The present application relates generally to data processing.
In addition to access convenience, one of the advantages offered by network-based transaction facilities (e.g., business-to-business, business-to-consumer and consumer-to-consumer Internet marketplaces and retailers) and on-line communities is that participants within such facilities or communities may provide feedback to the facility, to other users of the facility and to members of an on-line community regarding any number of topics.
For example, an Internet-based retailer may provide a feedback mechanism whereby customers may provide feedback, in the form of comments or opinions, regarding goods or services offered for sale by the retailer. An Internet-based bookstore may, for example, provide a feedback mechanism whereby comments or opinions regarding particular books may he submitted via a website operated by the book retailer. Such comments are then displayed within a web page, pertaining to the relevant book, generated by the Internet-based book retailer. Such comments and feedback are useful in assisting a purchaser with a buying decision.
For users of a network-based transaction facility, such as an Internet-based auction facility, feedback regarding other users is particularly important for enhancing user trust of the transaction facility. Indeed, a history of positive feedback for a trader that routinely uses an Internet-based auction facility may be particularly valuable and useful in providing other traders with a degree of confidence regarding a specific trader. Accordingly, a positive feedback history may establish the credibility and trustworthiness of a particular trader within an on-line trading community. Similarly, a history of negative feedback may discourage other traders from transacting with a specific trader.
The present application is illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings, in which like references indicate similar elements and in which:
A method and system for harvesting feedback information, comments and opinions regarding multiple items from users of a network-based transaction facility are described. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present application. It will be evident, however, to one skilled in the art that the present application may be practiced without these specific details.
For the purposes of the present specification, the term “transaction” shall be taken to include any communications between two or more entities and shall be construed to include, but not be limited to, commercial transactions including sale and purchase transactions, auctions and the like.
The auction facility 10 includes one or more of a number of types of front-end servers, namely page servers 12 that deliver web pages (e.g., markup language documents), picture servers 14 that dynamically deliver images to be displayed within Web pages, listing servers 16, CGI servers 18 that provide an intelligent interface to the back-end of facility 10, and search servers 20 that handle search requests to the facility 10. E-mail servers 21 provide, inter alia, automated e-mail communications to users of the facility 10.
The back-end servers include a database engine server 22, a search index server 24 and a credit card database server 26, each of which maintains and facilitates access to a respective database.
The Internet-based auction facility 10 may be accessed by a client program 30, such as a browser (e.g., the Internet Explorer distributed by Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Wash.) that executes on a client machine 32 and accesses the facility 10 via a network such as, for example, the Internet 34. Other examples of networks that a client may utilize to access the auction facility 10 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.
Central to the database 23 is a user table 40, which contains a record for each user of the auction facility 10. A user may operate as a seller, buyer, or both, within the auction facility 10. The database 23 also includes item tables 42 that may be linked to the user table 40. Specifically, the tables 42 include a seller items table 44 and a bidder items table 46. A user record in the user table 40 may be linked to multiple items that are being, or have been, auctioned via the facility 10. A link indicates whether the user is a seller or a bidder (or buyer) with respect to items for which records exist within the item tables 42. The database 23 also includes a note table 48 populated with note records that may be linked to one or more item records within the item tables 42 and/or to one or more user records within the user table 40. Each note record within the table 48 may include, inter alia, a comment, description, history or other information pertaining to an item being auction via the auction facility 10, or to a user of the auction facility 10.
A number of other tables are also shown to be linked to the user table 40, namely a user past aliases table 50, a feedback table 52, a feedback details table 53, a bids table 54, an accounts table 56, an account balances table 58 and a transaction record table 60.
It should be noted that, in one embodiment, an entry is only created in the transaction record table 60 for transactions that have been established, for example, by the conclusion of an auction process, or by some other offer and acceptance mechanism between the purchaser and the seller.
The feedback details table 53 includes an item number column 84 including an item identifier that points to a record within the item tables 42. A comment column 86 stores, for each entry, the actual text of the feedback, comment, or opinion. A type column 88, in one embodiment, stores indication as to whether the comment is positive, negative or neutral. A date column 90 stores, for each entry, the date on which the feedback, comment or opinion was delivered. A response column 92 stores the text of a response submitted by a user (e.g., a user to which the original comment pertained) in response to the comment text stored in column 86. Similarly, a rebuttal column 94 stores the text of a rebuttal to such a response.
A commentator column 96 stores the user identifier of the user that submitted the original comment, stored in column 86, for the entry. A commentee column 98 stores the user identifier of the user to which comment may have been directed.
It will be appreciated that further dates and other descriptive information may also populate the feedback details table 53.
