The present invention relates to escrows. More particularly, the present invention relates to an online escrow service.
An escrow service is a licensed and regulated company that collects, holds, and releases an asset according to instructions agreed upon by two transacting parties, such as a purchaser and a seller. The escrow service reduces fraud by acting as a trusted third party for the purchaser and the seller. For example, the escrow service handles real property such as retail, commercial and residential, and high-ticketed personal property such as jewelry, automobiles and boats. When the purchaser receives and approves the real property or the personal property from the seller, the escrow service releases the asset to the seller. However, prior art escrow service suffer from a number of shortcomings. Work products of professional services, such as program source codes, literary writings, and artistic designs, are not handled by the prior art escrow service.
The present invention addresses at least these limitations in the prior art.
An object of the present invention is to provide an online escrow service for buyers and service providers in a services exchange medium. In the services exchange medium, buyers find and hire service providers “on demand” to get projects done quickly and cost effectively. Specifically, buyers post projects and service providers search for projects to work on. The online escrow service is used to secure assets for the projects in escrow until the projects are completed. The assets are then released to the service providers in exchange for services provided.
In one aspect, a method of using an escrow service on a computing device comprises selecting an escrow payment option for a task within a services exchange medium. Typically, the selecting occurs during a posting of the task by a buyer, a bidding of the task by a service provider, or after a completion of the task by the service provider. The task is a milestone for a project. The method also comprises depositing an asset into escrow by the buyer. Typically, the depositing results in a charge to an account belonging to the buyer. The method also comprises releasing the asset from escrow upon a predetermined event. Typically, the predetermined event is the buyer approving a completion of the task, and the asset is released to the service provider. In some embodiments, the method further includes filing a U.S. federal tax form. In other embodiments, the method also comprises utilizing a dispute assistance feature to settle a dispute arising from the task. The dispute assistance feature is self-resolution, dispute support offered by the services exchange medium, or arbitration offered by a third party.
In another aspect, a method of using on a computing device an escrow service within a services exchange medium comprising auto-requesting funding for a task. Typically, the task is a milestone for a project. In some embodiments, the method further comprises accepting the auto-request and depositing an asset into escrow by a buyer. The method also comprises completing the task by a service provider and receiving a notification by the buyer. Typically, the notification is a request-funding message or a release-asset message. In other embodiments, the method further comprises depositing the asset in escrow after receiving the request-funding message. The method also comprises releasing the asset from escrow upon a predetermined event. Typically, the releasing occurs upon the buyer approving a completion of the task, and the asset is released to the service provider. Yet, in other embodiments, the method also comprises filing a U.S. federal tax form and utilizing a dispute assistance feature to settle a dispute arising from the task. The dispute assistance feature is self-resolution, dispute support offered by the services exchange medium, or arbitration offered by a third party.
Yet, in another aspect, a system within a services exchange medium comprises at least one buyer posting a project having at least one task. Typically, the at least one task is a project milestone. The system also comprises at least one service provider obtaining the project, and an escrow service configured to hold an asset for the at least one task in escrow and to release the asset upon an event. Typically, the escrow service is requested during the project posting by the at least one buyer, during a bidding of the project by the at least one service provider, or after a completion of the at least one task by the at least one service provider. Typically, the event is the buyer approving completion of the at least one task. In some embodiments, the escrow service includes a tax filing feature and a dispute assistance feature. Typically, the dispute assistance feature is configured to settle a dispute arising from the at least one task. The dispute assistance feature is self-resolution, dispute support offered by the services exchange medium, or arbitration offered by a third party.
In the following description, numerous details are set forth for purposes of explanation. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the invention may be practiced without the use of these specific details or with equivalent alternatives. Thus, the present invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features described herein.
Reference will now be made in detail to implementations of the present invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The same reference indicators will be used throughout the drawings and the following detailed description to refer to the same or like parts.
