Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I can't find anything different...LOL
The ignore feature works quite well.
I've been watching that. I have no idea.
Gbathat, I have for my own purposes made a mental note of the fact that the filing from Spooz actually states that they EXPECT to release in September. While I of course would like to see it out ASAP, I want even more to see it work finer than a frog hair split four ways when it does come out. A product that works as advertised next week is more important to me than one that needs work this week, if you take my meaning.I can not find anything from Spooz that says definitively STv2 will absolutely be released this month. Everything I have read to that effect comes, as far as I can tell, from posters.
jc
They always seem to know when to turn up, eh Wing? LOL
OT...I'm somewhere in the far left rank.
It's down all right. Strike up the band soon!
Beautiful closing paint job!
Chart
It's sitting smack on the 50 DMA . Maybe you can give it a nudge in the right direction!
I had no problem with it...
jc
I had not seen that, and I check the site daily. I have of course signed up for the email alert.
jc
LOL...I was wondering that myself.
Try the Spooz website under "Personnel"?
Nothing new in this report. That is the way it has always been. That's why we do our homework and take our chances.
jc
The more traders of all abilities and affiliations that use these products, the better...hey?
I was watching Star Trek Voyager and the emergency medical hologram said fractal algorithms are notoriously unstable. I sure hope Spooz knows what they are doing.
LOL...I can relate. It's called FRRRRRROOOOOGAL!
...curious how they keep bringing it back up on 100 share transactions.
Yes, back to Spooz. LOL... Regarding Scotland, I was actually playing my practice chanter as I read your post. (It's what bag pipers use to learn new tunes and work on fingering techniques).
Well framed response Whazoo. I think you both make good points. I am against every form of government intrusion to the greatest extent possible. It simply costs too much for the little help, and in fact very often, the bureaucratic burdens that result. The best answer, IMO, is for both the people involved in a start up to have done their homework and know what they are about, and for the individual investor to do the same. It forces us to become educated about what we involve ourselves with. I started in stocks about 12 years ago by shoveling money to a hot shot broker working for Raymond James. The only one "broker" was me...to the tune of $80 grand in a year and a half. I figured I could have lost it myself , learned a lot, and saved the fees and commissions, rather than continue ignorantly listening to him. That expert "adviser" was working for the big houses wanting to move stock, not me. I have since figured that out. The hot tips he gave me were nothing more than big board stocks that fund managers were looking to unload. Don't ever let anyone tell you pump and dumps are confined to pinks and OTC's. Maybe the illegal kind are, but not the ones orchestrated on Wall Street.
Anyhow, it's enjoyable seeing a healthy debate unfold like this.
To condense my thoughts...I like the idea of advisers, but in the form of paid private sector advisers...the kind who are at ri$k if their advice turns out to be garbage. Being of Scottish decent, anyone poking the English in the eye has furthered himself with me...LOL.
jc
...A fair response to Whazoo... I too believe the pinks is an alternative to SarbOx that is a cost efficient means of accessing start up capital. I believe in private sector over public sector to every extent possible. The cost of bureaucratic regulation is a very great burden that simply can't be born by a small start up with no current means of revenue other than equity financing. So where does the responsibility of oversight belong in this pink arena? Squarely on the individual investor, IMO. Let everyone assess the risks and potential rewards and decide for him/her self. Personally, as far as Spooz is concerned, I am impressed on two counts. One; they have not deviated from what they set out to do from the very beginning. Even though the first attempted release of STv1 failed, they have continued to drive at accomplishing what they set out to do. This is a far cry from what we have all seen a thousand times over...the pink that fails at selling widgets, so morphs into soda pop sales, that fails, so on to hair growing cream, on and on and on. Two; in my experience when assessing a pink, you need to look little farther that at the person in charge. Look for character and integrity. Look for someone who sticks to his/ her vision and , win or lose, gives it everything they have.
I have followed Spooz from the first attempted release and am in now for the reasons stated above. Sink or swim, my money is on Paul.
jc
...Oh boy, here we go again...LOL
Trendy, you can figure market cap yourself. It is simply the total number of shares issued and outstanding multiplied by the share price. It does not mean a great deal. What matters it the price-to-earnings ratio. There are as yet no earnings to base anything on. This is a development stage company on the verge of what we hope is a very successful debut. Hopefully you will excuse any harsh replies, as there are apparently a lot of edgy shareholders. All in all it's a good board and worth following.
jc
DOMS moving close? I take that as a good sign.