In order to facilitate the convenient provision of feedback by users of the auction facility 10 pertaining to a transaction (e.g., an auction transaction) in which a user participated, the present application proposes a method and system whereby a user may conveniently provide feedback pertaining to multiple transactions. By facilitating the harvesting of multiple feedbacks for a multiple transaction via a unified mechanism, the application addresses the inconvenience of tracking down multiple auctions via other indirect channels or mechanisms that may be provided by web site. In one embodiment, the present application facilitates the provision of multiple feedbacks pertaining to respective multiple transactions via a single interface (e.g., a markup language page interface). While the present application is discussed within the context of providing feeding regarding transactions within a user is participated, it will readily be appreciated that the present application may be extended to providing multiple feedbacks, comments or opinions pertaining to respective multiple products, events or other entities. For example, a book reviewer, utilizing the teachings of the present application, may conveniently provide comments, reviews or opinions pertaining to multiple books.
The sequence 100 of interfaces shown in
On the ending of an auction, and the identification of winning bidder, the auction facility 10, via the e-mail servers 21, issues an end-of-auction e-mail 102 to both the winning bidder and the seller advising both parties of the outcome of the auction, and providing respective contact details to allow the parties to contact each other.
The interface sequence 100 commences with a logon interface 108 through which a user of the facility 10 provides at least a user identifier and associated password. The logon interface 108 may be accessed, in one embodiment, via three mechanisms, namely an end-of-auction e-mail 102, a view item (auction ended) interface 104 or a feedback services interface 106, each of which comprises a markup language document (e.g., HTML document) including a hypertext link to an object (which will be described in further details below) that generates the logon interface 108 as well as further interfaces of the sequence 100. The end-of-auction e-mail 102, as noted above, is communicated by the e-mail servers 21 of the auction facility 10 to both a winning bidder and a seller upon the end of the auction process, the e-mail 102 notifying respective parties about the end of the auction and also providing contact details. The view item (auction ended) interface 104 is presented to a user, at conclusion of an auction, when seeking further information regarding the item that was the subject of the auction. For example, upon conclusion of an auction, a textual description of the subject of the auction may be hypertext linked to generate the interface 104. The feedback services interface 106 may be accessed, for example, through a site navigation menu or toolbar that presents the option to a. user of leaving feedback. The feedback services interface 106 is typically used to leave feedback where a user does not know the item number identifying an item or where a user wishes to view feedback concerning multiple auctions within which t user has been a participant within a predetermined period of time (e.g., the past 60 days).
The interface 108, and subsequent interfaces 110-116, are generated by a collection of objects (or methods), exemplary embodiments of which are illustrated in
The object 118 similarly issues a call to a “GetBidderListForFeedback” object 124 that retrieves a list of bidders and items from the transaction record table 60 of the database 23 where the bidders have both items from a specific user identified by an inputted user identifier. The object 124 similarly uses the “UserItemRecord” vector to pass bidder and item information to the object 118.
The interfaces 108-116 will now be described within the context of a method 128, according to one embodiment of the present application, of harvesting feedbacks, comments or opinions regarding multiple items from users of a network based transaction facility. The method 128 is illustrated by the flow chart indicated in
The method 128 commences with a logon confirmation operation at block 130 performed utilizing a user identifier and a password. Specifically, the logon interface 108, an exemplary embodiment of which is illustrated in
Returning to
In one embodiment, the predetermined time period may be a default value that is automatically specified. In an alternative embodiment, a “time frame” input field may be provided within the logon interface 108, utilizing which a commentator user may specify the predetermined time period.
At decision box 134, the object 118 makes a determination as to whether more than a predetermined number (e.g., 25) transaction records are retrieved from the transaction record table 60 at block 132. Following a positive determination at decision box 134, at block 136, the object 118 retrieves a first template (e.g., an ISAPI page) that provides for pagination and includes a filter field, as will be described in further detail below. Following a negative determination at decision box 134, the object 118 retrieves a second template (e.g., an ISAPI page) that, while facilitating pagination, does not provide a filter field.
At block 138, the template retrieved at block 136 or 140 is populated by ISAPI code, utilizing the contents of the “UserItemRecord” vectors 126 returned by the objects 122 and/or 124 to generate a feedback interface (e.g., the multiple feedback interface 110 or 114).
At block 142, the feedback interface generated at block 138 (e.g., HTML code) is communicated, via the Internet 34, to the client program 30 (e.g., a browser) for display.
At decision box 144, a determination is made as to whether a filter criterion has been applied to the transaction records by a commentator user. If so, at block 146, the object 118 may issue fresh calls to the objects 122 and 124 to retrieve a modified list of transaction and user information. In an alternative embodiment, the object 118 may simply discard objects (or vectors) previously returned by the objects 122 and 124 that do not meet the filter criteria.
