Contained herein is material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction of the patent disclosure by any person as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all rights to the copyright whatsoever.
1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates generally to the field of online commerce. More particularly, the invention relates to rating systems and user feedback mechanisms for use in electronic environments, e.g., online trading environment, online shopping site, online auctioning site, online person-to-person trading site, online gaming site or other electronic environment were user feedback is provided, including those within an Internet marketplace community.
2. Description of the Related Art
The Internet and the World Wide Web (“Web”) have changed the landscape of information delivery and affected numerous aspects of life, including commerce and entertainment. One area that has benefited from this technological development is the ability of individuals to buy and sell products within an Internet marketplace community.
Many companies operate auctions and other selling mechanisms on servers connected to the users over one or more networks, typically including the Internet. The users buying and/or selling items over these networks loosely comprise a market place community within an electronic environment. A distinction between non-electronic selling devices such as traditional garage sales and current electronic selling mechanisms is the component of anonymity inherent in electronic environment, which is not always conducive to forming a trusting environment in which two or more users wish to form a buyer-seller relationship.
To overcome some reservations about the anonymity component within the electronic marketplace community and to provide incentives for participating in transactions within the electronic marketplaces. Internet marketplaces, such as auction sites run by eBay, Inc. of San Jose, Calif. provide feedback ratings generated from feedback between users regarding trading transactions. A user's feedback rating is an indication of the user's reputation within the electronic community, and provides some indication of the trustworthiness and responsiveness of the user. A representation of a user's feedback rating is typically displayed along with a buying or selling transaction request by the user which provides the other party to the transaction an indication of the trustworthiness or past participation level of the user.
One implementation of feedback rating is illustrated in
Feedback ratings provide a good mechanism for indicating a level of indicating a user's trustworthiness or past participation within an electronic commerce forum. Users desire to increase their feedback ratings because they are one indication of a user's reputation in the electronic community and some marketplace providers give awards or identify the users whose feedback ratings have reached a certain value, or some number of users with the highest feedback ratings.
However, feedback ratings do not provide a direct incentive for expanding the electronic marketplace. Needed is a new mechanism to provide an incentive for bringing new users into the electronic community.
A method and apparatus are described for determining a community rating for a particular user within an electronic community. According to one embodiment a characteristic value is maintained for each user within the electronic community. The value may be representative of any characteristic of the user that is valuable or useful within the electronic community. For example, in an electronic trading community through which goods and services are bought and sold, it is advantageous for a user to have a measure of the reputation of other users with whom the user is conducting a buying or a selling transaction. A set of relationships between the various members of the electronic community is also maintained as applicable. For example, the set of relationships might contain information about new users that were brought into the community by a particular user. A community rating is derived for a particular user of the electronic community based on a characteristic value associated with the particular user and the characteristic values associated with users related to the particular user.
Advantages and other features of the invention will be apparent to one skilled in the art from the accompanying drawings and from the following detailed description.
The appended claims set forth the features of the invention with particularity. The invention, together with its advantages, may be best understood from the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings of which:
A rating system is described for use in an online environment. In the following description, for the purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced without some of these specific details. In other instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form.
As will be described in greater detail below, the present invention includes features for enhancing the online trading experience for both buyers and sellers. For example, the improved rating system may be structured to encourage existing members to refer new members thereby increasing community registrations and the pool of potential trading partners. According to one feature of the present invention, when a user attaches feedback to another user, the feedback contributes to two different ratings, a Feedback Rating and a Community Rating. A user's Community Rating is based upon the user's Feedback Rating and the Feedback Ratings of other users associated with that user. For example, a user's Community Rating may be represented by the sum of the user's Feedback Rating, the number of users the user has referred to the online trading community, and the Community Ratings of all users referred. Advantageously, in this manner, the relative value of a user's contributions to the online community can be measured in terms of the number of referrals and trustworthiness of the referred users.
In the preferred embodiment, the steps of the present invention are embodied in machine-executable instructions. The instructions can be used to cause a general-purpose or special-purpose processor, which is programmed with the instructions to perform the steps of the present invention. Alternatively, the steps of the present invention might be performed by specific hardware components that contain hardwired logic for performing the steps, or by any combination of programmed computer components and custom hardware components.
The present invention may be provided as a machine-readable medium computer having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which may be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process according to the present invention. The machine-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical disks, CD-ROMs, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnet or optical cards, or other type of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions. Moreover, the present invention may also be downloaded as a computer program product, wherein the program may be transferred from a remote computer (e.g., a server) to a requesting computer (e.g., a client) by way of data signals embodied in a carrier wave or other propagation medium via a communication link (e.g., a modem or network connection).
Importantly, while embodiments of the present invention will be described with respect to an online person-to-person trading environment, the method and apparatus described herein are equally relevant to other electronic environments in which ratings or values are assigned to users. For example, it is envisioned that an online gaming forum might want to provide an aggregate community rating based on the skill level of a particular gamer and fellow gamers with whom he/she is associated.
For purposes of the specification, the term “characteristic value” shall be an indication, whether alphabetic, graphic, symbolic, or otherwise, of a characteristic of a user within a community or group of related communities. For example, as discussed herein, a “feedback rating,” which is a characteristic value based on feedback received from other users about a user relative to transactions conducted by the user, is one type of characteristic value of a user. Other characteristic values could include, but are not limited to, measures of the user's honesty, the quality of products or services provided by the user, or the skill or expertise of the user relative to a purpose of the community. The term “community rating” shall include any indication, whether numeric, graphic or otherwise, of a characteristic of a user's relationships within a community or group of related communities. For example, a user may have a community rating based on the aggregate of all the feedback ratings of other users be referred to the community. The characteristic values or community ratings of users may be indicated in any number of ways such as a thumbs-up symbol to indicate a favorable rating or a number indicating a relative measure when compared to other users or a defined scale.
