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 art of conducting e-Commerce transactions over a network. More particularly, the invention relates to a method of providing feedback between users of an e-commerce site utilizing predefined sets of comments.
2. Background of the Invention
The emergence of electronic commerce has revolutionized the manner in which goods and services may be bought and sold. In particular, the development of online auctions conducted over the Internet have enabled individuals to sell items with relatively little effort or expense while at the same time reaching a much larger potential pool of buyers than using more traditional means such as classified advertising and garage sales.
In a typical online auction, a seller submits an offer to sell an item, the item becomes available for bidding for a predetermined, period of time. Buyers are able to view a description and often an image of the item, and submit bids. The potential buyer who tenders the highest bid “wins” the auction provided his bid is in excess of any minimum price required by the seller, and a contractual obligation is created in which the buyer and seller are required to complete the transaction.
It is the completion of the transaction, i.e., the exchange of the seller's item for the buyer's payment that is the potentially most perilous part of the transaction. More often than not, a buyer and seller are located far apart from each other, often in separate states or countries (from herein state or states unless otherwise stated shall refer to both states of the United States, as well as other countries or nations). Accordingly, the promised item and payment must be shipped via the post or some other package delivery service. A seller may request payment prior to shipping the item or the seller may require cash on delivery (COD). In either case, the buyer will not have the opportunity to verify the item was as the seller represented it, until after payment. The item shipped may end up being broken or in worse condition than represented; or if the seller is particularly unscrupulous, a dummy item may be shipped in place of the promised item. On the reverse, where a buyer pays with a check, he may stop payment on the check shortly after receiving the item, defrauding the seller of his item. Given the geographic distance between the typical buyer and seller and the relatively small values of the items being bought and sold, it is seldom practical for the aggrieved buyer or seller to seek recourse in the courts.
In order to combat the problem of dishonest and/or unscrupulous users, online auction services such as eBay, Inc. of San Jose, Calif., have instituted mechanisms to combat fraudulent and dishonest practices among buyers and sellers. For instance, eBay requires each user to register with, the service before offering an item for auction or bidding on an item. In order to complete registration, the user must provide either a verifiable e-mail address (i.e., one that cannot be easily set up using a pseudonym) or a credit card number. If eBay determines that a registered user is utilizing improper buying or selling practices, it can ban the user from using the auction facility in the future.
Another practice used by some auction services is to provide the buyer and seller with a feedback forum in which either user can leave comments about the other that may be of use to other users in the future in deciding whether to bid or sell from a particular user. Comments are typically positive, but a few negative comments can act to indicate a user that is not completely honest and who should be dealt with cautiously.
A representative example of a list of comments made about a user is provided in prior art
Prior art
Once a comment is posted about a targeted user, that user may leave a responding comment to which the commenting user may respond. Since both the buyer and the seller may leave a comment with regard to a transaction, and respond to each other's comments and subsequently respond to each other responses, a total of up to six comments may be left for any single transaction.
Each comment is typically associated with the user making the comment and the user for whom the comment is intended, as well as the transaction to which the comment relates. Each comment must be stored in the auction service's storage devices. It can be appreciated that where a large number of auctions are regularly being concluded, the amount of storage space required to store all feedback comments is very large. For example, if the maximum of six 80-character comments are left for each transaction, approximately 0.5 kilobytes of storage space is necessary to store the comments. If it is considered that a service like eBay concludes tens of millions of auctions each year and that comments about particular users are stored for years, the amount of storage space is significant.
A feedback system as described above also presents several other problems: (1) there is no efficient and convenient manner of translating comments into other languages, and (2) in certain jurisdictions, the auction sendee may face liability for publishing slanderous comments or comments with inappropriate content. In current-feedback systems, a commenting user may leave a comment in any language he desires. For instance, a German user may purchase an item from a U.S. user and at the conclusion of the transaction, leave a comment about the U.S. user in German. This comment will have little meaning to other U.S. users who view the comments about the U.S. user unless they read German. Essentially in this situation, the feedback system, at least partially, fails in its purpose of providing useful information to auction users about other users.
Given the sheer volume of comments left each day on a large system like eBay, it is impractical to screen every comment for slanderous or libelous language before posting the comment on the system for other users to read. Accordingly, users may leave inappropriate comments for other users, which may cause the auction service which published the comment to incur civil and/or criminal liability for the comment under the laws of certain states. For instance, the slander and libel laws of Great Britain are stricter than those in the United States, and in certain Muslim states, publishing comments containing language of an inappropriate nature may be viewed as illegal.
