This invention relates generally to the telecommunication field, and more specifically to a new and useful system and method for pricing communication of a telecommunication platform in the telecommunication field.
Usage of a telecommunication infrastructure is accompanied by cost. Traditionally, end users were required to agree to contracts that locked the customer into a payment plan. Service providers additionally operate through contracts based on infrastructure and communication usage. In recent years, telecommunication platforms have emerged that integrate with internet based technologies allowing more interactive and application driven communications over channels such as PSTN, SMS, MMS, and the like. However, the contract-based ecosystem of telecommunication limits the way that such platforms can be offered. Thus, there is a need in the telecommunication field to create a new and useful system and method for pricing communications of a telecommunication platform. This invention provides such a new and useful system and method.
The following description of preferred embodiments of the invention is not intended to limit the invention to these preferred embodiments, but rather to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use this invention.
1. System for Pricing Communication of a Telecommunication Platform
As shown in
The telecommunication platform 100 of the preferred embodiment functions to provide a wide variety of communication channels to multiple entities. The telecommunication platform 100 can be any suitable type of communication platform. The platform is preferably multitenant. In other words, multiple users, customers, developers, companies preferably share use of the infrastructure of the platform. These accounts, their sub-accounts, groups of accounts (e.g., regional areas), and other segments within the platform can have different pricing agreements. As such, there may be multiple different pricing contracts that are configured for a sub-set of the communication on the platform. In some implementations, accounts may include sub-accounts. In many instances, an account used to implement an application is offered to a number of sub-accounts. In this situation, the pricing system can be used to offer customized pricing to the sub-account holders. Additionally, an account can manage multiple endpoints (e.g., telephone numbers, short codes, SIP addresses, or any suitable communication destination/origin point). A given endpoint can have different pricing characteristics based on the endpoint type, network, country, and other factors. Preferably, the telecommunication platform is a platform that enables software developers to configure account applications to programmatically make, receive, and interact with voice calls, video calls, text messages, media messages, and other forms of communication. The telecommunication platform can include capabilities to interface with the public switched telephone network (PSTN), short message service (SMS), multimedia messaging service (MMS), and/or session initiation protocol (SIP) based communication, but may additionally or alternatively interface with client applications proprietary communication protocols, or any suitable communication channel.
All the various options of who is making a communication, who is involved in the communication, what features are used during for the communication (e.g., recording, conference call, transcription, call waiting, communication tracking, high quality call setting, low quality call setting), what medium a communication, what carrier is used for the communication, and numerous other factors can be used to define different creditable item. A creditable item is preferably some item related to use of the platform for which some entity is credited. In a preferred implementation, the creditable item is a billable item for which an associated account holder of the platform is billed. However, in some situations a creditable item may have no association with billing and financial transactions. For example, if the platform is offered for free, then an account may have some allocated amount of “credit” for which different actions are deducted from this credit.
The telecommunication platform can additionally include an API to programmatically interact with the platform 100. The API may include various interface mechanisms to control various aspects of the communication platform such as making calls or sending messages, but the API preferably includes a set of interfaces that define the pricing API 110. Billing on the telecommunication platform 100 is preferably based on usage of the different communication options and platform features (e.g., conferencing, recording, speech-to-text conversion, queuing, and other features).
The pricing API 110 of the preferred embodiment functions as an interface for services of the platform to determine pricing of a billable item or event. The pricing API can include an interface to request a price for a creditable item and a pricing model interface to interact with the platform pricing model. The pricing API 110 is preferably implemented as a service API within the platform that other services can query. The pricing API 110 may additionally be integrated within a billing engine so that prices can be accounted for when managing bills of accounts and/or subaccounts. The pricing API is preferably a RESTful API but may alternatively be any suitable API such as SOAP. The API preferably works according to an HTTP request and response model. HTTP requests (or any suitable request communication) to the communication platform preferably observe the principles of a RESTful design. RESTful is understood in this document to describe a Representational State Transfer architecture as is known in the art. The pricing API 110 preferably includes calls to specify the type of communication in question. In reply to the query, a response is generated with the price. In one usage mode, the pricing API is used to preemptively query prices prior to executing an action. Cost of an action may be highly variable depending on the properties of the communication, and the pricing API no enables actions to be modified according to the cost. In one example, a communication service may query to determine the price of sending a message prior to sending. Price querying can be used internally or alternatively, the pricing API may be exposed externally to outside developers (e.g., account holders). In another usage mode, the pricing API is used for accounting of executed actions, which is often used by a billing engine to determine the bill for an account. The pricing API preferably is the access mechanism of the pricing engine, which processes a pricing model. The pricing engine is preferably configured for evaluating a query and appropriately applying the pricing model to the query.
The pricing API 110 can additionally include an interface for defining and updating the platform pricing model 120. Preferably administrators of the communication platform can update a pricing model. In another variation, when a user signs up they may select from different usage plans or customize a usage plan, in which case a pricing model targeted at that account usage can be automatically set through the pricing API. The platform pricing model 120 is preferably a mutable object, which functions to allow for flexible and dynamic updates to the pricing. This may be beneficial in giving the communication platform the flexibility to negotiate with different customers and service providers to define targeted service offerings. Using the pricing API 110 different elements of the platform pricing model 120 (root pricing models, currency pricing models, other sub-models) to be created, edited, or deleted (i.e., mutated) at any suitable instant, which allows the platform pricing model to evolve and change over time.