Community Rating Overview
User relationships are represented as an nary tree, where any user brought into the electronic community by sponsoring user is a child of the sponsoring user, and children of a same sponsoring user are siblings. An electronic community typically contains numerous trees of users, with the root of each tree representing a user who did not identify a sponsoring user. Embodiments of the invention allow a user to specify more than one sponsor, and these embodiments determine the community rating accordingly.
The various exemplary community ratings 231-237 respectively for users 121-127 are presented in
Additional variations of this methodology include adding one or more points to the community rating for each child node, weighting the effect a descendent user has on a community rating of a patriarch based on how many degrees removed the user is from the patriarch, or using some variation of the feedback rating (e.g., if the feedback rating is negative, use zero; use a weighted or threshold value instead of the actual feedback rating, adding a fixed amount such as one or five points to a community rating for each sponsored user rather than using the actual feedback ratings). Additionally, multiple community ratings for an individual user can be determined and presented using a number of various methodologies applied to determine the community rating and the different characteristic values that are used to derive the community rating.
Computing Environment Overview
Illustrated are viewing computer 355, communications network 345, and server computer 305. In an embodiment of the invention, sellers and buyers use a viewing computer (or a plurality of computers) 355, and server computer (or a plurality of computers) 305 receives the feedback input from sellers and buyers and determines the community ratings for the individual users.
Viewing computer 355 typically comprises a standard computer platform or a specialized computer platform, including, but not limited to a desktop computer, a laptop computer, personal data assistant, and a handheld computer. For purposes of simplicity, only one viewing computer 355 is shown; however, the number of viewing computers supported by the invention is unbounded, and can be especially large with network 345 comprises the Internet or other wide-area networking technology. In an embodiment, viewing computer 355 comprises a processor 360, memory 365, storage devices 370, a network interface 349, and a display 380, which are electrically coupled via bus 362. Network interface 349 is connected to a communications network 345 (e.g., one or more networks, including, but not limited to the Internet, private or public telephone, cellular, wireless, satellite, cable, local area, metropolitan area and/or wide area networks) over connection 348. Memory 365 is one type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprises random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), integrated circuits, and/or other memory components. Memory 365 typically stores computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 360 and/or data which is manipulated by processor 360 for implementing functionality in accordance with the invention. Storage devices 370 are another type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprise disk drives, diskettes, networked services, tape drives, and other storage devices. Storage devices 370 typically store computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 360 and/or data that is manipulated by processor 360 for implementing functionality in accordance with the invention. Additionally, viewing computer 355, communications network 345, and server computer 305 could be implemented in a single computer platform, with the communications network 345 being an internal information sharing mechanism such as message passing or shared memory.
Server computer 305 typically comprises one or more standard computer platforms or a specialized computer platforms (e.g., a computer platform optimized for retrieving information and sending information to clients), including, but not limited to one or more desktop computers, servers, mainframes, laptop computers, handheld computers, and personal data assistants. For simplicity, only one server computer 305 is depicted. However, the number of server computers contemplated by the invention is unbounded. When the invention is used in conjunction with a wide geographic area such as over the Internet, typically numerous viewing computers 355 and numerous serving computers 305 are used. When a plurality of serving computers 305 are used, they can be collocated, or distributed across the communications network 345. Typically, when the plurality of viewing computers are distributed across the communications network 345.
In an embodiment, server computer 305 comprises a processor 310, memory 315, storage devices 320, and a network interface 341, which are electrically coupled via bus 312. Network interface 341 is connected to the communications network 345 (e.g., Internet, email network, private or public network) over a public or private telephone, cellular, wireless, satellite, local area and/or wide area network connection 342. Memory 315 is one type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprises random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), integrated circuits, and/or other memory components. Memory 315 typically stores computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 310 and/or data, which are manipulated by processor 310 for implementing the server functionality. Storage devices 320 are another type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprise disk drives, diskettes, networked services, tape drives, and other storage devices. Storage devices 320 typically store computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 310 and/or data which is manipulated by processor.
Architecture Overview
Turning now to
In an embodiment, the community rater 420 is comprised of both a valuator 421 and an aggregator 422. The aggregator 422 performs a recursive routine, which aggregates the feedback ratings or characteristic values of all users in lineal succession to a patriarchal user for which a community rating is being determined. The valuator 421 combines (e.g. adds, determines a weighted average, etc.) the patriarchal user's characteristic value with the aggregate value determined by the aggregator 422 to determine the patriarchal users community rating. Other embodiments of the invention are envisioned that use another methods for determining the community rating that do not specifically utilize aggregator and valuator components or routines.
Exemplary Data Structure
Community Rating Determination
In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it will be appreciated that the embodiments and aspects thereof described herein with respect to the drawings/figures are only illustrative and should trot be taken as limiting the scope of the invention. To the contrary, the invention as described herein contemplates all such embodiments as may come within the scope of the following claims and equivalents thereof. For instance, there are many recursive routines well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that could be used to traverse a relationship tree such as the tree shown in
This application is a Continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional patent application Ser. No. 09/503,960, filed Feb. 14, 2000, which application is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3573747 | Adams et al. | Apr 1971 | A |
3581072 | Nymeyer | May 1971 | A |
4412287 | Braddock, III | Oct 1983 | A |
4486853 | Parsons | Dec 1984 | A |
4674044 | Kalmus et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4677552 | Sibley, Jr. | Jun 1987 | A |
4789928 | Fujisaki | Dec 1988 | A |
4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4823265 | Nelson | Apr 1989 | A |
4864516 | Gaither et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4903201 | Wagner | Feb 1990 | A |
5063507 | Lindsey et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5077665 | Silverman et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5101353 | Lupien et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5136501 | Silverman et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5168446 | Wiseman | Dec 1992 | A |
5205200 | Wright | Apr 1993 | A |
5243515 | Lee | Sep 1993 | A |
5258908 | Hartheimer et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5280422 | Moe et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5285496 | Frank et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5297031 | Gutterman et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5297032 | Trojan et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5305200 | Hartheimer et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5325297 | Bird et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5329589 | Fraser et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5375055 | Togher et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5394324 | Clearwater | Feb 1995 | A |
5426281 | Abecassis | Jun 1995 | A |
5485510 | Colbert | Jan 1996 | A |
5537618 | Boulton et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5553145 | Micali | Sep 1996 | A |
5557728 | Garrett et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5566291 | Boulton et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5583763 | Atcheson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5592375 | Salmon et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5596994 | Bro | Jan 1997 | A |
5598557 | Doner et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5640569 | Miller et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5657389 | Houvener | Aug 1997 | A |
5659366 | Kerman | Aug 1997 | A |
5664115 | Fraser | Sep 1997 | A |
5669877 | Blomquist | Sep 1997 | A |
5678041 | Baker et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5689652 | Lupien et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5694546 | Reisman | Dec 1997 | A |
5703624 | van Kruistum | Dec 1997 | A |
5706457 | Dwyer et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5706493 | Sheppard, II | Jan 1998 | A |
5706507 | Schloss | Jan 1998 | A |
5708829 | Kadashevich et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5710889 | Clark et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5715314 | Payne et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5715402 | Popolo | Feb 1998 | A |
5717989 | Tozzoli et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5722418 | Bro | Mar 1998 | A |
5727165 | Ordish et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5732954 | Strickler et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737479 | Fujinami | Apr 1998 | A |
5754939 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
5760917 | Sheridan | Jun 1998 | A |
5761655 | Hoffman | Jun 1998 | A |
5771291 | Newton et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5771380 | Tanaka et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5774121 | Stiegler | Jun 1998 | A |
5778135 | Ottesen et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5781246 | Alten et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787253 | McCreery et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5790426 | Robinson | Aug 1998 | A |
5790790 | Smith et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5793027 | Baik | Aug 1998 | A |
5794219 | Brown | Aug 1998 | A |
5794237 | Gore, Jr. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799285 | Klingman | Aug 1998 | A |
5799304 | Miller | Aug 1998 | A |
5803500 | Mossberg | Sep 1998 | A |
5809482 | Strisower | Sep 1998 | A |
5810771 | Blomquist | Sep 1998 | A |
5818914 | Fujisaki | Oct 1998 | A |
5822123 | Davis et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5826244 | Huberman | Oct 1998 | A |
5828419 | Bruette et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5830068 | Brenner et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5832472 | Sheppard, II | Nov 1998 | A |
5835896 | Fisher et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5845265 | Woolston | Dec 1998 | A |
5845266 | Lupien et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5848396 | Gerace | Dec 1998 | A |
5850442 | Muftic | Dec 1998 | A |
5862230 | Darby | Jan 1999 | A |
5867799 | Lang et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5870744 | Sprague | Feb 1999 | A |
5872848 | Romney et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5872850 | Klein et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5873069 | Reuhl et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5884056 | Steele | Mar 1999 | A |
5890138 | Godin et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5905974 | Fraser et al. | May 1999 | A |
5905975 | Ausubel | May 1999 | A |
5922074 | Richard et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5924072 | Havens | Jul 1999 | A |
5926794 | Fethe | Jul 1999 | A |
5944790 | Levy | Aug 1999 | A |
5950172 | Klingman | Sep 1999 | A |
5970469 | Scroggie et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974412 | Hazlehurst et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5991739 | Cupps et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6029141 | Bezos et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6035402 | Vaeth et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6044363 | Mori et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6047264 | Fisher et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6052723 | Ginn | Apr 2000 | A |
6055518 | Franklin et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6058417 | Hess et al. | May 2000 | A |
6061448 | Smith et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064980 | Jacobi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6066075 | Poulton | May 2000 | A |
6070145 | Pinsley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6073117 | Oyanagi et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6073138 | de l'Etraz et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6085176 | Woolston | Jul 2000 | A |
6092049 | Chislenko et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101489 | Lannert et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104815 | Alcorn et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112186 | Bergh et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119137 | Smith et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6134548 | Gottsman et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141653 | Conklin et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6148299 | Yoshimoto | Nov 2000 | A |
6161099 | Harrington et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6178408 | Copple et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6189029 | Fuerst | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192407 | Smith et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199049 | Conde et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6202051 | Woolston | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6236975 | Boe et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236977 | Verba et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6237059 | Dean et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6243691 | Fisher et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6266649 | Linden et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6275811 | Ginn | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6311190 | Bayer et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6313833 | Knight | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321221 | Bieganski | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327574 | Kramer et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6352479 | Sparks, II | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6374290 | Scharber et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6396472 | Jacklin | May 2002 | B1 |
6405159 | Bushey et al. | Jun 2002 | B2 |
6405175 | Ng | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6466917 | Goyal et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466918 | Spiegel et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477509 | Hammons et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6484153 | Walker et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493703 | Knight et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505201 | Haitsuka et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6523037 | Monahan et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6539392 | Rebane | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6615258 | Barry et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6697824 | Bowman-Amuah | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6810408 | Bates et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6856963 | Hurwitz | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6859783 | Cogger et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6952678 | Williams et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
7428505 | Levy et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7433832 | Bezos et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7587359 | Levy et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7716079 | Hanif et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
8290809 | Ratterman et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
20010029455 | Chin et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010037206 | Falk et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010037253 | Kensey | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047290 | Petras et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020007338 | Do | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020069200 | Cooper et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078152 | Boone | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020095305 | Gakidis et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020118225 | Miksovsky | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138402 | Zacharia et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030131232 | Fraser et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030167209 | Hsieh | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040128224 | Dabney et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040169678 | Oliver | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040210550 | Williams et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225577 | Robinson | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243527 | Gross | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040243604 | Gross | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040267604 | Gross | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050114199 | Hanif et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125826 | Hunleth et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20070208454 | Forrester et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080065994 | Wang et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080320049 | Levy et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20100287064 | Hanif et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2253543 | Mar 1997 | CA |
2658635 | Aug 1991 | FR |
9300266 | Sep 1994 | NL |
WO-9215174 | Sep 1992 | WO |
WO-9517711 | Jun 1995 | WO |
WO-9634356 | Oct 1996 | WO |
WO-9737315 | Oct 1997 | WO |
WO-9963461 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO-0161601 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO-0165338 | Sep 2001 | WO |
WO-0165338 | Sep 2001 | WO |
WO-03010621 | Feb 2003 | WO |
WO-03010621 | Feb 2003 | WO |
WO-2005052835 | Jun 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Slavin and Cooper, Improving Intergroup Relations: Lessons Learned from Cooperative Learning Programs, Sep. 1999, p. 1-25. |
Kautz and Selman, Welcome to . . . ReferralWeb, Apr. 1999, p. 1-44. |
Shah, ReferralWeb: A Resource Location System Guided by Personal Relations, May 1997, p. 1-47. |
Kautz et al., The Hidden Web, Al Magazine, vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 1997, p. 27-36. |
Kautz et al., Referral Web: Combining Social Networks and Collaborative Filtering, Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, No. 3, Mar. 1997, p. 63-65. |
Alexander, Digital auction; Concept is attracting traditional, new media, Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) Mar. 1, 1998, p. 1D (online reprint p. 1-6). |
Sixdegrees.com, web.archive.org, Jan. 19, 2000, p. 1-15. |
PlanetAll Plans to Make a World of Difference in Busy Lives, PR Newswire, Financial News, Nov. 13, 1996, p. 1-3. |
Foner, Political Artifacts and Personal Privacy: The Yenta Multi-Agent Distributed Matchmaking System, p. 1-129. |
Kautz, Agent Amplified Communication, Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), Portland, or, 1996, p. 1-7. |
Epinions.com. web.archive.org, Nov. 1999-Jan. 2000, p. 1-26. |
Aiso, Development of a Supporting System for Group Use of Personal Connections Using Collaborative Agents, Technical Report of IEICE, 1996, p. 31-36. |
Zacharia, Giorgis, et al., “Collaborative Reputation Mechanism in Electronic Marketplaces”, IEEE,1999, pp. 1-7. |
“@Home Network Names Buydirect.Com as Its Online Software Retailer”, PR Newswire; New York, (Nov. 16, 1998), 3 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Advisory Action mailed May 19, 2003”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Advisory Action mailed Jun. 19, 2006”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Advisory Action mailed Oct. 11, 2005”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Appeal Brief filed Aug. 2, 2006”, 26 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 6, 2003”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Final Office Action mailed Feb. 17, 2004”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Final Office Action mailed Mar. 27, 2005”, 32 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 26, 2005”, 22 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Final Office Action mailed Nov. 30, 2004”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 7, 2005”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 22, 2004”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2002”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 21, 2003”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 22, 2005”, 20 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 20, 2009”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Preliminary Amendment filed Sep. 8, 2003”, 23 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Preliminary Amendment filed Oct. 5, 1999”, 1 pg. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Jan. 22, 2004 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 21, 2003”, 26 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Feb. 21, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 22, 2005”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed May 6, 2003 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 6, 2003”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed May 30, 2006 to Final Office Action mailed Mar. 27, 2006”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Jun. 4, 2004 to Final Office Action mailed Feb. 17, 2004”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Jun. 7, 2005 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 7, 2005”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Sep. 24, 2005 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 26, 2005”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Sep. 29, 2004 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 22, 2004”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Dec. 9, 2002 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2002”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Supplemental Preliminary Amendment filed May 3, 2000”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 18, 2003”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 30, 2004”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Appeal Brief filed Jan. 16, 2007”, 30 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Appeal Brief filed May 23, 2007”, 33 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Appeal Brief filed Jul. 12, 2007”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 13, 2006”, 20 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 22, 2003”, 19 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2004”, 21 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Final Office Action mailed Mar. 22, 2011”, 21 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Non Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2002”, 19 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 13, 2005”, 21 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 28, 2011”, 29 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 19, 2003”, 20 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 20, 2002”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 22, 2004”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 14, 2010”, 21 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 29, 2012”, 22 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Notice of Allowance mailed Jun. 15, 2012”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Pre-Appeal Brief Request filed Aug. 14, 2006”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Preliminary Amendment filed Aug. 20, 2003”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Reply Brief filed Dec. 11, 2007”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Jan. 13, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 13, 2005”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Jan. 30, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 28, 2011”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Feb. 19, 2004 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 19, 2003”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Feb. 20, 2003 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 20, 2002”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed May 23, 2011 to Final Office Action mailed Mar. 22, 2011”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Jun. 15, 2005 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 22, 2004”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Jun. 23, 2003 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 22, 2003”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Jun. 25, 2004 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2004”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Aug. 19, 2002 to Non Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2002”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/503,960, Response filed Oct. 14, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 14, 2010”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, 312 Amendment filed Jun. 4, 2007”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Advisory Action mailed Mar. 22, 2004”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Advisory Action mailed Dec. 12, 2006”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Examiner Interview Summary and Supplemental Amendment filed Oct. 4, 2007”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Apr. 17, 2003”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Aug. 13, 2002”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Sep. 6, 2007”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2002”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Final Office Action mailed Sep. 22, 2006”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Final Office Action mailed Dec. 17, 2003”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 21, 2006”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 13, 2004”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 18, 2001”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2005”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2002”, 19 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Notice of Allowance mailed Mar. 8, 2007”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Notice of Allowance mailed Apr. 23, 2008”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 6, 2008”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Jan. 17, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2005”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Feb. 27, 2004 to Final Office Action mailed Dec. 17, 2003”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Apr. 21, 2003 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2002”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Jun. 21, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 21, 2006”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Sep. 16, 2002 to Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2002”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Oct. 13, 2004 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 13, 2004”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Oct. 18, 2001 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 18, 2001”, 23 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Response filed Nov. 7, 2006 to Final Office Action mailed Sep. 22, 2006”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment mailed Dec. 7, 2012”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Advisory Action mailed Apr. 24, 2006”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 19, 2007”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Mar. 17, 2008”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2010”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 14, 2009”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 27, 2006”, 23 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Final Office Action mailed Mar. 2, 2005”, 23 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 19, 2007”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 8, 2005”, 23 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 16, 2004”, 21 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 19, 2006”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2008”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2009”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 31, 2008”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Preliminary Amendment filed Apr. 28, 2003”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Preliminary Amendment mailed Dec. 2, 2003”, 20 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Jan. 23, 2007 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 19, 2006”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Mar. 4, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2010”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Mar. 16, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 14, 2009”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Mar. 24, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2008”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Mar. 27, 2006 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 27, 2006”, 24 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed May 2, 2005 to Final Office Action mailed Mar. 2, 2005”, 22 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Jul. 5, 2007 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 19, 2007”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Sep. 10, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2009”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Oct. 22, 2007 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 19, 2007”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Oct. 30, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 31, 2008”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Nov. 8, 2005 to Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 8, 2005”, 27 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Dec. 16, 2004 Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 16, 2004”, 25 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 28, 2010”, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 24, 2013”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 15, 2009”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 10, 