If anyone is watching L2, how much is left at .0125?
GM Allie. We're churning along nicely.
Huh? So increased growth and earnings is a bad thing? That's news to me...LOL
That's my thinking. I like the idea of royalties and fees. STv2, as a value added tool, will increase the numbers of trades a brokerage sees from existing and new clients. That means increased brokerage fees. What's wrong with a nickel a trade? TT is trying to go that route. They (TT) are willing to drop any and all law suits and even give away the software in exchange for exchange fees. They're not fools, they know where the money is!
I hope there is no buy out. Spooz is a disruptive entity that is just too potentially big to let go of so soon. I would personally rather see revenues grow for years to come (and share price with it). I think it's way too soon to entertain a buy out. Rather let this baby grow into the proverbial 800 pound gorilla, then talk price for a buy out.
What Spooz has apparently done is to have side stepped the TT patent infringement issue by transferring liability to each and every individual who uses a custom Excel build. Is TT going to sue every individual one at a time? Do they even have a certainty of winning? I have no idea, but it would be a nightmare for TT. Since TT and Spooz seem to have come to terms ( didn't I read somewhere that when TT saw a demo of v2 there was an offer on Paul's desk shortly thereafter?) it would seem to me TT has chosen the path of inclusion rather than an uncertain battle. Bottom line, Spooz is a threat, IMO. And if STv2 doesn't work well, or obviously can't be made to work well, TT would not have come to the table.
jc
I personally think TT is making room for Spooz. A little reading about TT's attempts to corner the market with it's patents, and what Spooz has done to go around those patents is real food for thought. If Spooz has indeed come to terms with TT and is in talks with brokerages, IMO, the revenues from value added fees will far outstrip individual subscriber fees. Is Spooz in a position to offer everything and more at a fraction of the cost? I think so. I hope so. If so, they absolutely can not be brushed aside. It reminds me of the Microsoft-Open Source battle. A few articles in chronological order. The first two articles are exclusively about TT and it's apparent choke hold on the markets via it's proprietary software patents. The third is about a little software startup claiming to have found a way around the patents. The fourth describes how the start up company will be offering connectivity through TT. Who is that little company? :
*************************************************************
Patent roulette: technology patent threatens status quo.
By Collins, Daniel P.
Publication: Futures (Cedar Falls, Iowa)
Date: Wednesday, December 1 2004
Subject: Software industry (Intellectual property), Software industry (Cases), Patent infringement (Cases)
Company: Trading Technologies Inc. (Intellectual property), Trading Technologies Inc. (Cases)
Location: United States
There was a nervous undercurrent at the recent Futures Industry Conference in Chicago stemming from the breadth of market patents awarded to Trading Technologies and the subsequent settlements of two infringement lawsuits TT initially filed. Just when competition has reduced exchange fees, licensing
fees loom as a possible new tax on brokerage firms.
TT's suit against fellow technology firm E-Speed is pending a December court hearing, but the quick settlement of suits filed against Goldenberg Hehmeyer and Kingstree Trading could establish a user-fee benchmark. Goldenberg Hehmeyer agreed to pay TT a $0.05 per contract user fee for one year and $0.10 in subsequent years, and Kingstree agreed to a $0.10 fee. Both firms acknowledged in their settlements that they had violated the TT patent.
"It seems to me that they got these patents, and then they seem to be selectively going around with firms they have a close relationship with to get them to acknowledge the patent and the proprietary nature of the software and agree to some kind of settlement," says one senior industry executive. "That smells a little bit to me--that there is some kind of quid pro quo going on between TT and its close allies."
The settlements appear out of the ordinary even to long-time observers of patent law.
"I have never been involved in a patent suit that was filed and settled in two days," said patent attorney Joseph Laughon with Clifford Chance US. Laughon said it is atypical for a defendant even in settling to admit to infringement.
CHANGING THE MODEL
While at first glance the TT patents seem to doom its fellow independent software vendors--a majority of whom have failed to make a profit and would now face the possibility of litigation--it could be a catalyst for changing a market model biased against the ISVs.
A source close to TT acknowledges that the ISV approached the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) asking the exchanges to compensate TT 2.5 cents for each electronic contract executed, the basis of the fee being TT's intellectual property and distribution network. The source says if the exchanges agreed to the fee, TT would not take further legal action against the brokerage community over its intellectual property and would void the current settlements with Goldenberg Hehmeyer and Kingstree.
