a trading idea.
> I express it in pseudocode, write an AFL algorithm for it and
> copyright the algorithm.
You own the copyright to the code and the pseudocode. Actually I
should make a point here. In the US if I do any original art, or
writing, or music, it is automatically protected under copyright law
by default (most of the world is uniform in its recognition of my
rights also). There is no action to be taken by the author to have
his original work protected. Enforcing a copyright is up to the
author to sue an infringer.
> Any everyday AFL programmer could reverse engineer the pseudocode in
> no time at all.
Absolutely.
> If they then go off and express that pseudocode (my trading idea) in
> another trading language (Metastock, Tradestation et al) can I do
> anything about it .... can I possibly have copyright over the
> pseudocode or the expression of that code in another language?
If the same programmer who reverse engineered the copyright code wrote
the new code, it would be called a derivative work and still covered
under the copyright.
If the first programmer handed the decompiled pseudocode to another
engineer who had never seen your code, and he wrote a new version even
for AB, it would not be a violation. It would take meticulous
procedures and documentation to prove it was not a derivative work in
court though.
So if I took a book like '2001: A Space Odyssey' and translated it to
Spanish, that is a violation.
If I changed all the names and places in the book that would be a
violation.
If I removed some side plots and added some new side plots of my own,
that is a violation, but the original author could not add my side
plots to his new book. Those side plots are mine.
Now here is an interesting twist. If I made an outline of my new book
with an original plot and gave it to my publisher, and he decided that
I wanted to much for it and gave it to another writer to flesh out
(along with some significant changes), that is most likely a violation
as a derivative work.
> Anyone?
>
> Another interesting one that I have thought about before is:
>
> Say a lot of 'features' are bolted on to AB via copyrighted plug-
> ins ... does that mean that in the future AB can never add that
> feature as a built-in ... what about if AB enhances the feature and
> then claims copyright of that .... it seems like copyrighting might
> open up a can of worms that might not be in the communities overall
> interest.
If Tomasz were to decompile a dll and then rewrite it as a standard
part of AB, he would need permission from the copyright holder. If he
just included the functionality from his own ideas of how to implement
it, it is not a violation.
If it were an AFL include file, it would be even more difficult to
claim ignorance. If the included AFL file were encrypted so that it
was not easy to see the original code, it would be easier to safely
write a new version and claim ignorance of the original. So this is a
twist where the copyright is stronger by not hiding the code.
>
> And another:
>
> Can I copyright all of the possible parameters of an optimizeable
> trading algorithm?
Not likely. Trade secret is the preferred method to keep your
settings protected from abuse.
>
> FTR
>
> I do have some half developed work, that I believe is original,
> sitting in my drawer ... it is mainly of academic interest rather
> than a honey pot.
>
> If I get the time to finish it, and I deem it to be worthy, then I
> will put it into a DLL and donate it to the trading community.
>
> It needs a lot of work and I don't want to make a team effort on
> it ... I don't work at my best in teams.
>
> Also, a lot of things that I used to think were top secret and that I
> would never ever publish seem rather passe with the passage of time.
>
> My best security barrier is the fact that my best methods are too
> simple to be considered worthy of consideration by many traders.
>
>
> brian_z
You will know how valuable your work is by the ROI it generates in
your account. Until proven in that way, assume it is just an academic
exercise -- as most of my and everybody else's efforts are.
BR,
Dennis
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dennis Brown <see3d@xxx> wrote:
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> That is not how it works.
>>
>> You can not copyright methods. You can however patent methods as
> long
>> as you disclose them completely to the public and they are unique
> and
>> work. Yea, try to keep someone from using your own publicly
>> disclosed patented ideas from out trading you. How would you even
>> know. Totally unworkable except to keep a company from including
> your
>> patented code in their commercial product.
>>
>> A copyright would keep a magazine or a person from selling or
> giving
>> away the code that embodies your trading ideas. But once again,
> once
>> the cat is out of the bag too bad for you. You edge is trashed.
>>
>> The only practical way you can share your trading methods on a
> limited
>> basis (for fun or profit) is to have a way to share the results
>> without sharing the methods. This is the trade secret way.
>>
>> You have two choices.
>>
>> 1. Stream the results to who you want (which does not help AB).
> This
>> puts a burden on you and may be impractical for use.
>>
>> 2. Hide the code from view and distribute it to those you want to
> have
>> it (which does help AB sales if a new customer).
>>
>> I have things I will not distribute because they are particular to
> my
>> trading edge which would be lost if duplicated by many. I might
> be
>> willing to distribute them to a few if I could keep the methods
>> secret. So others lose out, because I have no easy way to do that.
>>
>> I freely distribute generic code I write that helps others use
>> Amibroker to implement their own trading ideas.
>>
>> If I were to charge for my trading platform, I would certainly
> want
>> the code protected to protect my ideas from being pirated and to
> make
>> sure the code did not get modified if I am responsible to maintain
> it.
>>
>> The motivation for encrypting AFL programs are no different than
>> Tomasz's motivation for not making the source code for AB freely
>> available to every customer. In some cases, the value of an AFL
>> system may be much larger than the total value of AB itself.
>>
>> BR,
>> Dennis
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2008, at 4:14 PM, brian_z111 wrote:
>>
>>> Trading knowledge is another matter ... I would sell my trading
>>> ideas, if it suited me, and I would attempt to copyright the
> methods
>>> (once again that would be difficult to do) but the code I use to
>>> express, or implement those ideas can't and/or shouldn't be
>>> copyrighted IMO.
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
*********************
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
*********************
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
*********************************
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|