2008”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Jan. 15, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 15, 2009”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Mar. 10, 2009 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 10, 2008”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Jul. 17, 2009 to Restriction Requirement mailed Jun. 17, 2009”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Jul. 28, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 28, 2010”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Sep. 3, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Oct. 29, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 27, 2012”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Restriction Requirement mailed Jun. 17, 2009”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Appeal Brief filed Dec. 18, 2006”, 23 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Examiner Interview Summary filed Jan. 2, 2009”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Dec. 2, 2008”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Dec. 10, 2008”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Final Office Action mailed May 29, 2009”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 28, 2006”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Final Office Action mailed Sep. 1, 2005”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 3, 2006”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 16, 2005”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2009”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 14, 2009”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 24, 2009”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review filed Sep. 27, 2006”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Jan. 3, 2006 to Final Office Action mailed Sep. 1, 2005”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Apr. 7-, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2009”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Jan. 13, 2005 to Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 16, 2005”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Jul. 3, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 3, 2006”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Aug. 31, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed May 29, 2009”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Notice of Allowance mailed Mar. 20, 2008”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Notice of Allowance mailed Apr. 23, 2009”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 1, 2008”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Preliminary Amendment filed Oct. 4, 2007”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Supplemental Preliminary Amendment filed Nov. 16, 2007”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Applicant's Summary of Examiner Interview filed Jan. 3, 2011”, 1 pg. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Non-Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2010”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 3, 2010”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Response filed Sep. 3, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2010”, 21 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Appeal Brief filed Feb. 16, 2012”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Examiners Answer to Appeal Brief mailed Mar. 8, 2012”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 7, 2011”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Final Office Action mailed Aug. 17, 2011”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 5, 2010”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Reply Brief filed May 8, 2012”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Response filed Mar. 7, 2011 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 5, 2010”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Response filed Aug. 8, 2011 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 7, 2011”, 13 pgs. |
“Beyond.com Adds Customer Ratings to Web Site; First Internet Store to Post Comprehensive Online Buyers' Guide to Software”, Business Wire; New York, (Nov.16, 1998), 2 pages. |
“BuyClearance.com—The Internet Clearance Superstore: Product Information”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20000124120021/www.buy.com/clearance/product.asp?sku=70000254>, (Accessed Aug. 29, 2003), 1 pg. |
“Celebrating Its Third Year Anniversary eBay Sets Standard for Online Person-To-Person Trading”, PR Newswire, New York, (FeedbackForum) downloaded from ProQuest Direct on the Internet on May 9, 2010, (Sep. 15, 1998.), p. 1. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 01822389.3, Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2007”, 9 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 01822389.3, Response filed Jul. 24, 2007 to Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2007”, 19 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0 Office Action Mailed Dec. 4, 2009”, 9 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Response filed Oct. 17, 2011 to Office Action mailed Aug. 2, 2011”, 2 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Final Office Action mailed Feb. 28, 2012”, w/ English Translation, 10 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Office Action mailed Jan. 25, 2011”, with English translation of claims, 11 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Office Action mailed Aug. 2, 2011”, with English ranslation of claims, 16 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Response filed Apr. 8, 2010 to Office Action mailed Dec. 4, 2009”, 33 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Response filed Apr. 11, 2011”, with English translation of claims, 31 pgs. |
“Ebay—What is Mutual Feedback Withdrawal?”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://pages.ebay.com/help/feedback/questions/mutual-withdrawal.html>, (Accessed Apr. 3, 2006), 6 pgs. |
“Ebay Community chat”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Dec. 12, 2000), 1-2. |
“eBay Feedback Removal Policy”, eBay, [Online] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/fbremove.html>, (Archived Jun. 19, 2000), 3 pgs. |
“eBay Help: Basics : FAQ : Feedback”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Oct. 12, 1999), 1-3. |
“eBay Help: community Standards: eBay Help: Rules and safety”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Aug. 1, 2000), 1-2. |
“eBay Leave Feedback about an eBay User”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Aug. 25, 1999), 1-2. |
“ebay Listings : Cufflinks, Studs”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Feb. 8, 2001), 1-3. |
“ebay: The ebay Q&A Board”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Oct. 3, 2000), 1-21. |
“Entry for ”Withdraw—, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus, Property of U.S. Government, (1988), 859. |
“EP Application Serial No. 01274337.3, Written Submission filed Oct. 4, 2012 to EP Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed Jul. 23, 2012”, 16 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01274337.3, European Search Report mailed Nov. 15, 2005”, 2 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01274337.3, Office Action Mailed Feb. 13, 2009”, 4 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01274337.3, Response filed Aug. 24, 2009 to Office Action mailed Feb. 13, 2009”, 37 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Office Action mailed Sep. 16, 2005”, 1 pg. |
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Office Action mailed Nov. 18, 2005”, 6 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Response filed Apr. 28, 2006 to Office Action mailed Nov. 18, 2005”, 10 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Search Report mailed Sep. 14, 2005”, 2 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed Nov. 15, 2010”, 11 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 04519526.7, Office Action mailed Feb. 4, 2009”, 6 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 04819526.7, EPO Written Decision to Refuse mailed Jun. 2, 2010”, 12 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 04819526.7, European Search Report mailed Jun. 17, 2008”, 3 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 04819526.7, Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed: Jan. 28, 2010”, 7 pgs. |
“Feedback Overview and Feedback Forum”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www.ebay.com>, (1999), 4 pages. |