**************************************************************
Patent this!
By Collins, Daniel P.
Publication: Futures (Cedar Falls, Iowa)
Date: Saturday, January 1 2005
Subject: Securities industry (Intellectual property), Software, Futures markets
Product: Securities & Commodities Services, Computer Software
When technology firm Trading Technologies was awarded patents for its depth of market order entry software, it sent a shudder through the industry. What does it mean for other software firms whose front-ends look similar to TTs? And with few profitable software firms, would TT turn to the deeper
pockets of brokerages and exchanges to cash in on its patents?
Harris Brumfield. CEO of independent software vendor Trading Technologies, estimates that 50% of the electronic trading volume at the world's four largest futures exchanges is executed through TT front-end software. And of the remaining 50%, TT contends much of it is executed through systems that are infringing on TT's patents. Thus, TT is attempting to extract a 2.5 cents fee per every electronic contract executed at all four of the major exchanges. Indeed, a source close to TT says there have been substantive discussions between TT and the Chicago exchanges regarding TT's request.
Since TT was awarded two patents for "click-based trading with intuitive display of market depth" by the U.S. Patent Office in August it has been awarded a similar patent in the United Kingdom and the European Patent Office has issued an intent to grant a patent relating to the same technology. The widening of the patents to a global arena allows TT to approach Eurex and Euronext.Liffe with its plan.
However, TT is not suing the exchanges, and no one has suggested that the company would have any grounds to sue the exchanges, but the fees ostensibly would help TT distribute exchange products and would be less disruptive to the industry than a 10 cents per contract fee charged to all FCMs using front-end software that TT says infringes on its patents. TT would be willing to drop current litigation and void service fee agreements stemming from settled litigation if the exchanges would agree to the subsidy, according to sources close to TT.
"They will drop all litigation against people and firms infringing, and they will open up all intellectual property for everyone to use not only on this but on patents pending forever," the TT source says, adding that if TT gets a subsidy from the exchanges, the company would lower the price of its software or possibly eliminate it.
Still many feel the exchanges are an odd target because they are not users of the software, though TT argues the exchanges benefit from it.
*************************************************************
Out on a technicality? Firm claims loophole in TT patents.
By Collins, Daniel P.
Publication: Futures (Cedar Falls, Iowa)
Date: Tuesday, March 1 2005
Subject: Software industry (Intellectual property), Software industry (Contracts)
Company: Trading Technologies Inc. (Contracts), Trading Technologies Inc. (Intellectual property)
Location: United States
When Paul Strickland, the CEO of the trading software firm Spooz Inc., asked someone to broker a deal between Spooz and Trading Technologies, he was told that "you don't tug on superman's cape." The reference was apt because Spooz is offering what it claims to be a type of kryptonite that will
repel liability to TT's intellectual property.
Spooz, a former introducing broker that went public, moved from Austin to Chicago and expanded to provide electronic trading tools. It announced in January that it had filed provisional patents for its Ticket Toolz software package. Spooz claims that Ticket Toolz, which will be available in March, offers independent software vendors, futures commission merchants and institutional trading operations a work around solution to TT's patents.
The software, which was originally developed to aid Spooz brokerage customers with their hedges, allows end users to create trading screens using Microsoft Excel.
"It is a tool to develop custom trading screens, including anything that may be under patent protection by TT's patents," Strickland says.
Spooz claims it also will provide a Web-based platform for the free exchange of trading screen templates developed by the private sector. Customers would be able to select templates off the platform and through Ticket Toolz create their own front end. Strickland claims that if you build your own product based on patented material and use it for yourself, the patents don't apply.
Patent attorney Joseph Laughon with Clifford Chance US disagrees and says Strickland's claims are not well grounded in patent law. Laughon says that under the statute, anyone making, using, selling or offering to sell an infringing apparatus is liable.
Whether or not Spooz's claims have merit, if Spooz effectively transfers patent infringement liability downstream to end users, it may make TT's job of protecting its intellectual property more difficult.
********************************************
SpoozToolz to Increase Connectivity to Over Twenty Derivatives Exchanges and 110 Brokers Worldwide Via Trading Technologies'...
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Monday, June 11 2007
Subject: Derivatives (Financial instruments), Brokers
CHICAGO -- Spooz, Inc. announced today their plan to provide SpoozToolz[TM] customers with order routing and trade execution through exchange gateways from Trading Technologies International, Inc. (TT). Access to TT's high-performance gateways will enable SpoozToolz customers to connect to over
20 derivatives exchanges around the world and to access the transaction and clearing services of over 110 brokers in the United States, Europe, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, China, Australia and Dubai.