An escrow is an arrangement in which an asset is delivered to a third party or escrow agent to be held in trust pending a fulfillment of an agreed-upon condition. Typically, the asset is money. Alternatively, the asset is other property. Upon the fulfillment of the agreed-upon condition, the asset is delivered to a recipient.
Embodiments of the present invention are directed to providing an online escrow service for buyers and service providers within a services exchange medium. Typically, a buyer is an individual or a firm. Likewise, a service provider is an individual or a firm. Preferably, in the services exchange medium, buyers find and hire service providers “on demand” to get projects done quickly and cost effectively. Specifically, buyers post projects and service providers search for projects to work on. The service providers are also able to bid on projects posted by buyers in the services exchange medium. In the services exchange medium, the service provider creates a profile in order to be immediately connected to buyers looking for the service provider's expertise. As such, the services exchange medium is for hiring and working on demand. In some embodiments, buyers are able to view the service provider's profile on a web browser of a computing device. Preferably, the computing device is an Internet-ready device. The computing device is a personal computer, laptop computer, computer workstation, a server, mainframe computer, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, cellular/mobile telephone, smart appliance, gaming console or any other computing device.
The services exchange medium includes online resources configured to facilitate completion by a service provider of a project for a buyer. In some embodiments, the online resources include a private message board to maintain a written record of communication between the buyer and the service provider. The written record can include internal message board posts that originate from inside of the services exchange medium and external email exchanges that originate from outside of the services exchange medium. The communication can include establishment of a plurality of tasks for the job. A finished work product associated with each of the plurality of tasks is transmitted to the buyer via the private message board.
The online resources also include the online escrow service. The online escrow service is used to secure assets for the projects in escrow until the projects are completed. The assets are then released to the service providers in exchange for services provided. As such, the online escrow service advantageously protects both the buyer and the service provider. In some embodiments, the online escrow service is offered at little or no cost to the buyer, the service provider, or both.
In some embodiments, the buyer, the service provider, or both are able to ascribe escrow status to a project or service before engaging.
In some embodiments, if the buyer has not chosen an option for the project, the standard payment option is chosen by default. In other embodiments, the selected option for the project is able to be changed to another after the posting of the project.
In some embodiments, if a project has multiple project milestones, the buyer is able to use the escrow service for a portion of the project milestones and not for another portion of the project milestones. The project as a whole, in some embodiments, is still designated as an escrow project within the services exchange medium.
As mentioned above, the service provider is also able to ascribe escrow status to a posted project that is designated as a standard payment project.
After the buyer chooses the service provider for the project at step 110 of
Typically, the service provider submits the Business Terms to the buyer, and the buyer then reviews, negotiates, modifies, and/or approves the Business Terms before the project is fully awarded to the service provider. In some embodiments, the buyer, the service provider, or both, are able to modify the Business Terms. When one or more terms of a funded project milestone are modified (e.g. details, delivery date, payment schedule, funded amount), the services exchange medium typically issues a full refund back to the buyer's original payment source (e.g. credit card) if the asset has not yet been released to the service provider and the modified Business Terms are accepted by both the buyer and the service provider. The buyer needs to fund the modified milestone once again. In other embodiments, the buyer, the service provider, or both are also able to add additional project milestones as needed within the services exchange medium if and when the project expands in scope. Similarly, a delivery date and an agreed-upon amount need to be established for each of the additional project milestones. A newly added project milestones can be designated to use the standard payment option or the escrow payment option.
After the Business Terms are established and the project is fully awarded to the service provider, at step 210, an auto-request for funding in some embodiments is generated for the first project milestone having designated to use the escrow payment option. In other embodiments, an auto-request for funding is generated for each project milestone having designated to use the escrow payment option. The buyer is able to fund none, a portion, or all of the project milestones before the service provider begins work on one of the project milestones. For purposes of illustration, assume that each project milestone of the project is designated to use the escrow payment option. At step 215, the buyer deposits the asset into escrow. Preferably, the amount of asset deposited into escrow is equal to the total amount agreed-upon for those project milestones selected to be funded.