“Frequently Asked Questions about Feedback Forum”, via the Wayback Machine, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www.archive.org/web/19991122031437/http://pages.ebay.com/help/basics/f-feed back.html#3>, (Nov. 10,1999), 3 pgs. |
“Give some feedback on an AuctionWeb user”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19981203032739/www2ebay.com/aw/user-feedback. html>, (May 18, 2005), 2 pgs. |
“Home builder has customer satisfaction as its cornerstone”, Daily Herald; Arlington Heights, Chrystal Caruthers Daily Herald Business Writer., Copyright Paddock Publication, (Nov. 25, 1998), 2 pages. |
“How Squaretrade's Dispute Resolution can Help Resolve Feedback Disputes”, Squaretrade, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.squaretrade.com/eb/ebay—nf—020801.html>, (Archived Mar. 12, 2001, Jun. 18, 2001 and Aug. 8, 2002), 7 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. 2005052835, International Preliminary Examination Report Mar. 17, 2006”, 21 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US00/17136 International Search Report mailed Nov. 16, 2000”, 6 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/06709, International Preliminary Examination Report mailed Mar. 25, 2002”, 14 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/06709, International Search Report mailed Sep. 10, 2001”, 2 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/12398 International Search Report mailed Aug. 27, 2001”, 3 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/50499, International Preliminary Examination Report mailed Dec. 3, 2004”, 4 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US04/38096, International Search Report mailed Mar. 16, 2005”, 5 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US04/38096, Written Opinion mailed Mar. 16, 2005”, 8 pgs. |
“Leave Feedback about a eBay User”, Retrieved on Jan. 20, 2006 from wayback machine, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19990825071501/cgi2.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll>, (Nov. 10, 1999), 5 pgs. |
“Leaving Feedback”, Wayback Machine Internet archive, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://pages.ebay.com/help/feedback/questions/leaving-feedback.html>, (Nov. 10, 1999), 3 pages. |
“Meg Muscles eBay Uptown, Fortune”, Special Report downloaded from ProQuest Direct on the Internet on May 9, 2010, 7 pages, (Jul. 5, 1999), 81-88. |
“MTB Review”, [Online]. Archived [Jan. 25, 1997] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19970125123339/http://www.mtbr.com/>, (Accessed Jan. 27, 2005), 9 pgs. |
“Onsale Joins Fray as Online Shopping Picks Up Speed: Internet Booms”, Computer Reseller News, CMP Publications, Inc., USA, (Jun. 5, 1995), 1 pg. |
“Onsale: Onsale Brings Thrill of Auctions and Bargain Hunting Online; Unique Internet retail service debuts with week-long charity auction for the Computer Museum in Boston”, Business Wire, Dialog Web. 0489267 BW0022, (May 24, 1995), 3 pgs. |
“See the Feedback Profile of an eBay User”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Dec. 5, 2000), 1. |
“Social Network”, Wikipedia, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soical—networking>, (Archived Apr. 1, 2004), 1-7. |
“The Feedback Forum”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Dec. 17, 2000), 1-2. |
“The Feedback Forum: FAQ”, eBay, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19991012230420/pages.ebay.com/help/basics/f-feed back.html>, (Archived Oct. 12, 1999), 4 pgs. |
Abdul-Rahman, A., et al., “Supporting Trust in Virtual Communities”, Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6(6), (2000), 1-25. |
Abdul-Rahman, Alfarez, et al., “Using Recommendations for Managing Trust in Distributed Systems”, IEEE Malaysia International Conference on Communication, (1997), 1-7. |
Aberer, Karl, et al., “Managing Trust in a Peer-2-Peer Information System”, Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, (2001), 310-317. |
Aho, A. V., “Directed Graphs”, Date Structures and Algorithms, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California, (1983), 198-219. |
Aho, Alfred V., “Data Structures and Algorithms: Chapter 3 Trees”, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California, (1983), 75-89. |
Annen, Kurt, “Social Capital, Inclusive Networks, and Economic Performance”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 50, Issue 4, (2003), 1-27. |
audioreview.com, “NAD 412 Reviews, Found on WayBackMachine”, Online Reviews, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19990203004345/www.audioreview.com/reviews/Turner/nad—412—turner.shtml>, (Feb. 3, 1995), 9 pgs. |
Barrett, Alexandra, “What's Your Epinion? on Epinion.com, read product reviews by regular folks, then post your own”, Network World, (Sep. 13, 1999), 2 pgs. |
Baumann, G. W, “Personal Optimized Decision/Transaction Program”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, (Jan. 1995), 83-84. |
beyond.com, “IMS Web Spinner Personal V1.26 for Win95/98/NT”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20000125152017/www.beyond.com/PKSN104373/prod.htmcrewiew>, (1998-2000), 3 pages. |
Business Wire, “Mediappraise Receives National Award for Web-based Technology That Enables Companies to Solve Thorny HR Problem”, Business Wire, (Dec. 14, 1998), 1-2. |
Cann, A. J., “Innovations in Education and Training International”, Journal Paper, Vo. 36, Routledge, United Kingdom, (Feb. 1999), 44-52. |
Carter, Jonathan, et al., “Reputation Formalization Within Information Sharing Multiagent Architectures”, Computational Intelligence, 2(5), (2002), 45-64. |
Chicago Tribune, “Amazon.com expands into toys, electronics”, Chicago Tribune, (Jul. 14, 1999), 3;1. |
Clemons, E., “Evaluating the prospects for alternative electronic securities”, Proceedings of ICIS 91: 12th International Conference on Information Systems, (Dec. 16-18, 1991), 53-63. |
Consumer Review!, “49,000 Product Reviews by Consumers for Consumers”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19981206010249/http://www.consumerreview.com>, (1996-1998), 22 pgs. |
Dellarocas, C., “Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behaviour”, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on Electronic commerce, (2000), 150-157. |
Dellarocas, C., “The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and challenges of Online Reputation Mechanisms”, Sloan School of Management, MIT, (Oct. 1, 2003), 1-38. |
Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, “Mechanisms for coping with unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior in online reputation reporting systems”, Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems, (2000), 520-525. |
Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, “The Design of Reliable Trust Management Systems for Electronic Trading Communities”, Working Paper, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2001), 1-45. |
Donath, J., “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community”, In Kollock, P. and Smith, M. (Eds.) Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press, MIT Media Lab, (1997), 1-25. |
Ekstrom, Martin, “A rating system for AEC e-bidding”, (Nov. 27, 2000), 1-17. |
Festa, Paul, “Have an Epinion?”, CNET News.com, Online Article, http://news.com.com/2100-1023-228193.html, (Jul. 9, 1999), 2 pages. |
Foner, Leonard N, “Yenta: A Multi-Agent, Referral-Based Matchmaking System”, MIT Media Lab/AMC, retrieved from Google Scholar, (1997), 301-307. |
Friedman, Eric, “Robust Social Norms in Bargains and Markets”, Draft, Rutgers University, (1999), 1-23. |
Friedman, Eric, et al., “The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(2), (2000), 173-199. |
Graham, Ian, “The Emergence of Linked Fish Markets in Europe”, Electronic Markets. vol. 8, No. 2, (1998), 29-32. |
Guglielmo, Connie, “BizRate Lets Consumers Rate Sites”, Interactive Week, 4(22), (Aug. 4, 1997), 4 pgs. |
Hanneman, Robert A, “Introduction to Social Network Methods”, On-line textbook, Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside, (2001), 1-150. |
Harris, Donna, “Product Helps Dealer Reward Loyal Customers”, Automotive News, vol. 73, Issue 5801, (Jan. 11, 1999), p. 38, 1/9 p. |
Hauser, R., “Anonymous Delivery of Goods in Electronic Commerce”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, 39(3), (Mar. 1996), 363-366. |
Hess, C. M, et al., “Computerized Loan Organization System: An Industry Case Study of the Electronic Markets Hypothesis”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 18(3), (Sep. 1994), 251-275. |
Jordan, Ken, “The Augmented Social Network: Building identity and trust into the next-generation Internet”, first monday, peer-previewed journal on the internet,, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8—8/jordan/>, (Archived Aug. 2, 2003), 1-66. |
Klein, Stefan, “Introduction to Electronic Auctions”, Focus Theme, vol. 7, No. 4, (1997), 3-6. |
Kornblum, Janet, “Consumer Reports an online win”, CNET News.com, Online Article, http://news.com.com/2100-1023-217386.html, (Nov. 2, 1998), 2 pgs. |
Krigel, Beth Lipton, “Big changes ahead for Deja News”, CNET News.com, Online Article, http://news.com.com/2100-1023-225101.html, (Apr. 28, 1999), 3 pages. |
Langley, Paul A., “Building cognitive feedback into a microworld learning environment: Results from a pilot”, System dynamics,—systemdynamics.org, (1995), 1 pg. |
Lee, H. G, “Electronic brokerage and electronic auction: the impact of IT on market structures”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 4, (1996), 397-406. |
Lee, Ho Geun, “AUCNET: Electronic Intermediary for Used-Car Transactions”, Focus Theme, Electronic Markets, vol. 7, No. 4, (1997), 24-28. |
Malaga, R. A, “Web-Based Reputaton Management Systems: Problems and Suggested Solutions”, vol. 1, (2001), 403-417. |
Malone, T., et al., “Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 30, No. 6, (Jun. 1987), 484-497. |
Mardesich, Jodi, “Site Offers Clearance for End-of-Life Products—Onsale Takes Auction Gavel Electronic”, Computer Reseller News, (Jul. 8, 1996), 2 pps. |
Massimb, Marcel, “Electronic Trading, Market Structure and Liquidity”, Financial Analysts Journal, 50(1), (Jan./Feb. 1994), 39-50. |
Meade, J., “Visual 360: A Performance Appraisal System That's ‘Fun’”, HR Magazine, Society for Human Resource Management., (Jul. 1999), 3 pgs. |
Miller, Michael J., “The Best Products of 1999 Revealed”, ZDNet, http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,5019537,00.html, (Dec. 13, 1999), 2 pgs. |
Mui, L., et al., “Ratings in Distributed Systems: A Bayesian Approach”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS), (2001), 1-7. |
Mui, Lik, “A Computational Model of Trust and Reputation”, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences—2002, 9 Pages. |
Neo, B. S, “The implementation of an electronic market for pig trading in Singapore”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems; vol. 1(5), (Dec. 1992), 278-288. |
Nielsen, Jakob, “Reputation Managers are Happening”, useit.com, Alertbox, (Sep. 5, 1999), 4 pages. |
Ono, C., et al., “Trust-Based Facilitator for e-Partnerships”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, (2001), 108-109. |
Patience, Nick, “Epinons Launches Online Shopping Guide Built on Trust”, Computergram International, 3744, The Gale Group Newsletter, (Sep. 10, 1999), 2 pgs. |
Post, D. L, et al., “Application of auctions as a pricing mechanism for the interchange of electric power”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 10(3), (Aug. 1995), 1580-1584. |
Preist, Chris, et al., “Adaptive Agents in a Persistent Shout Double Auction”, International Conference on Information and Computation Economies, Proceedings of the first international conference on Information and computation economies, (1998), 11-18. |
pricescan.com, “PriceSCAN: Your Unbiased Guide to the Lowest Prices on Books, Computers, Electronic . . . ”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://web.archive.org/web/19991117123352/www.pricescan.com>, (1997-99), 1 page. |
Product ReviewNet!, “Welcome to Product ReviewNet! The Premier Online Source for Product Review Abstracts”, [Online]. Archived [Dec. 1, 1998]. Retrieved from the Internet:<URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19981201205356/www.productreviewnet.com/splash.html>, (1998), 1 pg. |
Product ReviewNet!, “Welcome to Product ReviewNet! Your Source for Product Review Information”, [Online]. Archived [Nov. 14, 1999]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://web.archive.org/web/19991114054251/www.productreviewnet.com/splash.html>, (1999), 1 page. |
Pujol, Josep M, “Extraxting Reputation in Multi Agent Systems by Means of Social Network Topology”, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, (2002), 8 Pages. |
Rasmusson, Lars, “Simulated Social Control for Secure Internet Commerce”, Proceedings of the 1996 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, Lake Arrowhead, California, United States, (Apr. 1, 1996), 18-25. |
Reck, M., “Formally Specifying an Automated Trade Execution System”, The Journal of Systems and Software, 1993, Elsevier Science Publishing, USA, (1993), 245-252. |
Reck, Martin, “Trading-Process Characteristics of Electronic Auctions”, Focus Theme, vol. 7, No. 4, (1997), 17-23. |
Resnick, P., et al., “Trust among Strangers in Internet Transactions: Empirical Analyses of eBay's Reputation System”, NBER Workshop, (Feb. 5, 2001), 1-26. |
Resnick, Paul, “Reputation systems”, Communications of the ACM, 43(12), (Dec. 2000), 45-48. |
Rockoff, T. E, et al., “Design of an Internet-based system for remote Dutch auctions”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, vol. 5(4), (Jan. 1, 1995), 10-16. |
Sabater, Jordi, “Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies”, IIIA—Artificial Intelligence Research Intitute, CSIC, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.797&rep=rep1&type=pdf>, (1999), 9 pgs. |
Sabater, Jordi, et al., “Reputation and Social Network Analysis in Multi-Agent Systems”, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1 table of contents. Session: Session 2D: group and organizational dynamics, (2002), 475-482. |
Schmid, B. F, “The Development of Electronic Commerce”, EM—Electronic Markets, No. 9-10, (Oct. 1993), 2 pgs. |
Schneider, Jay, et al., “Disseminating Trust Information in Wearable Communities”, 2nd International Symposium on Handheld and Ubitquitous Comput- 10 ing (HUC2K), (2000), 1-5. |
Siegmann, Ken, “Nowhere to go but up”, PC Week; vol. 12(42), Ziff-Davis Publishing Company, (Oct. 23, 1995), 1-3. |
Svensson, Lars, “Discursive evaluation in a distributed learning community”, Australian Journal of Educational Technology—Citeseer, (2002), 11 pgs. |
Tjostheim, Ingvar, et al., “A case study of an on-line auction for the World Wide Web”, Norwegian Computing Center (NR), [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.nr.no/˜ingvar/enter98.html>, (Accessed Feb. 21, 2005), 1-10. |
Turban, Efraim, “Auctions and Bidding on the Internet: An Assessment”, Focus Theme, EM—Electronic Markets, vol. 7, No. 4, (1997), 7-11. |
Van Heck, E., et al., “Experiences with Electronic Auctions in the Dutch Flower Industry”, Focus Theme, Erasmus University, The Netherlands, (1996), 6 pgs. |
Vendelo, Morten Thanning, “Narrating Corporate Reputation: Becoming Legitimate Through Storytelling”, International Studies of Management & Organization v28n3, (Fall 1998), 120-137. |
Venkatraman, Mahadevan, et al., “Trust and Reputation Management in a Small-World Network”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000), (2000), 1-2. |
Vivian, Nathan, “Social Networks in Transnational and Virtual Communities”, Informing Science, InSITE—“Where Parallels Intersect”, (Jun. 2003), 1431-1437. |
Warbelow, A, et al., “Aucnet: TV Auction Network System”, Harvard Business School Case/Study, HBVR#9-190-001, USA, (Jul. 1989), 1-16. |
Wellman, Barry, “An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network”, almost final version of Chapter 9 in Sara Kiesler, ed., Culture of the Internet, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, (1997), 26 Pages. |
Wolverton, Troy, “Productopia launches product review site”, CNET News.com, http://news.com.com/2100-1017-228811.html, (Jul. 21, 1999), 2 pages. |
Yu, Bin, et al., “A Social Mechanism of Reputation Management in Electronic Communities”, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents IV, The Future of Information Agents in Cyberspace, (2000), 154-165. |
Zacharia, Giorgos, et al., “Collaborative Reputation Mechanisms in Electronic Marketplaces”, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (1999), 1-7. |
Zachiara, et al., “Collaborative reputation mechanisms for electronic marketplaces”, Decision support systems, vol. 29, (Dec. 2000), 371-388. |
Zwass, V., “Electronic Commerce: Structures and Issues”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Fall 1996, vol. 1, No. 1, (Fall 1996), 3-23. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130041717 A1 | Feb 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09503960 | Feb 2000 | US |
Child | 13651661 | US |