"SpoozToolz connectivity to Trading Technologies' gateways provides us with a dynamic marketing advantage because it dramatically increases the number of brokers with potential to distribute our products to millions of their existing customers," stated Paul Strickland Jr. CEO of Spooz, Inc. "An increased number of execution and clearing providers gives customers the flexibility to select the broker of their choice. Offering SpoozToolz at disruptive price points completes the marketing equation and should prove to be very compelling in the market place."
About Spooz, Inc.
Spooz, Inc., (OTC:SPZI) (www.Spooz.com) a publicly traded company based in Chicago, provides a suite of trading solutions designed to simplify financial analysis and order-entry for professional and active traders. Its flagship middleware product, SpoozToolz[TM] and its modules, add built-in trading capabilities to the popular Microsoft[R] Excel[R] software application, combining a customizable interface, streaming quotes, charts, technical analysis, back testing, and electronic trade execution into a simple add-in that becomes part of the Excel tool bar.
About Trading Technologies
Trading Technologies (www.tradingtechnologies.com) develops high-performance trading software for derivatives professionals, including the world's premier exchanges, money-center banks, proprietary traders, securities brokers, Futures Commission Merchants (FCMs), hedge funds and other trading institutions. The company's X_TRADER([R]) software and related services provide direct access to the world's major derivatives exchanges. TTNET[TM], TT's fully managed hosting solution, delivers maximum system stability and fast trade execution via hubs located close to the major exchanges in Chicago, New Jersey, London, Frankfurt, Singapore and Tokyo. Headquartered in Chicago, Trading Technologies maintains a worldwide presence with offices in New York, Houston, London, Frankfurt, Geneva, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Sydney. In 2004, Trading Technologies was named the best technology company to work for in Chicago by Chicago magazine and ranked third among all Chicago area employers. In 2006, TT received the prestigious Lighthouse Award from the Illinois Information Technology Association (ITA) as the leading technology company in Illinois.
Precisely. Why pay for what everyone is already aware of. Spend the money on advertising.
It's a development stage company. What is the big deal about filing on time right now? We all know there are no revenues to report yet. Why waste a ton of cash paying an independent auditor to tell us they have no revenues to report before the roll out? An unaudited report, even a late one, will do just fine since it doesn't cost anything. The point is, before the release of STv2, there is nothing to report.
I am very certain that as a publicly traded company, Paul understands that he is obligated to disclose all developments that materially affect shareholders, good and bad. If there were serious problems we would know about it. There is a lot on the line here and there is really one shot to get it absolutely right. The bigger footprint Spooz can stamp out going in , the better off we all are. I say go after as much as many entities as they can right now. TT, TDA,OptionsExpress and the "many large brokerages" Paul has referred to would not be giving Paul the time of day if this did not have their attention, IMO. What's the big hurry for crying out loud? This is not like any other start up I have ever been in. They have a presence in the merc, they are courting big industry attention. We, as little retail shareholders may be in the dark to some degree, but there is no flim-flamming the companies Paul is dealing with. The very fact that they are talking to him aught to tell us about all we need to know, IMO.
Thanks for the link. Paul stated that SPv2 WILL launch with direct connection to Options Express ( http://www.optionsxpress.com/index0.aspx?sessionid=0 ) and TDA ( http://www.tdameritrade.com )
This statement was made in February of this year. Since that time we have had news of connectivity to over 20 derivatives exchanges and over 110 brokers worldwide via an arrangement with Trading Technologies. Also we have learned of SWARM.
I believe that the original planned release of STv2 has been rolled back as new clients have come to the front with whom Spooz may be making arrangements. I read recently that Spooz is in talks with "several large brokerages" to offer STv2 as a value added feature to new and existing accounts.
It seems to me that they are trying to make the launch of Spooz as wide spread and as invasive in the markets as possible.
jc
I have no problem with traders at all. They provide liquidity which helps keep the price up. Also, in pennies, swing traders usually take long positions and sell higher if they can. So they are good for us. As far as where the share price will be weeks, months and years from now...that is in the hands of the company, not shareholders.
jc
He may get a little lonely...send him a PM once in a while!
Sure, he can still lurk. He's scheduled to be out on Sept. 9th.
Now, wouldn't that be a kicker if news hits and Wing can't post?
jc