At block 148, feedback information, comments or opinions are received at the auction facility 10 from the client program 30 and specifically from the relevant interface communicated at block 142. The feedback information may, in one embodiment, include a number of feedback items, each feedback item including date information specifying a date on which the feedback was provided, comment information providing the actual textual content of the feedback, type information indicating whether the feedback is positive, negative or neutral, user identifier information identifying both the commentator and the target (or commentee) users and any other pertinent information. In exemplary embodiments, which are further described below, the feedback interfaces may comprise markup language documents (e.g., HTML pages) that include radio buttons or check boxes that may be utilized to identify whether a feedback item is provided with respect to an underlying information item (e.g., an auction) and that may also be utilized to identify the type of feedback being provided (e.g., positive, negative or neutral).
At block 150, the object 118 makes a call to the “LeaveFeedbackToMultipleUsers” object 120 to create multiple instances of the object 120, each object containing the details of each of the feedback items received at block 148. Accordingly, instances of the object 120 may be viewed as containers for each of the feedback items.
Proceeding to
At block 154, ISAPI calls are issued from each of the objects 120 to populate the database 23, and more specifically the feedback table 52 and the feedback details table 53, with the information contained in the instances of the objects 120, which operation is then actually performed at block 156. Following block 156, the method 128 then ends.
Having now described server-side operations with respect to
As stated above with respect to
At block 204, the client program 30 then proceeds to display transaction identifier information for a plurality of transactions within a single interface.
At block 206, a feedback input field 238 is displayed to indicate an association between the input field and the transaction identifier information. For example, referring again to the exemplary feedback interface 110 shown in
At block 208, the interface then receives user-inputted feedback information (e.g., comments or opinions) via the feedback input field 238. This feedback may be provided by an alpha-numeric input device, such as a keyboard, or by voice recognition software. In an alternative embodiment of the application, the input field 238 may be replaced by a voice recording mechanism that allows the commentator user to leave voice feedback by initiating a recording process.
At block 210, the method 200 displays a type input mechanism adjacent the identifier information for each transaction, the type input mechanism allowing a commentator user to specify type information (e.g., positive, negative or neutral) feedback for the relevant transaction. Referring again to
At block 214, the method 200 displays a “skip” input 242, in the exemplary form of a radio button or check box, adjacent the identification information for each transaction displayed within the interface.
As is well known in the art, within HTML a check box or radio button is defined by TYPE, NAME and VALUE specifiers, where the TYPE specifier specifies either a check box or a radio button, the NAME specifier specifies a variable where a return value will be stored and the VALUE specifier stores what will be returned in the variable if the check box is checked, or the radio button is selected. Accordingly, feedback type and skip indications may be communicated from the interface 110 in pairs to an ISAPI function implemented by the objects as described above. Each information pair may comprise, for example, a name and a value.
At block 216, the interface 110 receives the user inputted skip information (or identification) via the skip input 242.
At decision box 218, a determination is made as to whether the user selects a “submit” button to communicate the information inputted via the interface 110 to the server side. If not, the method 200 loops through blocks 204-216. Alternatively, if the user does select the “submit” button at decision box 218, at block 220, field identifier and field content information (e.g., feedback, type information and skip information) is communicated in pairs from the client program 30 to the server side. The method 200 then ends at block 222.
Further descriptions of exemplary user interfaces will now he described with reference to
The number of feedback windows 244 displayed in a single interface is limited (e.g., 25), and accordingly the interface 110 provides retreat and advance buttons 246 and 248 that allow a commentator user to retreat to a previous collection of feedback windows 244, or advance to a subsequent collection of feedback windows 244.
The “exceeds threshold” feedback interface 110 furthermore includes a filter criteria input field 250, into which a commentator user may input a user identifier, or item number, to limit the number of transactions, or items, pertaining to which feedback is to be submitted. For example, where the number of transactions fir which the commentator may leave feedback exceeds a predetermined threshold (e.g., 50), the filter allows a commentator user to reduce the number of transactions by specifying only transactions involving a particular user or pertaining to a specific item. in alternative embodiments, the filter criteria may comprise a keyword on which a search is done to locate any transactions for which the descriptions contain relevant keywords. The filter mechanism underlying the filter criteria input field 250 allows a commentator user conveniently to limit the number of feedbacks displayed within an interface, and also conveniently to identify specific transactions for which the commentator user wishes to leave feedback.
To this end,
In summary, it will be appreciated that the above described interfaces, and underlying technologies, provide a convenient vehicle for the inputting of feedback, comments or opinions regarding multiple items, or transactions, via a single user interface.