The platform pricing model 120 of the preferred embodiment functions as a set of data objects that define pricing for billable items through various scopes. The platform pricing model 120 is preferably a set of individual pricing models that define customized pricing for various billable items. The platform pricing model 120 preferably includes a set of root pricing models that define pricing for a full set of creditable items (i.e., billable items) within the communication platform and a set of sub-models that override at least a portion of a root pricing sub-model and depend on at least one parent pricing model. The platform pricing model 120 enables prices to be defined for different forms of communication, destinations, origin addresses, durations or size of communication, carriers or routing options, mediums of communication, volumes or rates of communication, accounts and account levels, promotions and marketing offers, and/or other suitable properties of a communication. The platform pricing model 120 is preferably a set of ordered sub-models configured with sparse overrides that define prices of billable items within the platform as shown in
The set of pricing models preferably include a root pricing model. The root pricing model is the highest level parent of child pricing model and functions as the default or base pricing model. As the default pricing model, the root pricing model does not inherit or override another sub-model. All sub-models are preferably child sub-models that override the root model (or override a sub-model that inherits from the root pricing model). If a child pricing model does not define pricing of a billable item, the pricing engine will arrive at the root pricing model and use the defined pricing. The root pricing model preferably defines the default pricing for the full set of billable items. The full set of billable items preferably includes all accountable events and items. Furthermore, the full set is defined across all SKU groups and variations of types of communication. The platform pricing model 120 may define its application to all billable items by defining base billable item categories. For example, the platform pricing model 120 may include a fixed price for PSTN phone calls, SMS messages, and MMS messages. In this example, sub-models may define targeted pricing models that are more targeted for a particular billable item such as a phone call made in the US, a MMS sent to a particular destination, or communications for a particular account made at a particular time of day. In one variation the root pricing model includes a single sub-model that is defined for all billable items. In another variation, the root pricing model can include a set of sub-models without any pricing model dependency but that as a set collectively define default pricing for the full set of billable times. In other alternative embodiments, the default pricing may be a dynamic or algorithmically generated value that functions as the root pricing model. The root pricing model is preferably defined for a single currency (i.e., the root currency), but the root pricing model can alternatively be defined for multiple currencies.
The set of sub-models additionally includes child pricing models that function to sparsely override pricing defined by parent pricing models. The child pricing models are preferably defined for subsets of the accounts of the telecommunication platform and/or different classifications of usage for which pricing differs from a default pricing of the root pricing model. The pricing sub-models function to enable contracts to be flexibly crafted specifically for different classes of users or service models. Accounts of the telecommunication platform, sub-accounts of those accounts, carriers, service provides, and other entities may have child pricing models defined. The child pricing models enable specialized pricing and discounts to be offered to select entities.
Additionally, a sub-model can be modeled as two classes of pricing sub-models: a group pricing model and an item pricing model. Each sub-model preferably targets a particular scope of communications such as countries, carriers, accounts, and the like. Within these scopes, the group and item pricing models make price definitions easier to maintain. An item pricing sub-model includes price definitions for individual billable items. Price definitions within an item pricing sub-model enable a high level of granularity in crafting pricing contracts. The group pricing sub-model functions as a convenient mechanism for defining price definitions that apply to a set of different billable items. A price definition within the group sub-model can be applied to SKU groups, a range of endpoints, to a set of different carriers, to multiple regions. Instead of individually assigning the price definitions of each related billable item, a single price definition is set. This can simplify the management of the pricing models when a single price definition can be altered to update multiple billable item prices—this while not sacrificing the capability of high granularity. The item pricing sub-model is of higher priority than corresponding group pricing sub-model, and as such, the item pricing sub-model is resolved before referencing the group pricing sub-model. An item price definition can override a group price definition.
Price definitions function as the configuration of pricing a billable item (or a group of billable items). The price definition can enable fixed pricing, price discounts, and tiered pricing based on some metric. In one variation, a price definition may include a fixed price or be undefined. If a fixed price is encountered, that price rate is applied to the communication. For some situations, the fixed price is the per instance price of the billable item. While price herein is typically expressed in monetary values, the price can alternatively be indicative or expressed in terms of operational cost to support execution and functioning of a telecommunication platform. Implementing a telecommunication platform requires tremendous amount of resources of which many are supplemented or coupled to infrastructure or systems managed by various industries that results in communication cost, which can be communicated in terms of cost, usage metrics, number of channels/options, transactions, communication volume or any suitable metric. For example, a fixed price of $0.01 for an SMS billable item can indicate each SMS message sent is $ 0.01. More preferably, a price definition includes a quantity parameter and an increment parameter. The quantity parameter can define what is counted. For messages, a quantity of one will charge for each message. A quantity of five will only charge for every five messages. For voice calls, the quantity may be 60 seconds such that the fixed price is multiplied against the number of minutes. The increment quantity may define how accounting is measured or rounded. For voice calls, an increment quantity of 30 seconds will round to the nearest 30 seconds. The increment quantity may define rounding to the closest value, rounding down, or rounding up. In place of a fixed price, the price definition can include a discount price. A price definition may additionally include a minimum quantity parameter, which functions to define the minimum unit of charge for an action. If usage does not meet the minimum quantity parameter, then the usage is charged for that minimum value. For example, voice calls may be rounded-up to the nearest 10th of a minute with a 30 second minimum. In this case, a 2-second call is charged at thirty seconds (the minimum was not bet), and a 32-second call is charged at 36 seconds. A discount price defines a change in the price relative to a parent fixed price. Thus, a pricing engine continues processing the pricing model until a fixed price is found and then applies the discount price. The discount price can be a percentage off or a fixed price discount. Additionally, a price definition may define pricing tiers. A pricing tier is a set of price definitions within a range of usage. As an example, a first price may be set for the first one thousand messages and a second price is used for messages after a thousand have been sent. Any suitable number of tiers can be configured. A tier will preferably include a fixed price or a discount price as well as a metric parameter and threshold parameter, which defines how the tier is applied. The metric parameter is the value measured to determine the tier. Metrics may include count, time, data transmission, account spending, age of account, or any suitable metric. A plurality of metrics may additionally be used such that more complicated thresholds can be implemented (e.g., threshold of one hundred messages or after account spends $20). The pricing engine may query an outside service to access the metric data. The threshold parameter is a condition that defines the bounds of what communications the price should be applied. Tiers preferably do not inherit discounts of other tiers. If a tier has a discount price, the next concrete price of a parent model is used with the discount price.
