SOS: LACK OF IPR/CONTRACTUAL DEFINITIONS & STANDARDS

SOS – Save Our Sanity

Go to different exchanges and get different answers, sometimes go to the same vendor and 3 different people will give you 5 different answers.

That is what happens when trying to find out what contractual usage rights for data means because data sources apply different IPR definitions to exactly the same term, notable examples being non-display usage and derived data.

Then there is the old favourite, professional or non-professional user, where the interpretation of who is a professional user seems to be infinitely elastic.

It can’t be that hard to get common agreement on what these terms mean?

Though it might be an idea to take up a hobby herding cats while waiting.

Lack of common definitions creates unnecessary work and expense, opens the door to multi-million dollar audit liabilities, and worst of all is a problem that should not exist.

It places a premium on best practice data licence management.

Simple fact, the lack of common IPR and contractual standards is a barrier to business for exchanges, market data vendors and Banks. It places artificial limits on usage, and prevents Financial Institutions from using market data effectively and for its intended purpose, as a resource for making money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *