Murray — Volume 57, Issue 1

Commodity exchanges compete fiercely over trading volume and market data licensing revenue. Murray examines the Second Circuit's decision in New York Mercantile Exchange v. IntercontinentalExchange, in which the court held that copyright protection does not extend to settlement prices for futures contracts. The decision examined how InterContinentalExchange used NYMEX's Henry Hub natural gas settlement prices to price its own competing contracts, thereby capturing trading volume and licensing revenue. NYMEX alleged copyright infringement and trademark dilution; ICE countered that NYMEX violated antitrust law by maintaining an unlawful monopoly. The Second Circuit found no copyright protection for individual price valuations, departing from prior precedent. Murray analyzes the consequences: without copyright protection for settlement prices, exchanges have limited recourse against competitors who appropriate their proprietary pricing data. The article explores how the flawed merger doctrine—permitting courts to deny relief for proven constitutional wrongs—extends to intellectual property, allowing financial market manipulation. Murray argues that copyright in settlement prices serves legitimate market functions by preventing unfair competition, and that the Second Circuit's decision undermines financial market integrity and fair competition principles. The note examines regulatory frameworks under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and implications for exchange regulation.

Topics: Intellectual Property · Corporate Law · Contracts

Keywords: copyright · settlement prices · NYMEX · ICE · financial markets · commodity exchanges · intellectual property protection