The computer system 300 includes a processor 302, a main memory 304 and a static memory 306, which communicate with each other via a bus 308. The computer system 300 may further include a video display unit 310 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). The computer system 300 also includes an alpha-numeric input device 312 (e.g. a keyboard), a cursor control device 314 (e.g. a mouse), a disk drive unit 316, a signal generation device 320 (e.g. a speaker) and a network interface device 322
The disk drive unit 316 includes a machine-readable medium 324 on which is stored a set of instructions (i.e., software) 326 embodying any one, or all, of the methodologies described above. The software 326 is also shown to reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 304 and/or within the processor 302. The software 326 may further be transmitted or received via the network interface device 322. For the purposes of this specification, the term “machine-readable medium” shall be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing or encoding a sequence of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one of the methodologies of the present application. The term “machine-readable medium” shall accordingly be taken to included, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic disks.
Thus, methods and systems for harvesting comments regarding users on a network-based facility have been described. Although the present application has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments, it will be evident that various modifications and changes may be made to these embodiments without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the application. Accordingly, the specification and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/202,145, filed on Aug. 29, 2008, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/758,196, filed on Jun. 5, 2007, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,587,359 on Sep. 8, 2009, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/515,575, filed on Feb. 29, 2000, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,428,505 on Sep. 23, 2008, the benefit of priority of each of which is claimed hereby, and each of which are 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 |
5416903 | Malcolm | May 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 |
6119078 | Kobayakawa et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6119137 | Smith et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6122666 | Beurket 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 |
6216539 | Johnson et al. | Apr 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 |
6606581 | Crofoot et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
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 |
6963848 | Brinkerhoff | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7024383 | Mancini et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7031952 | Heumann et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7065494 | Evans | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7096193 | Beaudoin et al. | Aug 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 | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8612297 | Levy et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8635098 | Ratterman et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
9015585 | Boone | Apr 2015 | 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 | Do | 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 |
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 |
20130111364 | Boone et al. | May 2013 | 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 |
20150227990 | Boone et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2253543 | Mar 1997 | CA |
2658635 | Aug 1991 | FR |
2005010978 | Jan 2005 | JP |
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-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, 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 Feb. 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, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 29, 2013”, 18 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”, 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 Apr. 24, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 24, 2013”, 9 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, Response filed Oct. 29, 2013 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 29, 2013”, 11 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, Amendment filed Nov. 14, 2013”, 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 Aug. 14, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 3, 2010”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, PTO Response to 312 Communication mailed Nov. 22, 2013”, 2 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, 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, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2012”, 29 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. |
“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”, with English translation of claims, 9 pgs. |
“Chinese Application Serial No. 01822389.3, Response filed Jul. 24, 2007 to Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2007”, with English translation of claims, 19 pgs. |
“Development of a Supporting System for Group Use of Personal Connections Using Collaborative Agents”, Technical Report of IEICE, (1996), 31-36. |
“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, Decision to Refuse mailed Apr. 8, 2013”, 12 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, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http:/lweb.an:hive.orglweb/19971210214122/http://www. sixdegrees.coml( 1/10/20 11 > (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. |
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. |
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. |
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 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. |
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. |
Kautz, Henry, 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, Henry, et al., “Referral Web: Combining Social Networks and Collaborative Filtering”, Communications of the ACM, 40(3), (Mar. 1997), 63-65. |
Kautz, Henry, et al., “The Hidden Web”, AI Magazine, vol. 18, No. 2, (1997), 27-36. |
Kautz, Henry, et al., “Welcome to . . . ReferralWeb”, (Apr. 1999), 1-44. |
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, (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. |
Shah, M.A., “Referral Web: A Resource location system guided by personal relations”, Masters 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”, Journal of Social Issues, (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. |
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, 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. |
“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, 2014”, 11 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. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Examiner Interview Summary mailed May 4, 2015”, 3 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. 23. 2015”, 32 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 23, 2015”, 26 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Jun. 23, 2015 to Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 23, 2015”, 20 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. 13/722,739, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 29, 2014”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/722,739, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 22, 2014”, 5 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. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/690,635, Pre-Interview First Office Action mailed Jul. 15, 2015”, 4 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/690,635, Preliminary Amendment filed Apr. 23, 2015”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/690,635, Supplemental Amendment filed May 13, 2015”, 7 pgs. |
“Application Serial No. 148282,962, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun. 2, 2014”, 7 pgs. |
Akerlof, George A, “The market for lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism, The quarterly journal of economics, (1970), 14 pgs. |
Greif, A, “Reputation and coalitions in medieval trade: evidence on the Maghribi traders”, The journal of economic history, (1989), 27 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Aug. 24, 2015”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Oct. 23, 2015 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 23, 2015”, 19 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/690,635, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 23, 2015”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 14/690,635, Response to Pre-Interview First Office Action filed Sep. 15, 2015”, 8 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140082063 A1 | Mar 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12202145 | Aug 2008 | US |
Child | 14086805 | US | |
Parent | 11758196 | Jun 2007 | US |
Child | 12202145 | US | |
Parent | 09515575 | Feb 2000 | US |
Child | 11758196 | US |