In one example, a customer of the telecommunication service may negotiate a contract with the telecommunication platform provider for better rates on particular types of communications. A child pricing model can be defined for the account of that customer that includes overrides that specify that text messages to United States, Canada, and the UK get a special rate and that voice calls originating from Japan get a discount when made to these countries. Thus, the sparse overrides allow considerable flexibility in negotiating complicated contracts, and furthermore, the contract can be added to the system quickly without impacting other contracts.
The pricing model can additionally include currency pricing models, which function as special child pricing models to convert between a root currency and a second currency. The currency pricing model preferably defines a currency price for a full set of billable items within that currency. The pricing model will include a root currency conversion factor that is applied to the root pricing model, which provides the root pricing of a given currency. The root currency conversion factor can be a value that converts between an original currency and a second currency. In one variation, the factor is a static value that is substantially fixed; however, the factor may be edited periodically either programmatically or through user input. The factor may alternatively be dynamically updated from an outside currency conversion source, which can be based on current exchange rates between currencies. The factor may alternatively include price setting rules to round up or down to defined values. For example, the pricing of a billable item may round to the closest integer value, powers of two, five, or ten. Additionally, the currency pricing model includes a sparse override currency model. Particular groups or individual billable items can be overridden such that custom pricing can be set that doesn't strictly follow the conversion factor. Currency pricing overrides can be used to provide “vanity” pricing (i.e., pricing that fit into common price setting values like $0.99, 1.99, and the like). The sparse override currency model is preferably substantially similar to other child models used in sparsely overriding the root model or a parent model. Child models for a defined currency preferably inherit from the appropriate currency pricing model. As shown in
The pricing engine of the preferred embodiment functions to evaluate a query of the pricing API according to the billing item and generating a price. The pricing engine is preferably configured to step through sub-models of the pricing model until the price is resolved. The pricing engine will preferably start with the lowest child pricing model (e.g., the one most specific for the particular item). For example, if the billable item is for a particular account, then the pricing model of that account is evaluated first, if it exists. If the billable item is for a particular sub-account of the account, then the pricing model of that sub-account is preferably evaluated. If a fixed price is not determined, the pricing engine then proceeds to the next lowest pricing model. This continues until a discrete price is determined. As discussed above, a fixed price will resolve that price. A discounted price can apply a discount on a price resolved from a parent sub-model (the second most specific pricing sub-model). A tiered price definition calculates the price based on usage. Any suitable of data model search algorithm may be used to identify an appropriate pricing sub-model for a particular billable item. A discrete price will eventually be resolved since the root pricing model defines a price for the full set of billable items.
2. Method for Pricing Communication of a Telecommunication Platform
As shown in
When applied within a telecommunication platform, the method can enable various billing arrangements and contracts to be represented within manageable system. The telecommunication platform will preferably bill for usage rather than fixed long term plans. This can enable accounts to easily scale their usage. Accounts may negotiate special pricing for different forms of usage. Since a telecommunications platform may require negotiating and renegotiating contracts with carriers and other forms of service providers as well as enterprise/large customers, the method provides a substantially flexible approach to adapting pricing for different entities. Similarly, some accounts may be given certain special pricing due to promotions, marketing, or business development efforts. Additionally, the telecommunication platform will have numerous forms of communications that leverage various outside services, networks, carriers, and other third party entities. With communication being a highly variable item, the price and cost of any given communication can vary greatly depending on properties such as the involved endpoints and the properties of the communication. The method can function to accommodate all this variability in a flexible and maintainable manner.
The method preferably includes defining a platform pricing model S100, which functions to generate a data model that defines pricing resolution. Defining a platform pricing model can additionally function to augment the pricing model of the platform as shown in
The pricing model is preferably defined through a pricing model interface. The pricing model interface can be an API through which the pricing model may be augmented or queried programmatically. The API may be used internally. Pricing models can be automatically augmented based on different platform events and state. Similarly, information from the pricing model may be used in operational decisions of the platform. Additionally or alternatively, all or a portion of the API may be exposed to outside entities, which can enable outside developers to integrate programmatically with a pricing sub-model. In one variation, developer accounts can be granted API access to programmatically augment a portion of the pricing model. For example, an account could be granted right to create and augment child models for sub-accounts of the account.