A method and apparatus utilized in operating a feedback forum wherein predefined feedback comments are provided to users of an e-commerce system are described. First, the feedback system receives a request from a first user to leave feedback concerning a second user. The feedback system generates a set of predefined feedback comments that are to be displayed to the first user, and each comment is associated with an identifier. Upon receipt of a response form the first user, the system identifies the selected predefined comment about the second user, and the system stores the indicator in a data structure that is associated with the second user.
Other features of the present invention will be apparent from the accompanying drawings and from the detailed description that follows.
The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings and in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:
A method and apparatus are described to facilitate the operation of a feedback forum in an e-commerce environment wherein comments are selected by a user from a predefined set presented to the user, for example, as a menu. Compared with prior art feedback forums, embodiments of the invention facilitate the efficient use of storage space by storing the predefined comments a minimum number of times and providing indicators or pointers within the stored user's database records the comments made about the user. In another embodiment, the predefined comment may be translated into any number of different languages, and depending on an indication of a default or preferred language of a user viewing his comments or those of another user, the comments may be provided in the default or preferred language. Finally, since the comments are predefined, they can be written to avoid liability under the slander or other laws of various states.
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.
The present invention includes various operations which will be described below. The operations of the present invention may be performed by hardware components or may be embodied in machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a general-purpose or special-purpose processor programmed with the instructions to perform the operations. Alternatively, the operations may be performed by a combination of hardware and software.
The present invention may be provided as a computer program product that may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon 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, flash memory, 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 to a requesting computer by way of data signals embodied in a carrier wave or other propagation medium via a communication link (e.g., a modern or network connection).
Exemplary Computer System
Computer system 300 comprises a bus or other communication means 301 for communicating information, and a processing means such as processor 302 coupled with bus 301 for processing information. Computer system 300 further comprises a random access memory (RAM), flash memory, or other dynamic storage device 304 (referred to as main memory), coupled to bus 301 for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor 302. Main memory 304 also may be used for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions by processor 302. Computer system 300 may also comprise a read-only memory (ROM) and/or other static storage device 306 coupled to bus 301 for storing static information and instructions for processor 302. A data storage device 307 such as a magnetic disk or optical disk and its corresponding drive may also be coupled to computer system 300 for storing information and instructions. In some architectures, a single memory device may perform the functions of two or more of the ROM 306, the main memory 304, and the mass storage device 307. In other architectures such as might be implemented with a server, the system 300 might have multiple mass storage devices 307.
Computer system 300 can also be coupled via bus 301 to a display device 321 such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) or Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), for displaying information to an end user. Typically, an alphanumeric input device 322, including alphanumeric and other keys, may be coupled to bus 301 for communicating information and/or command selections to processor 302. Another type of user input device that may be included in the computer system 300 is a cursor control 323, such as a mouse, a trackball, a pen in conjunction with a touch sensitive screen, or cursor direction keys for communicating direction information and command selections to processor 302 and for controlling cursor movement on display 321.
A communication device 325 may also be coupled to bus 301. The communication device 325 may include a modem, a network interface card or other well-known interface devices, such as those used for coupling to Ethernet, token ring, or other types of physical attachment for purposes of providing a communication link to support a local or wide-area network. In this manner, the computer system 300 may be coupled to a number of clients and/or servers via a conventional network infrastructure, such as the Internet.
It is appreciated that a lesser or more equipped computer system than the example described above may be desirable for certain implementations. Therefore, the configuration of computer system 300 will vary from implementation to implementation depending upon numerous factors, such as price constraints, performance requirements, technological improvements, and/or other circumstances.
It should be noted that while the operations described herein may be performed under the control of a programmed processor such as processor 302, in alternative embodiments, the operations may be fully or partially implemented by any programmable or hard-coded logic, such as Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), TTL logic, or Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). Additionally, the method of the present invention may be performed by any combination of programmed general-purpose computer components and/or custom hardware components. Therefore, nothing disclosed herein should be construed as limiting the present invention to a particular embodiment wherein the recited steps are performed by a specific combination of hardware components.
Exemplary Internet Auction Facility
The auction facility 400 includes one or more of a number of types of front-end servers, namely page servers 402 that deliver Web pages (e.g., markup language documents), picture servers 404 that dynamically deliver images to be displayed within Web pages, listing servers 406, CGI (Common Gateway Interface) or ISAPI servers 408 that provide an intelligent interface to the back-end of facility 400, and search servers 410 that handle search requests to the facility 400. E-mail servers 412 provide, inter alia, automated e-mail communications to users of the facility 400.
The back-end servers include a database engine server 414, a search index server 416, and a credit card database server 418, each of which maintains and facilitates access to a respective database 420, 422, 424.
The Internet-based auction facility 400 may be accessed by a client program 428 such as a browser (e.g., the Internet Explorer distributed by Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Wash.) that executes on a client machine 426 and accesses the facility 400 via a network such as, for example, the Internet 430. Other examples of networks that a client may utilize to access the auction facility 400 include a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), a wireless network (e.g., a cellular network), or the Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) network.
Exemplary Internet Auction Database
Central to the database 520 is a user table 500, which contains a record for each user of the auction facility 400. A user may operate as a seller, buyer, or both within the auction facility 500. The database 520 also includes item tables 502 that may be linked to the user table 500. Specifically, the item tables 502 include a seller items table 504 and a bidder items table 506. A user record in the user table 500 may be linked to multiple items that are being, or have been, auctioned via the facility 400. A link indicates whether the user is a seller or a bidder (i.e., buyer) with respect to items for which records exist within the item tables 502.
The database 414 also includes a note table 508 populated with note records that may be linked to one or more item records within the item tables 502 and/or to one or more user records within the user table 500. Each note record within the note table 508 may include, inter alia, a description, history or other information pertaining to an item being auctioned via the auction facility 400 or to a user of the auction facility 400.
Also linked with the user table is one or more feedback tables 512 which contain information about comments made by and about each user of the auction facility 400. It is within this set of tables that indicators that are linked to the predefined comments about a particular user are stored. Additionally, each indicator may be cross-referenced with regard to the transaction number to which the comment relates, as well as the user who made the comment.
A number of other tables may be linked to the user table 500 including, but not limited to, a user past aliases table 510, a bids table 516, an accounts table 518, an account balances table 520, and a transaction record table 522.
An Exemplary Feedback Forum Methodology
In block 610 of
Drop-down boxes 830-832 in their expanded form are illustrated in
In one embodiment of the invention, the forms of
Referring to
After the comment has been stored with the targeted user's database record, it may be retrieved for viewing. Typically, any user of the auction facility can access a listing of comments made about a particular user through links provided throughout web pages associated with the auction facility 400. When a request is made to see the comments about a targeted user, the comment indicators stored within the targeted user's database record are retrieved. The comments associated with the indicators are then retrieved from storage as shown in block 625 in the preferred or default language of the user requesting to view the comments. The comments are then transmitted to the user in a format similar to the format presented in prior art
In the preferred embodiment, the targeted user may respond to a comment made about him.
The representative response comment form as shown in
Upon receipt of the response comment choice as shown in block 645 of
In the preferred embodiment, the commenting user is given an opportunity to respond to the targeted user's response to his initial comment. The methodology involved in such a response is similar to that discussed above in reference to
An Alternative Feedback Forum Methodology
In some instances, it may be desirable to retain the free-form comment methodology currently utilized in the prior art. Limiting a user's comments to only predefined choices is somewhat restrictive and may not in many cases provide the degree of information content that a free-form comment might. For example, a free-form comment expressing rage and dissatisfaction, perhaps through the use of profanity or other strong words, might act as a stronger deterrent to a prospective bidder from bidding on a product being auctioned by the user about whom the comment was left than a rather sanitized comment stating the condition of an item was less than what it was represented as.
On the other hand, any advantages that may be associated with free-form comments may be outweighed by the detrimental effects related to the content of the free-form comments. For example, the auction facility may be liable for slander to a user resident of certain jurisdictions having strict slander laws. Additionally, in certain states such as certain Islamic nations, the auction facility may be subject to civil and criminal penalties for publishing comments with content that is considered inappropriate in those states.
The
In block 1005, the auction facility receives a request from a user to leave a comment about a targeted user. In block 1010, the auction facility system determines whether the commenting user and the targeted user are known. For instance, if the commenting user is a seller, he may click on a leave a comment button from within a transaction page for an item he has auctioned. In this case, the system would know the names of the users and the particular transaction number related to the item. Assuming the names of the users are known, the system determines whether either user is from a select set of states with strict slander or content laws in block 1015. If either user is from or associated with the select set of states, the user is sent a feedback form with predefined comment choices in block 1020. A typical form would be similar to the illustration of
Referring back to block 1010, if the system is unable to verify the identities of either user as would be the case if the commenting user entered the feedback forum from a link other than the link listed on a page related to a particular auction, the user is sent the standard free-form feedback form as shown in prior art
Referring back to block 1015, if the neither user is from the select set of states, the
In the foregoing specification, the invention has been described with reference to specific embodiments thereof. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention. For instance, in the embodiments of the invention described above, markup language documents are utilized in the display of comments and comment selection options to the client, it is to be noted that other types of interfaces visual or audio are contemplated as would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Furthermore, the embodiments have been described in terms of an auction facility, however it is contemplated that the feedback forum might be utilized in other types of e-commerce forums where information about users of the system would be useful. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/740,502, filed Dec. 19, 2000, which application is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4486853 | Parsons | Dec 1984 | A |
4864516 | Gaither et al. | Sep 1989 | 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 |
5416903 | Malcolm | May 1995 | A |
5485510 | Colbert | Jan 1996 | A |
5537618 | Boulton et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5557728 | Garrett et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5566291 | Boulton et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5583763 | Atcheson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5596994 | Bro | Jan 1997 | A |
5598557 | Doner et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5657389 | Houvener | Aug 1997 | A |
5659366 | Kerman | Aug 1997 | A |
5669877 | Blomquist | Sep 1997 | A |
5678041 | Baker et al. | Oct 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 |
5715314 | Payne et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5722418 | Bro | 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 | Otteson 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 |
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 |
5822123 | Davis et al. | 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 |
6119078 | Kobayakawa et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6119137 | Smith et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6122666 | Beurket et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6134548 | Gottsman | 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 |
6292769 | Flanagan et al. | Sep 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 |
6415270 | Rackson et al. | Jul 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 |
6601759 | Fife et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6615258 | Barry et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6697824 | Bowman-Amuah | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6856963 | Hurwitz | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6859783 | Cogger et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6952678 | Williams et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
7024383 | Mancini et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7177836 | German et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7428505 | Levy et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7433832 | Bezos et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7587359 | Levy et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7778890 | Bezos et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
8290809 | Ratterman et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8612297 | Levy et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8635098 | Ratterman et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
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 | Cuong et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020069200 | Cooper et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020082989 | Fife et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020095305 | Gakidis et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020118225 | Miksovsky | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138402 | Zacharia et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030014318 | De La Motte et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030131232 | Fraser et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030167209 | Hsieh | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040128155 | Vaidyanathan 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 |
20050125826 | Hunleth et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050182660 | Henley | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20070208454 | Forrester et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080065994 | Wang et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080320049 | Levy et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20110231530 | Veres et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120054070 | Flubr et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120089410 | Mikurak | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20130041717 | Ratterman et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20140082063 | Levy et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140136367 | Ratterman et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140249956 | Ratterman et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140258033 | Ratterman et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140258034 | Ratterman et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140258035 | Ratterman et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140258036 | Ratterman et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140258171 | Ratterman et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2253543 | Mar 1997 | CA |
2658635 | Aug 1991 | FR |
2005010978 | Jan 2005 | JP |
9300266 | Sep 1994 | NL |
WO-9517711 | Jun 1995 | WO |
WO-9963461 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO-0165338 | Sep 2001 | WO |
WO-03010621 | Feb 2003 | WO |
WO-03010621 | Feb 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“@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, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2002”, 7 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 May 6, 2003 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 6, 2003”, 4 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 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 Mar. 22, 2011”, 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 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. 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 May 23, 2011 to Final Office Action mailed Mar. 22, 2011”, 16 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 Jul. 27, 2012”, 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. 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. 13/651,661, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2012”, 29 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. |
“Development of a Supporting System for Group Use of Personal Connections Using Collaborative Agents”, Technical Report of IEICE, (1996), 31-36. |
“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. |
“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. |
“Epinions.com”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <http://web.archive.org/web/19991129024603/www.epinions.com/>, (1999), 35 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. 01274337.3, Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed Jul. 23, 2012”, 8 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. |
“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-feedback.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. |
“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. |
“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. |
“PlanetAll Plans to Make a World of Difference in Busy Lives”, PR Newswire, Financial News, (Nov. 13, 1996), 1-3. |
“See the Feedback Profile of an eBay User”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Dec. 5, 2000), 1. |
“Sixdegrees.com”, web.archive.org, (Jan. 19, 2000), 1-15. |
“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-feedback.html>, (Archived Oct. 12, 1999), 4 pgs. |
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. |
Alexander, Steve, “Digital auction: Concept is attracting traditional, new media Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)”, (Mar. 1, 1998), 1-6. |
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. |
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. |
Chicago Tribune, “Amazon.com expands into toys, electronics”, Chicago Tribune, (Jul. 14, 1999), 3;1. |
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. |
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 Newton, “Political Artifacts and Personal Privacy: The Yenta Multi-Agent Distributed Matchmaking System”, (1999), 8 pgs. |
Foner, Leonard N, “Yenta: A Multi-Agent, Referral-Based Matchmaking System”, MIT Media Lab/AMC, retrieved from Google Scholar, (1997), 301-307. |
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. |
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. |
Kautz, et al., “Agent Amplified Communication”, Proceedings of the 13th National Conf on Artificial Intelligence and the 8th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, vol. 1, (1996), 3-9. |
Kautz, et al., “The Hidden Web”, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, (1997), 27-36. |
Kautz, et al., “Welcome to . . . ReferralWeb”, (Apr. 1999), 1-44. |
Kautz, Henry, et al., “Referral Web: Combining Social Networks and Collaborative Filtering”, in Communications of the ACM, 40(3), (Mar. 1997), 63-65. |
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, 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. |
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, Lik, “A Computational Model of Trust and Reputation”, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences—2002, (2002), 9 Pages. |
Nielsen, Jakob, “Reputation Managers are Happening”, useit.com, Alertbox, (Sep. 5, 1999), 4 pages. |
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>, (1997-1999), 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, 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. |
Shah, M.A., “Referral Web: A Resource location system guided by personal relations”, Master's thesis, M.I.T., (May 1997), 1-47. |
Siegmann, Ken, “Nowhere to go but up”, PC Week; vol. 12(42), Ziff-Davis Publishing Company, (Oct. 23, 1995), 1-3. |
Slavin, Robert E, et al., “Improving Intergroup Relations: Lessons Learned from Cooperative Learning Programs”, (1999), 1-25. |
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. |
Vivian, Nathan, “Social Networks in Transnational and Virtual Communities”, Informing Science, InSITE—“Where Parallels Intersect”, (Jun. 2003), 1431-1437. |
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, Giorgis, et al., “Collaborative Reputation Mechanism in Electronic Marketplaces”, IEEE, (1999), 1-7. |
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. |
“Application U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment mailed Dec. 7, 2012”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Final Office Action mailed Jun. 13, 2014”, 20 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 29, 2013”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 4, 2013”, 18 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Mar. 4, 2014 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 4, 2013”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Apr. 24, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 24, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Sep. 15, 2014 to Final Office Action mailed Jun. 13, 2014”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Oct. 29, 2013 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 29, 2013”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, 312 Amendment filed Nov. 14, 2013”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 14, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, PTO Response to 312 Amendment mailed Nov. 22, 2013”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/651,661, Advisory Action mailed Aug. 9, 2013”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/651,661, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 25, 2013”, 24 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/651,661, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 12, 2013”, 28 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/651,661, Response filed Mar. 19, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2012”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/651,661, Response filed Jul. 26, 2013 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 25, 2013”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/651,661, Response filed Aug. 26, 2013 to Advisory Action mailed Apr. 25, 2013”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/086,805, Preliminary Amendment filed Mar. 7, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/159,272, Preliminary Amendment filed Apr. 11, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/282,812, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun. 2, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/283,009, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun. 2, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/283,029, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun.2, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/283,059, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun. 2, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/283,081, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun. 2, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“Application Serial No. 148282,962, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun. 2, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 01274337.3, Decision to Refuse mailed Apr. 8, 2013”, 12 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/50499, International Search Report mailed Apr. 23, 2004”, 2 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/50499, Written Opinion mailed Nov. 3, 2004”, 5 pgs. |
Ba, Sulin, et al., “Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior”, MIS quarterly, vol. 26, No. 3, (Sep. 2002), 246-268. |
Guth, Werner, et al., “The Coevolution of Trust and Institutions in Anonymous and Nonanonymous Communities”, Max Planck Institute for Research into Economic Systems, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://papers.econ.mpg.de/esi/discussionpapers/2002-07>, (Mar. 1, 2002), 21 pgs. |
Ockenfels, Axel, “New Institutional Structures on the Internet: The Economic Design of Online Auctions”, Max Planck Institute for Research into Economic Systems, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: papers.econ.mpg.de>, (Mar. 1, 2002), 25 pgs. |
Tosi, Henry, “The effects of expectation levels and role consensus on the buyer-seller dyad”, The Journal of Business, vol. 39, No. 4, (Oct. 1966), 516-529. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130111364 A1 | May 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09740502 | Dec 2000 | US |
Child | 13722739 | US |