In some embodiments, the buyer is not able to deposit a partial amount into escrow for a project milestone. Instead, the buyer deposits either no amount or a full amount into escrow for the project milestone. If the buyer does not want to deposit the full amount into escrow for the project milestone, then the buyer is able to request that the service provider agree to modify the Business Terms to include additional project milestones with smaller payments, as discussed above. In other embodiments, the buyer is able to deposit the partial amount into escrow for the project milestone. Typically, the depositing of the asset into escrow results in a charge to a credit card, a bank account, a PayPal account, or another account belonging to the buyer. Yet, in other embodiments, before the buyer authorizes the deposit or funding, the buyer is required to read and agree to a billing and payment service policy of the services exchange medium.
Returning to
After the service provider completes the project milestone, a notification is sent to the buyer at step 120.
If the notification is a request for the asset for the project milestone to be deposited, then the buyer funds the completed project milestone by depositing the asset into escrow at step 315. Preferably, the asset for the project milestone is equal to the agreed-upon amount. As mentioned above, the depositing of the asset into escrow results in a charge to the credit card, the bank account, the PayPal account, or the another account belonging to the buyer.
Returning to
In some embodiments, the buyer is not able to release a partial amount from escrow for the project milestone. Instead, the buyer must release a full amount from escrow for the project milestone. If the buyer does not intend to release the full amount from escrow for the project milestone, the buyer is able to request that the service provider agree to modify the Business Terms with additional project milestones with smaller payments, as discussed above. The buyer is able to make such a request prior, during, or after completion of the project milestone. As such, the buyer is able to release the partial amount to the service provider. In other embodiments, the buyer is able to release the partial amount from escrow for the project milestone.
If a dispute arises regarding the services related to the project milestone at step 130, then the buyer does not release the asset from escrow to the service provider. Instead, dispute assistance takes place at step 135. Preferably, the asset is held in escrow until the dispute is settled. The dispute assistance feature is discussed in detail below.
In some embodiments, the buyer is able to pre-fund one or more project milestones before the service provider begins work on one of the project milestones. Pre-funding a project milestone provides the service provider working on the funded project milestone with a sense of security of knowing that asset is already held in escrow and that the service provider will be paid for the services provided unless a dispute arises. Alternatively, the buyer is able to post-fund a particular project milestone after the service provider completes the particular project milestone. Accordingly, the buyer is able to fund any project milestone at any time.
In other embodiments, the buyer is also able to view information regarding each project milestone at any time within the services exchange medium.
For example, since the first project milestone is funded and an associated asset has been released from escrow, the first project milestone has two corresponding checkmarks 420, as illustrated in
In some embodiments, a sum of the agreed-upon amount for each project milestone 435, a sum of all funded project milestones 440, and a sum of assets released from escrow 445 are displayed in the table 400. Other information displayed in the table 400 is possible. It should be understood that the table 400 is exemplary only and does not serve to limit what and how the information regarding the project milestones is displayed.
Similarly, the service provider is able to view information regarding each project milestone at any time within the services exchange medium. For example, each project milestone is displayed in a table with a delivery date, an agreed-upon amount, a released amount, and a current status. In some embodiments, the table contains other relevant information.
As discussed above, the online escrow service is tied to a completion of a project milestone of a larger project. Alternatively, the online escrow service is tied to a completion of a smaller project having only a single project milestone. Alternatively, the online escrow service is tied to a completion of an Elance-like service.