The pricing model interface may alternatively or additionally include a graphical user interface that can function as a control panel for an administrator of pricing within the platform. The user interface preferably provides interface tools for viewing the current state of the pricing model, editing existing configuration of the pricing model, adding child models, removing child models, re-prioritizing child models, updating currency conversion, and other actions to manipulate the pricing model. The user interface can additionally include tools to query the pricing API for different communications, which can be used in testing, customer support, and other applications. Users/administrators can be granted permissions to augment various portions of the pricing model. For example, a customer support user may only be able to augment account pricing models. While, a pricing administrator may be granted to augment the root pricing models and currency conversion pricing models. In one example, a user interface can allow an administrator to select to create a new pricing model. The user then defines a billable item (or group of billable items) that is targeted. Then the user can add a price definition. A preview interface may display a list of pricing results for matching billable items with different usage properties (for example, showing pricing for phone calls 1 minute long, 5 minutes and 10 minutes in length in a preview menu). In one variation, multiple pricing sub-models may be generated through a single user interface. For example, if special pricing is being generated for a particular account, then pricing-models for voice calls, SMS, and MMS may be defined within a unified interface. In this variation, the billable item is defined by inheriting different contexts. The parent billable item context is the account which is added to the three billable items: one for voice calls by the account, one for SMS messages by the account, and one for MMS messages by the account. The platform pricing model can alternatively be defined using any suitable interface.
The platform pricing model is preferably a hierarchical structure of a set of pricing models. The platform pricing model preferably defines pricing for a full set of billable items within the platform. It can be appreciated that some items may be billed with prices defined outside of the method, while still using the model for the set of billable items to which the method is a desired approach. Defining a platform pricing model preferably includes setting a root pricing model for the set of billable items within the platform S102 and setting a pricing a set of pricing sub-models that sparsely over-ride at least a portion of the root pricing model for a subset of billable items in the platform S104 as shown in
The root pricing model preferably defines the pricing for the full set of billable items. In one variation, there is a single sub-model that defines the root pricing model. In another variation, multiple root sub-models are used in combination to define pricing for the full set of billable items. For example, the root pricing model may include a root pricing sub-model that sets the default pricing for voice calls, a root pricing sub-model that sets the default pricing for SMS messages, and a root pricing sub-model that sets the default pricing for MMS messages. Any billable time that does not have a more targeted pricing sub-model can preferably be resolved by the root pricing model.
The pricing sub-models preferably include sub-models that are specifically set to over-ride the price definition for one or more billable item. The pricing sub-models can depend from the root pricing model, but can additionally depend from a higher pricing sub-model. For example, a first pricing sub-model may define specific pricing for voice calls on a first carrier, but then a more targeted child sub-model may depend on the first pricing sub-model and override the price definition for a particular set of endpoints of that first carrier (e.g., a billable item defined by carrier and endpoints). In other words, the billable item of the second pricing sub-model is included in the set of billable items of the first pricing sub-model. However, as the second pricing model structured as a more targeted sub-model (is a child of the first sub-model), the second pricing model takes initial precedence during resolution of a price for that billable item. A pricing sub-model preferably includes a billable item parameter, which defines what items it targets. Different properties of a billable event can be used to create targeted pricing. For example, for a given communication there may be an origin endpoint (e.g., the caller), a destination endpoint (e.g., the callee), a communication mode (e.g., voice, SMS, MMS, SIP, IP messaging, video, screensharing, etc.), features (e.g., recording, conferencing, text-to-speech, speech-to-text, media analysis, call waiting, etc.), duration, service provider (e.g., telephone carrier used in terminating call), location, account(s), and/or any suitable property. For example, a billable item can be defined by a specified communication mode, a caller communication endpoint, and a callee communication endpoint. Pricing sub-models additionally include price definition, which is a value or function that is used in generating the price or quote. The pricing definition can be a fixed price, a discount price, a tired pricing function, or any suitable pricing function.
Additionally, defining the platform pricing model can include setting a currency sub-model that defines a full set of billable items in a second currency S106 as shown in
Block S110, which includes receiving a communication pricing query, functions to initialize price calculation at a pricing service. The communication pricing query preferably specifies communication information. The communication information is a receipt, characterization, or property list of distinguishing attributes of a communication executable by the platform. The communication information can be for completed communication, an in-progress communication, or a pending/potential communication. The communication information preferably includes at least the originating endpoint, the destination endpoint(s), the medium of communication, and optionally characterizations of the communicated content. The endpoints include phone numbers, short codes, SIP addresses, usernames/ids, or other communicative addresses. The mediums of communication can include voice calls (e.g., PSTN phone calls, SIP calls, and the like), messaging (e.g., SMS, MMS, client application messaging, email, fax, and the like), video calls, screen sharing, and other forms of communication. The communicated content can include the media or message to be communicated, the size of the message, the duration of a call, the priority of the message (e.g., send whenever vs. send immediately), the time of the message, and other suitable properties.
In a first scenario, the communication pricing query originates from a communication service of the telecommunication platform. A voice service (which manages and processing voice calls) or a messaging service (which manages and processes message communication). Other services such as a video services, email services, fax services, screen sharing services and other suitable services can be additionally interface with the pricing service. In one variation, the query may be used in selecting a routing option of a particular communication. For example, multiple communication pricing queries may be made specifying different routing variations of a communication (e.g., sending over different protocols, using different carrier networks, etc.). The pricing results may be used by the communication service to select the cheapest routing option.
In a second scenario, the communication pricing query originates from a billing engine that is accounting for usage for a particular account/sub-account. When a bill for an account is being processed, the billable items accumulated by the account can be added to a billing queue. The billing queue can be a shared queue of items that are awaiting pricing information. A billing engine when available dequeues the billable items and submits a communication pricing query to the pricing API.
Block S120, which includes mapping the communication pricing query to a billable item, functions to determine the properties that would define the communication within the billing engine. Mapping the query preferably includes accessing endpoint information. An endpoint information service provides information about the involved endpoints. The endpoint information service preferably collects and manages detailed information about endpoints. Carrier/network information and country of the destination/origin endpoint is preferably provided through this service. Different forms of communication may depend on different properties, and thus only the required information for the communication in question may be accessed. In the case of SMS, country destination can determine price. In another variation country and carrier for SMS can be used. For example, a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC) may be used as a key for identifying a billable messaging item. In the case of voice calls, country and carrier can determine price. Other endpoint information can additionally be used such as area code, phone number type (e.g., business, mobile, home, etc.), communication history of endpoint, if endpoint has a client application installed, presence information of the endpoint (e.g., is the user currently available), and other suitable forms information.
The endpoint information can be used to select or derive a billable item as shown in
Block S130, which includes resolving price of a billable item within a set of pricing models functions to identify a price for the billable item. As described above, a pricing model is preferably a set of sub-models that define prices within various scopes. In one preferred implementation, there is one root pricing model, which is a sub-model scoped to define the default price of a billable item if no other sub-model defines the price. The root pricing model defines a price for the full set of billable items such that any billable item has determinable price. The other sub-models (i.e., child models) are preferably sparsely defined models that selectively override pricing of parent sub-models. Any sub model can inherit from the root pricing model, and they are able to override what they need or override a group of what they need. The child models can be nested so pricing models can additionally inherit from other pricing sub-models and in effect create a hierarchy of sparsely defined pricing sub-models.
Sparsely defined models may include only a sub-set of the billable items, which may be an empty set. A price definition within a sub-model will override or take precedence over a price definition of the root model and any intermediate parent models. The child models can alternatively subclass or inherit pricing of other sub-models. The child models can be defined for different scopes, which are selectively applied to a billable item based on the properties of the billable item in question. The child models have a priority such that a pricing engine will resolve a price by evaluating the sub models in the order of their priority until a price is resolved. In other words, resolving a price will involve moving up through a hierarchy of price models. As the pricing models are associated with different scopes, this can be used to enable pricing to be customized and targeted. The child model scopes may be associated with country, area code, carriers, sub-set of customers (e.g., free account, premium account, business account, etc.), specific accounts, sub-accounts of accounts, and other suitable scope categories. As shown in
Resolving price of a billable item includes evaluating price definition within a child pricing model S132, and if pricing is not defined within a child pricing model, evaluating price definition of a root pricing model S134. Evaluating price definition within the child pricing model functions to evaluate the highest priority child-model for the particular billable item. A child pricing model may be defined for accounts, sub-accounts, countries, geographical regions, classes of endpoints (e.g., phone numbers or endpoints associated with a specific carrier or service provider), and other suitable categories. Evaluating the child model will include checking if a price definition exists for the billable item and if it does, using that price definition, and if not, proceeding to the next highest priority sub model which may be the root model. A price definition for a billable item (or a group of billable items) will define how a price is set. The price definition can enable fixed pricing, price discounts, and tiered pricing based on some metric. In one variation, a price definition may include a fixed price or be undefined. If a fixed price is encountered, that price rate is applied to the communication. For some situations, the fixed price is the per instance price of the billable item. For example, a fixed price of $0.01 for an SMS billable item can indicate each SMS message sent is $0.01. More preferably, a price definition includes a quantity parameter and an increment parameter. The quantity parameter can define what is counted. For messages, a quantity of one will charge for each message. A quantity of five will only charge for every five messages. For voice calls, the quantity may be 60 seconds such that the fixed price is multiplied against the number of minutes. The increment quantity may define how accounting is measured or rounded. For voice calls, an increment quantity of 30 seconds will round to the nearest 30 seconds. The increment quantity may define rounding to the closest value, rounding down, or rounding up. In place of a fixed price, the price definition can include a discount price. A price definition may additionally include a minimum quantity parameter, which functions to define the minimum unit of charge for an action. If usage does not meet the minimum quantity parameter, then the usage is charged for that minimum value. For example, voice calls may be rounded-up to the nearest 10th of a minute with a 30 second minimum. In this case, a 2-second call is charged at thirty seconds (the minimum was not bet), and a 32-second call is charged at 36 seconds. A discount price defines a change in the price relative to a parent fixed price. Thus, a pricing engine continues processing the pricing model until a fixed price is found and then applies the discount price. The discount price can be a percentage off or a fixed price discount. Additionally, a price definition may define pricing tiers. A pricing tier is a set of price definitions within a range of usage. As an example, a first price may be set for the first one thousand messages and a second price is used for messages after a thousand have been sent. Any suitable number of tiers can be configured. A tier will preferably include a fixed price or a discount price as well as a metric parameter and threshold parameter, which defines how the tier is applied. The metric parameter is the value measured to determine the tier. Metrics may include count, time, data transmission, account spending, age of account, or any suitable metric. A plurality of metrics may additionally be used such that more complicated thresholds can be implemented (e.g., threshold of one hundred messages or after account spends $20). The pricing engine may query an outside service to access the metric data. The threshold parameter is a condition that defines the bounds of what communications the price should be applied. Tiers preferably do not inherit discounts of other tiers. If a tier has a discount price, the next concrete price of a parent model is used with the discount price.
In one implementation, a child model includes two sub models, one an item pricing model and one a group pricing model. Evaluating price definition within a child pricing model can include evaluating an item pricing model and subsequently evaluating a group pricing model. The item pricing model includes price definitions for specific billable items. The item pricing model functions to provide high granularity in defining customized pricing. The group pricing model includes price definition for groups of billable items. The grouped billable items make it easier to create a single price definition that covers several billable items. For example, if a price definition needs to be applied to a block of endpoints, a price definition can be set in the group billable item that targets all the associated billable items as opposed to repeatedly setting the same price definition for each billable item individually. This functions to improve maintainability of the pricing models—it is easier to set and update in bulk.
If pricing is not defined after evaluating child pricing models, Block S130 includes evaluating price definition of a root pricing model, which functions to use a default price. The root pricing model is used if no child models included a price definition for the billable item or a group including the billable item. The root pricing model may alternatively be accessed if a discount price was defined in a child model but a fixed price was not identified when checking the higher level child models. The root pricing model preferably defines a fixed price for the full set of billable items. The price definitions can similarly be defined with an item pricing model and a group pricing model.
Additionally, resolving a price of a billable item can include evaluating price definition within a currency conversion model. Preferably, child models are defined within the expected currency. For example, a child model for Japanese calls will include price definitions specified in Yen. If a fixed price is identified within a child model, there is no need to convert currency. However, if the price resolving process proceeds to the root pricing model, then a currency conversion model is used. A currency conversion model can be similar to a child model in that an item pricing model and a group pricing model can be defined. Specific default prices can be set for the currency. This can be used to provide “vanity” prices that may be marketed as user appealing prices (e.g., 1¥). These are set to disregard strict currency conversion from the root pricing model. This, as for price definitions of child models above, can be sparsely defined. If a price definition is not defined in the currency conversion pricing model, a conversion factor is applied to the root pricing model. This can be a set conversion rate or be dynamically set to an exchange rate. Having all pricing depend from a master root pricing model can enable new features to be quickly pushed to production—only a single pricing model would require updating. An alternative approach can use a root pricing model defined for each currency.
Block S140, which includes returning price of a billable item in a response functions to transmit a response to the query. The price is preferably returned according to a defined API of the pricing API. As mentioned above, checking a price preferably only involves checking the price of the communication and may not result in billing for the communication. The price can be used in augmenting the operation of the telephony service, returned to an outside application, or optionally used by a billing engine in calculating a bill. In one variation, the communication pricing query may specify several billable items in a batch query. Such a query can improve performance. In one variation, these may be optional communication options. If optional communication options, the pricing API may return the price of the cheapest one, the most expensive, the average price, or any suitable. In one variation, the price for the customer is returned. Additionally or alternatively, the cost to the telephony platform is returned. The cost could be obtained in a manner substantially similar to the price, where sparsely defined pricing models are procedurally processed to determine the cost. The cost may be beneficial to selecting routing options. In one variation, the routes may be selected to increase revenue (routing options with low cost and high price). In another variation, the price of the parent account may be returned as well as the price for the sub-account. This can be used by the billing engine to appropriately charge and credit the accounts. For example, an account may use the telecommunication platform to resell a service to sub-accounts. That service may generate revenue or subsidize the cost of communication. A billing engine can appropriately charge the account for the price owed to the communication platform
As shown in
The system and method of the preferred embodiment and variations thereof can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions are preferably executed by computer-executable components preferably integrated with the pricing engine and API of a communication platform. The computer-readable medium can be stored on any suitable computer-readable media such as RAMs, ROMs, flash memory, EEPROMs, optical devices (CD or DVD), hard drives, floppy drives, or any suitable device. The computer-executable component is preferably a general or application specific processor, but any suitable dedicated hardware or hardware/firmware combination device can alternatively or additionally execute the instructions.
As a person skilled in the art will recognize from the previous detailed description and from the figures and claims, modifications and changes can be made to the preferred embodiments of the invention without departing from the scope of this invention defined in the following claims.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/879,016, filed on 17 Sep. 2013, which is incorporated in its entirety by this reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5274700 | Gechter et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5526416 | Dezonno et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5581608 | Jreij et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5598457 | Foladare et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
6026440 | Shrader et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6094681 | Shaffer et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6138143 | Gigliotti et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6185565 | Meubus et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192123 | Grunsted et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6223287 | Douglas et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6232979 | Shochet | May 2001 | B1 |
6269336 | Ladd et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6317137 | Rosasco | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6373836 | Deryugin et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6425012 | Trovato et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6426995 | Kim et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430175 | Echols et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434528 | Sanders | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6445694 | Swartz | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6445776 | Shank et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6459913 | Cloutier | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6493558 | Bernhart et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496500 | Nance et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6501739 | Cohen | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6501832 | Saylor et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6507875 | Mellen-Garnett et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6577721 | Vainio et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6600736 | Ball et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606596 | Zirngibl et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6614783 | Sonesh et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625258 | Ram et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625576 | Kochanski et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6636504 | Albers et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6662231 | Drosset et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6704785 | Koo et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6707889 | Saylor et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6711129 | Bauer et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6711249 | Weissman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6738738 | Henton | May 2004 | B2 |
6757365 | Bogard | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6765997 | Zirngibl et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6768788 | Langseth et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6778653 | Kallas et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785266 | Swartz | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6788768 | Saylor et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6792086 | Saylor et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6792093 | Barak et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6798867 | Zirngibl et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6807529 | Johnson et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6807574 | Partovi et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6819667 | Brusilovsky et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6820260 | Flockhart et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6829334 | Zirngibl et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6834265 | Balasuriya | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6836537 | Zirngibl et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6842767 | Partovi et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6850603 | Eberle et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6870830 | Schuster et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6873952 | Bailey et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6874084 | Dobner et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6885737 | Gao et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6888929 | Saylor et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6895084 | Saylor et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6898567 | Balasuriya | May 2005 | B2 |
6912581 | Johnson et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6922411 | Taylor | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6931405 | El-Shimi et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6937699 | Schuster et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6940953 | Eberle et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6941268 | Porter et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6947417 | Laursen et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6947988 | Saleh | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6961330 | Cattan et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6964012 | Zirngibl et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6970915 | Partovi et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6977992 | Zirngibl et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6985862 | Stroem et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6999576 | Sacra | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7003464 | Ferrans et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7006606 | Cohen et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7010586 | Allavarpu et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7020685 | Chen et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7039165 | Saylor et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7062709 | Cheung | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7076037 | Gonen et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7076428 | Anastasakos et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7089310 | Ellerman et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7103003 | Brueckheimer et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7103171 | Annadata et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7106844 | Holland | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7111163 | Haney | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7140004 | Kunins et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7143039 | Stifelman et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7197331 | Anastasakos et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7197461 | Eberle et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7197462 | Takagi et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7197544 | Wang et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7225232 | Elberse | May 2007 | B2 |
7227849 | Raesaenen | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7260208 | Cavalcanti | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7266181 | Zirngibl et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7269557 | Bailey et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7272212 | Eberle et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7272564 | Phillips et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7277851 | Henton | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7283515 | Fowler | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7286521 | Jackson et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7287248 | Adeeb | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7289453 | Riedel et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7296739 | Mo et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7298732 | Cho | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7308085 | Weissman | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7308408 | Stifelman et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7324633 | Gao et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7324942 | Mahowald et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7328263 | Sadjadi | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7330463 | Bradd et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7330890 | Partovi et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7340040 | Saylor et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7349714 | Lee et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7369865 | Gabriel et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7373660 | Guichard et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7376223 | Taylor et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7376586 | Partovi et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7376733 | Connelly et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7376740 | Porter et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7412525 | Cafarella et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7428302 | Zirngibl et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7440898 | Eberle et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7447299 | Partovi et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7454459 | Kapoor et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7457249 | Baldwin et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7457397 | Saylor et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7486780 | Zirngibl et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7496054 | Taylor | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7500249 | Kampe et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7505951 | Thompson et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7519359 | Chiarulli et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7522711 | Stein et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7536454 | Balasuriya | May 2009 | B2 |
7552054 | Stifelman et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7571226 | Partovi et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7613287 | Stifelman et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7623648 | Oppenheim et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7630900 | Strom | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7631310 | Henzinger | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7644000 | Strom | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7657433 | Chang | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7657434 | Thompson et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7668157 | Weintraub et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7672295 | Andhare et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7675857 | Chesson | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7676221 | Roundtree et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7715547 | Ibbotson et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7742499 | Erskine et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7779065 | Gupta et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7882253 | Pardo-Castellote et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7920866 | Bosch et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7926099 | Chakravarty et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7936867 | Hill et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
7962644 | Ezerzer et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
7979555 | Rothstein et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8023425 | Raleigh | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8069096 | Ballaro et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8081958 | Soederstroem et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8103725 | Gupta et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8126128 | Hicks, III et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8149716 | Ramanathan et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8150918 | Edelman et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8156213 | Deng et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8185619 | Maiocco et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8196133 | Kakumani et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8233611 | Zettner | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8238533 | Blackwell et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8243889 | Taylor et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8266327 | Kumar et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8295272 | Boni et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8306021 | Lawson et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8326805 | Arous et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8346630 | McKeown | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8355394 | Taylor et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8417817 | Jacobs | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8438315 | Tao et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
8462670 | Chien et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8509068 | Begall et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8532686 | Schmidt et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8542805 | Agranovsky et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8582450 | Robesky | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8594626 | Woodson et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8611338 | Lawson et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8613102 | Nath | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8649268 | Lawson et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8667056 | Proulx et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8675493 | Buddhikot et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8755376 | Lawson et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8806024 | Francis et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8837465 | Lawson et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8838707 | Lawson et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8861510 | Fritz | Oct 2014 | B1 |
8964726 | Lawson et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9014664 | Kim et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9015702 | Bhat | Apr 2015 | B2 |
20010038624 | Greenberg et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010043684 | Guedalia et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020006124 | Jimenez et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020006125 | Josse et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020006193 | Rodenbusch et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020064267 | Martin et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020067823 | Walker et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077833 | Arons et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020126813 | Partovi et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020136391 | Armstrong | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020165957 | Devoe et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020176378 | Hamilton et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020198941 | Gavrilescu et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030006137 | Wei et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014665 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018830 | Chen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030026426 | Wright et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046366 | Pardikar et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051037 | Sundaram et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030058884 | Kallner et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030059020 | Meyerson et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030060188 | Gidron et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061317 | Brown et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061404 | Atwal et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030088421 | Maes et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097447 | Johnston | May 2003 | A1 |
20030103620 | Brown et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030123640 | Roelle et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030195990 | Greenblat | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196076 | Zabarski et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030211842 | Kempf et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030231647 | Petrovykh | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040008635 | Nelson et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040044953 | Watkins et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040052349 | Creamer et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040071275 | Bowater et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040101122 | Da Palma et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040102182 | Reith et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040165569 | Sweatman et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040172482 | Weissman et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205689 | Ellens et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040213400 | Golitsin et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040218748 | Fisher | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040228469 | Andrews et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040240649 | Goel | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005200 | Matena et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050010483 | Ling | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021626 | Prajapat et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050025303 | Hostetler | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038772 | Colrain | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050043952 | Sharma et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050047579 | Salame | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060411 | Coulombe et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050091572 | Gavrilescu et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050125251 | Berger et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050128961 | Miloslavsky et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050135578 | Ress et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050141500 | Bhandari et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050147088 | Bao et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177635 | Schmidt et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050181835 | Lau et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050228680 | Malik | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050238153 | Chevalier | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240659 | Taylor | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050243977 | Creamer et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050246176 | Creamer et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050289222 | Sahim | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060008073 | Yoshizawa et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015467 | Morken et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060047666 | Bedi et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060067506 | Flockhart et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060129638 | Deakin | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143007 | Koh et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060168334 | Potti et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060203979 | Jennings | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060209695 | Archer et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060212865 | Vincent et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060215824 | Mitby et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060217823 | Hussey | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060217978 | Mitby et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060222166 | Ramakrishna et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060256816 | Yarlagadda et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060262915 | Marascio et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060270386 | Yu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060285489 | Francisco et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070002744 | Mewhinney et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070036143 | Alt et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050306 | McQueen | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070070906 | Thakur | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070070980 | Phelps et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070071223 | Lee et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074174 | Thornton | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070121651 | Casey et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070127691 | Lert | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070127703 | Siminoff | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070130260 | Weintraub et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070133771 | Stifelman et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070149166 | Turcotte et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070153711 | Dykas et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070167170 | Fitchett et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192629 | Saito | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208862 | Fox et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070232284 | Mason et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070242626 | Altberg et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070265073 | Novi et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070286180 | Marquette et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070291905 | Halliday et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070293200 | Roundtree et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070295803 | Levine et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005275 | Overton et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080025320 | Bangalore et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080037715 | Prozeniuk et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080037746 | Dufrene et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080040484 | Yardley | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080052395 | Wright et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080091843 | Kulkarni | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080104348 | Kabzinski et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080134049 | Gupta et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080139166 | Agarwal et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080146268 | Gandhi et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080152101 | Griggs | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154601 | Stifelman et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080155029 | Helbling et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162482 | Ahern et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080165708 | Moore et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177883 | Hanai et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080201426 | Darcie | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209050 | Li | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080222656 | Lyman | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080229421 | Hudis et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080232574 | Baluja et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235230 | Maes | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080256224 | Kaji et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275741 | Loeffen | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080310599 | Purnadi et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313318 | Vermeulen et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080316931 | Qiu et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080317222 | Griggs et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080317232 | Couse et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080317233 | Rey et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090046838 | Andreasson | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090052437 | Taylor et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090052641 | Taylor et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090059894 | Jackson et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090063502 | Coimbatore et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090074159 | Goldfarb et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090075684 | Cheng et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083155 | Tudor et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089165 | Sweeney | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090089352 | Davis et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090089699 | Saha et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090093250 | Jackson et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125608 | Werth et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090129573 | Gavan et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090136011 | Goel | May 2009 | A1 |
20090170496 | Bourque | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090171659 | Pearce et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090171669 | Engelsma et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090171752 | Galvin et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090182896 | Patterson et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090217293 | Wolber et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090220057 | Waters | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090221310 | Chen et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090222341 | Belwadi et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090225748 | Taylor | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090225763 | Forsberg et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090232289 | Drucker et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090235349 | Lai et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090252159 | Lawson et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090276771 | Nickolov et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090288165 | Qiu et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090300194 | Ogasawara | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090316687 | Kruppa | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100037204 | Lin et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100070424 | Monk | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100082513 | Liu | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100087215 | Gu et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100088187 | Courtney et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100088698 | Krishnamurthy | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115041 | Hawkins et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100142516 | Lawson et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100150139 | Lawson et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100167689 | Sepehri-Nik et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100188979 | Thubert et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100191915 | Spencer | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100208881 | Kawamura | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217837 | Ansari et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217982 | Brown et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100232594 | Lawson et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235539 | