Why is Front Running markets not treated as insider trading? Front-Running is described in the book Flashboys and relies on an information advantage, that is apparently provided by the exchanges to a select few. Is said practice somehow different from insider trading?
It’s not insider trading Insider trading refers to leveraging private information that you only know because of your “insider” position. Front running is using information that is publicly available, albeit for a fee. Buying information that anyone can buy is not insider trading.
I'm going to focus on one part of your question, because I think it is informative to the entire question: "By publishing those data in a copyrighted book are they now in the public domain?" Insofar as copyright is concerned, the "facts" are simply never copyrightable. What is copyrightable is the expression of the fact. So you publish a book and it contains many facts. You retain copyright over how you expressed the facts, meaning the word choice, format of presentation and so on. The discussion of this point always leads people to ask the following two questions: What if the "facts" are closely related to the way they are expressed? For example, a phonebook contains "facts" about phone numbers. The individual numbers are not subject to copyright. But if the way they were organized was clever (i.e. not merely alphabetical) the presentation may be copyrighted. Doesn't that line get blurred? Why doesn't "the presentation order" count as a "fact?" It does get blurred! And courts use nuanced case law and judgment to figure out which side of the line a given thing is. However, one backstop is that if AN EXPRESSION is so closely related to the IDEA BEING EXPRESSED that the IDEA cannot be otherwise expressed, then then the EXPRESSION is not subject to copyright protection. To answer your specific questions: The book is subject to copyright. The facts in the book are not. Someone else could publish a book with the same measurements so long as they are expressing the facts with sufficient difference from the original. I'm not familiar with CUSIP numbers. However, there are two things to say here. (A) it sounds like you are describing a contractual relationship between the people who have the numbers. This is not governed by copyright; it is governed by contract between the parties. If these numbers could be treated as a "trade secret" they might be protected IP in that way. But given that they are likely circulated at least a bit, they don't seem like candidates for "trade secret" protection. To your question, "what is the effect of one person leaking?" If "trade secret" law was doing any "work" here... then yes, the trade secret would be undone once the information was public. But like I said, its likely this is actually all about contracts not intellectual property protection. (B) The "facts" of "which number is associated with which instrument" is likely NOT subject to copyright at any time. The specific numbering code COULD BE copyrighted, but in reality is almost certainly TOO CLOSELY tied to the IDEA being expressed to be copyrighted. Could the number be expressed otherwise? If not, then its likely not protected by copyright. -- Big take away here: You seem to be confused about the concept of "facts" getting into the public domain. That's not exactly what copyright is about. Copyright would protect the expression of facts. An expression can become public domain if it is sufficiently old or if the creator designates it as public domain work. But simply "putting something out there" does nothing to alter the copyright status of the thing.
No The bank is not pretending in any way that the money received from depositors is guaranteed. If they had done, then that would be deceptive marketing. The bank held itself out to be a bank and to provide the services that a bank provides. They are allowed to assume that their customers know how banking works. It is clear that you do not because both explanations you have provided are wrong.
Yes it is perfectly legal. Good luck finding investors for a such an indebted company, though. (Not disclosing the contract to potential inverstors would be illegal.)
You don't have to pay anything to participate. The picks offered as part of Streak for the Cash are not statistically 50/50. There are often picks with vegas lines that correspond to 60-70% for one of the sides. The test for whether something is a game of chance is not simply checking whether the options are 50/50.
They can't simply keep the money; that's against the law. But in a situation like this, it's easy to get lost in the bureaucracy. The company may be in violation of different laws, re: For Your Information | United States Department of Labor, so you can try pointing this out in another email or letter. The threat of the Feds or other enforcement agency looking into the matter may make something happen. Or, try this: find the CEO (or a similarly high-ranked executive) on LinkedIn; many have open messaging in interest of good PR. Message/email them and carefully (and nicely) explain the situation. (A CEO will likely have an assistant monitoring their LinkedIn account. But, there are many stories of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos personally responding to emails.) Someone will make it happen and the employees who have not been helpful will be in hot water.
There is nothing wrong with paying in cash; there is something wrong about hiding a transaction that relates to a taxable event. Cash makes that easier.
You can have as many people with the same job title as you wish. You can have more than one CEO as well, although that would be weird and confusing. Nothing prohibits this and CTO isn't even a traditional and core executive title anyway. This will be confusing to everyone involved, as grammatically and in the common English language usage of the word, a C-level officer is usually singular, so the people with that title may resent the fact that they don't really hold the post that their title implies, but tough. By way of comparison, it isn't unusual for big banks to have hundreds of vice presidents. Also, third parties are entitled to assume in a legally binding way that everyone with the title CTO has the authority associated with that title, even if that isn't the case, under the agency principle of "apparent authority". So, the more C-level officers you have, the easier it is for the company to be legally bound by actions they take and the harder it is to assert centralized control over company operations.