In some embodiments, the online escrow service has two additional features accessible to buyers within the services exchange medium: a 1099 feature and a dispute assistance feature. Typically, the 1099 feature is only available for U.S. buyers working with U.S. service providers since the U.S. buyers are required to submit 1099 U.S. federal tax forms to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) after an end of a tax year. The I.R.S. imposes penalties on an employer (e.g. an U.S. buyer within the services exchange medium) who has paid an independent contractor (e.g., an U.S. service provider within the services exchange medium) more than $600 for services within one calendar year and has not issued a 1099 U.S. federal tax form. It is the employer's responsibility to issue the 1099 U.S. federal tax form to the I.R.S., not the contractor's. Employers are also subject to a penalty of up to $50 per information return that is filed without the necessary information. As such, for many buyers with multiple projects and service providers, taxes involve a great deal of paperwork.
Within the services exchange medium, the 1099 feature allows the U.S. buyers to file 1099 U.S. federal tax forms at little or no cost to the U.S. buyers. In some embodiments, the U.S. buyers are able to select an option for the services exchange medium to file on the U.S. buyer's behalf. As such, for projects that have been marked for 1099 service, the services exchange medium issues the 1099 U.S. federal tax forms on behalf of the U.S. buyers to the I.R.S. and to the U.S. service providers after the end of the tax year. In other embodiments, a summary report is also provided for the U.S. buyers.
Typically, dispute assistance takes place when a dispute arises at step 130 of
In some embodiments, the dispute assistance feature has three levels of resolving disputes. In a first level, when a dispute arises between the buyer and the service provider, the buyer and the service provider are able to try to resolve the dispute through self-resolution. Preferably, the buyer and the service provider follow a set of rules regarding self-resolution. The set of rules is typically implemented within the services exchange medium. The asset held in escrow is released in part or in full to the service provider after the dispute is settled. Alternatively, the asset held in escrow is returned in part or in full to the buyer after the dispute is settled. In an event that the self-resolution fails to resolve the dispute with a predetermined number of days, the buyer, the service provider, or both are able to utilize dispute support offered by the services exchange medium. In some embodiments, the number of days before the dispute support is utilized is 15. Longer or shorter number of days before the dispute support is utilized is possible.
The dispute support is a second level of dispute assistance. The dispute support is typically utilized when self-resolution fails. Alternatively, dispute support is able to be utilized when either the buyer or the service provider makes a request upon the dispute arising, thereby bypassing the first level of the dispute assistance feature (e.g. self-resolution). In some embodiments, using the dispute support is free and/or is offered at a cost to the buyer, the service provider, or both. The dispute support in some embodiments is a service provided by the services exchange medium.
A third level of dispute assistance is mandatory arbitration by a third party if the dispute support fails to produce an agreement between the parties. Alternatively, the third party arbitrator is able to be utilized when either the buyer or the service provider makes such a request upon the dispute arising, thereby bypassing the first and second levels of the dispute assistance feature (e.g. self-resolution and the dispute support). Typically, decisions made by the third party arbitrator are binding. In the event that the dispute support and the third party arbitration are both requested, the dispute support is first utilized; if the dispute support fails to produce an agreement between the parties, then the third party arbitrator is used. Alternatively, the third party arbitration is utilized. In some embodiments, using the third party arbitrator is free and/or is offered at a cost to the buyer, the service provider, or both.
In some embodiments, when resolving the dispute using the second or the third level of dispute assistance, the entity (e.g. the services exchange medium or the third party arbitrator) reviews the Business Terms and all documents submitted within the services exchange medium for the project. The entity calls the buyer and the service provider to arrange a mediation conference call. Preferably, the goal of the conference call is to resolve the dispute and deliver joint written instructions to the services exchange medium concerning the release of the asset. Typically, the entity does not make a determination of or assess blame. Preferably, the entity acts to facilitate discussion between the service provider and the buyer to foster a resolution of the dispute.
In some embodiments, if the project milestone has not yet been funded by the buyer, or the asset has already been released to the service provider, then the first and the second levels of the dispute assistance feature cannot be utilized, as the asset does not exist or no longer exists in escrow. In other embodiments, the first and/or the second levels of the dispute assistance feature are only available if the project is an escrow project, a contract between the service provider and the buyer exists within the services exchange medium, and the asset is still held in escrow. In some embodiments, the contract includes Business Terms.
The online escrow service advantageously protects both the buyer and the service provider. The online escrow service in some embodiments is tied to delivery of a service, specifically, a completion of a project milestone. In some embodiments, one or more status reports generated during the completion of the project milestone are also delivered as part of the service to the buyer. Typically, after the buyer reviews the deliverables completed by the service provider, and to the satisfaction of the buyer, the fund in escrow (for the project milestone) is released to the service provider. The online escrow service is a self-service utility that enables the service provider to request a fund, and the buyer to provide and release funds electronically.
The online escrow service in some embodiments is able to support fixed-price services, hourly contracted services, or both. The online escrow service is able to support services exchanged via the services exchange medium. Alternatively or in addition, the online escrow service is able to support remote work performed on a contract basis.
The present invention has been described in terms of specific embodiments incorporating details to facilitate the understanding of principles of construction and operation of the invention. Such reference herein to specific embodiments and details thereof is not intended to limit the scope of the claims appended hereto. A person skilled in the art would appreciate that various modifications and revisions to the online escrow service will occur. Consequently, the claims should be broadly construed, consistent with the spirit and scope of the invention, and should not be limited to their exact, literal meaning.
This patent application is a divisional application which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 121 of the co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/287,997, filed Oct. 14, 2008, entitled “Online Escrow Service” which in turn claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of the U.S. provisional application, Ser. No. 60/999,147, filed Oct. 15, 2007, and entitled “Online Escrow Service.” This application incorporates both U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/287,997, filed Oct. 14, 2008, entitled “Online Escrow Service, and U.S. provisional application, Ser. No. 60/999,147, filed Oct. 15, 2007, and entitled “Online Escrow Service,” in their entirety by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4703325 | Chamberlin et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
5008853 | Bly et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5220657 | Bly et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5548506 | Srinivasan | Aug 1996 | A |
5557515 | Abbruzzese et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5592620 | Chen et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5664115 | Fraser | Sep 1997 | A |
5715402 | Popolo | Feb 1998 | A |
5732400 | Mandler et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5794207 | Walker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5835896 | Fisher et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5842178 | Giovannoli | Nov 1998 | A |
5862223 | Walker et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5905975 | Ausubel | May 1999 | A |
5924082 | Silverman et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5949976 | Chappelle | Sep 1999 | A |
5956715 | Glasser et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5966130 | Benman, Jr. | Oct 1999 | A |
5987498 | Athing et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6009154 | Rieken et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6041307 | Ahuja et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6049777 | Sheena et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061665 | Bahreman | May 2000 | A |
6064980 | Jacobi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078906 | Huberman | Jun 2000 | A |
6092049 | Chislenko et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101482 | DiAngelo et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119101 | Peckover | Sep 2000 | A |
6119149 | Notani | Sep 2000 | A |
6128624 | Papierniak et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141653 | Conklin et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6154731 | Monks et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6161099 | Harrington et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6208659 | Covindarajan et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6223177 | Tatham et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226031 | Barraclough et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233600 | Salas et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6311178 | Bi et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6336105 | Conklin et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6374292 | Srivastava et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385620 | Kurzius et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6415270 | Rackson et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6415284 | D'Souza et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442528 | Notani et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6484153 | Walker et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6557035 | McKnight | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6564246 | Varma et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6567784 | Bukow | May 2003 | B2 |
6598026 | Ojha et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6618734 | Williams | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6662194 | Joao | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6735570 | Lacy et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6832176 | Hartigan et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6859523 | Jilk | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6871181 | Kansai | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6931385 | Halstead et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6938048 | Jilk et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
7069242 | Sheth et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7096193 | Beaudoin | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7155400 | Jilk et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7310415 | Short | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7346535 | Younger | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7406443 | Fink et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7437327 | Lam et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7444374 | Baker | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7466810 | Quon | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7505919 | Richardson | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7587336 | Wallgreen et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7752080 | Greener | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7778938 | Stimac | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7814085 | Pfleger et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7966265 | Schalk et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8024225 | Sirota et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8024670 | Rahmatian | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8156051 | Shah | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8224755 | Goodman et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8380709 | Diller et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8504403 | Deich | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8512143 | Jung | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8517742 | Johnson | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8682683 | Ananian | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8700694 | Archbold | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8843388 | Westfall | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8856670 | Thakur et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
9020271 | Deolalikar et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9454576 | Kapoor | Sep 2016 | B1 |
20010011222 | McLauchlin et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010034630 | Mayer | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010034688 | Annunziata | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010041988 | Lin | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020007300 | Slatter | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010685 | Ashby | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020023046 | Callahan et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020032576 | Abbott et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020052773 | Kraemer | May 2002 | A1 |
20020054138 | Hennum | May 2002 | A1 |
20020069031 | Lehman | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078432 | Charisius et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020103687 | Kipling | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120522 | Yang | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120554 | Vega | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129139 | Ramesh | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133365 | Grey et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020161707 | Cole | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020194077 | Dutta | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194112 | dePinto et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004738 | Chander | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014294 | Yoneyama et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030046155 | Himmel et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030050811 | Freeman, Jr. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055780 | Hansen et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061266 | Ouchi | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030086608 | Frost | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101126 | Cheung et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030120603 | Kojima et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030182171 | Vianello | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030191684 | Lumsden et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212246 | Eleveld | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030220843 | Lam et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030233372 | Warner | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040063463 | Boivin | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040103167 | Grooters et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040122926 | Moore et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128224 | Dabney et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040215560 | Amalraj | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230466 | Davis et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040230511 | Kannan | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040230521 | Broadbent et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040241627 | Delfing | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040243428 | Black | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050033633 | LaPasta | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050043998 | Bross et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050097613 | Ulate et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050131830 | Juarez et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050177380 | Pritchard et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050222907 | Pupo | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060031177 | Rule | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060074708 | Woods | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060080116 | Maguire | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060106846 | Schulz | May 2006 | A1 |
20060122850 | Ward et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136324 | Barry et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143228 | Odio-Paez | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060155609 | Caiafa | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060177041 | Warner et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195428 | Peckover | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060212359 | Hudgeon | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060284838 | Tsatalos | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005536 | Caswell et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070022040 | Gordon | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070027746 | Grabowich | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070027792 | Smith | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061144 | Grichnik et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070067196 | Usui | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078699 | Scott et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070088601 | Money et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070112671 | Rowan | May 2007 | A1 |
20070130059 | Lee | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070162379 | Skinner | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174180 | Shin | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174394 | Jayaweera | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070185723 | Shellnutt | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192130 | Sandhu | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070233510 | Howes | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080010598 | Smilowitz et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080046834 | Yu et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059267 | Hamilton | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080059523 | Schmidt et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065444 | Stroman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080082662 | Dandliker et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091774 | Taylor et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080104495 | Craig | May 2008 | A1 |
20080109491 | Gupta | May 2008 | A1 |
20080134292 | Ariel et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154783 | Rule et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080184135 | Washburn et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080194228 | Pousti et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209417 | Jackobson | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080244582 | Brown et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080288582 | Pousti et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294505 | Markowitz et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294631 | Malhas et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294688 | Brousard | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080313005 | Nessland et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090011395 | Schmidt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090017788 | Doyle et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090055404 | Heiden et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055476 | Marcus et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090112728 | Evers et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090116403 | Callanan et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132345 | Meyssami et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090150386 | Lichtblau | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090177691 | Manfredi et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090199185 | Slawson et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090210282 | Elenbaas et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090241035 | Tseng et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241172 | Sennett et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090249340 | Akiyama et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090288021 | Ioffe et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090327081 | Wang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100017253 | Butler et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100088749 | Steeples | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115040 | Sargent et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100144318 | Cable | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100161503 | Foster | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100162167 | Stallings et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100250322 | Norwood | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100287525 | Wagner | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100324948 | Kumar et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110106762 | Dane et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110107088 | Eng et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110131146 | Skutnik | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110208665 | Hirsch | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110238768 | Habets et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110302053 | Rigole | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120041832 | Sheth et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120110087 | Culver et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120143952 | Von Graf | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120150761 | Ananian | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20130246294 | Pendyala et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130325734 | Bixler et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140074738 | Thankappan et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140108078 | Davis | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140164271 | Forman et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140222493 | Mohan et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140358646 | Said et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140377723 | Strong | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150032654 | Huff | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150134600 | Eisner et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20160012135 | Wang et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 952 536 | Oct 1999 | EP |
WO 0173645 | Oct 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
morebusiness.com, “How to Write Winning Business Proposals: Writing Strategies,” cited in Office Action dated Oct. 6, 2011, <http://www.morebusiness.com/running_your_business/management/v1n11.brc>, published Aug. 1, 1998. |
ants.com web pages [online]. Ants.com [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2008]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.ants.com/ants/>. |
bizbuyer.com web pages [online]. BizBuyer.com, Inc. [retrieved Aug. 18-21, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.bizbuyer.com/>. |
BullhornPro web pages [online]. Bullhorn, Inc. [retrieved on Jan. 4, 2001]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.bullhornpro.com/>. |
Cassidy, M., “Going for Broke,” San Jose Mercury News, Monday, Aug. 16, 1999, pp. 1E and 4E, published in San Jose, CA. |
Davenport, Thomas H. and Keri Pearlson, “Two Cheers for the Virtual Office,” Summer 1998, abstract, retrieved from the Internet: <Url: http://www.pubservice.com/MSStore?ProductDetails.aspx?CPC=3944>. |
efrenzy.com web pages [online]. eFrenzy, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.efrenzy.com/index.isp>. |
Eisenberg, D. “We're for Hire, Just Click,” Time Magazine, Aug. 16, 1999, vol. 154, No. 7 [online] [retrieved on Aug. 19, 1999]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,29393,00.html>. |
eworkexchange.com web pages [online]. eWork Exchange, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 18-22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.eworks.com/>. |
eWork Exchange web pages [online]. eWork Exchange, Inc. [retrieved on Jan. 5, 2001]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.eworks.com/>. |
eWork ProSource web pages [online]. eWork Exchange, Inc. [retrieved on Jan. 3, 2001]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.ework.com/>. |
FeeBid.com web pages [online]. FeeBid.com [retrieved on Dec. 18, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.feebid.com>. |
freeagent.com web pages [online]. FreeAgent.com [retrieved Aug. 18-22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.freeagent.com/>. |
guru.com.com web pages [online]. Guru.com, Inc. [retrieved Aug. 18, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.guru.com/>. |
Herhold, S., “Expert Advice is Collectible for Start-up,” San Jose Mercury News, Monday, Aug. 16, 1999, pp. 1E and 6E, San Jose, CA. |
hotdispatch.com web pages [online]. HotDispatch, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.hotdispatch.com/>. |
“IBNL Forges Into the Future of Buying and Selling with Source Interactive Software,” PR Newswire, Jan. 10, 1996. [replacement copy retrieved on May 4, 2009]. Retrieved from Internet: <URL: http://www.highbeam.com>. |
Humphreys, Paul et al., “A Just-in-Time Evaluation Strategy for International Procurement,” MCB UP Limited, 1998, pp. 1-11. |
imandi.com web pages [online]. Imandi Corporation [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.imandi.com/>. |
Malone, Thomas W. et al., “The Dawn of the E-Lance Economy,” Harvard Business Review, Sep.-Oct. 1998, pp. 145-152. |
“Netscape Selects Netopia as the Exclusive ‘Virtual Office’ Offering on the New Netscape Small Business Source Service,” PR Newswire, May 11, 1998, Mountain View and Alameda, California. |
onvia.com web pages [online]. Onvia.com [retrieved Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.onvia.com/usa/home/index.cfm>. |
Opus360 web pages [online]. Opus360 Corporation [retrieved on Jan. 3, 2001] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.opus360com/>. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US06/22734, dated Jun. 3, 2008, 5 pages. |
smarterwork.com web pges [online]. smarterwork.com, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.smarterwork.com/>. |
workexchange.com web pages [online]. WorkExchange, Inc. [retrieved Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.workexange.com/unique/workexchange/index1.cfm>. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 18, 2011, U.S. Appl. No. 12/287,997, filed Oct. 14, 2008, Jonathan Paul Diller et al. |
Shalil Majithia et al, “Reputation-based Semantic Service Discovery”, Department of Computer Science, Cardiff University, UK, 13th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE '04) pp. 1-6. |
Ziqiang Xu et al., “Reputation-Enhanced QoS-based Web Services Discovery”, School of Computing, Queen's University, Jul. 2007, pp. 1-8. |
Massimo Paolucci et al. “Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities” Carnegie Mellon University, 2002, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, p. 333-347. |
Office Action dated Aug. 28, 2012, U.S. Appl. No. 13/109,799, filed May 17, 2011, Jonathan Paul Diller et al. |
Office Action dated May 8, 2013, U.S. Appl. No. 12/755,304, filed Apr. 6, 2010, Jonathan Paul Diller et al. |
Final Office Action dated Mar. 13, 2013, U.S. Appl. No. 13/109,799, filed May 17, 2011, Jonathan P. Diller et al. |
Office Action dated Jul. 30, 2013, U.S. Appl. No. 12/281,997, filed Oct. 14, 2008, Jonathan Paul Diller et al. |
Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2013, U.S. Appl. No. 13/109,799, filed May 17, 2011, Jonathan Paul Diller et al. |
Office Action dated Nov. 26, 2013, U.S. Appl. No. 12/287,997, filed Oct. 14, 2008, Jonathan Paul Diller et al. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 10, 2014, U.S. Appl. No. 12/287,997, filed Oct. 14, 2008, Jonathan Paul Diller et al. |
University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire LTS Online Help Documentation, Microsoft Excel 2003/2004, using the Sort Command, https://web.archive.org/web/20080311184836/http://www.uwec.edu/Help/Exce103/srtcom.htm,Mar. 11, 2008,retrieved Oct. 1, 2014. |
Final Office Action dated Feb. 9, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 13/109,799, filed May 17, 2011, Jonathan Paul Diller, 26 pages. |
Office Action dated Apr. 30, 2015, U.S. Appl. No. 12/287,997, filed Oct. 14, 2008, Jonathan Paul Diller. |
Muhl, Charles J. “What is an Employee—The Answer Depends on the Federal Law.” Monthly Lab. Rev. 125(2002): 9 pages. |
Barton, Lisa Horwedel “Reconciling the independent contractor versus employee dilemma: a discussion of current developments as they relate to employee benefit plans.” Cap. UL Rev 29 (2001): 63 pages. |
Moran, Jenna Amato “Independent Contractor or Employee-Misclassification of Workers and Its Effect of the State.” Buff. Pub. Int. LJ 28 (2009): 28 pages. |
Webb, Teresa J., et al. “An empirical assist in resolving the classification dilemma of workers as either employees or independent contractors.” Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR) 24. (2011): 22 pages. |
Wood, Robert W. “Defining Employees and Independent Contractors.” Bus. L. Today 17 (2007): 6 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60999147 | Oct 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12287997 | Oct 2008 | US |
Child | 13109818 | US |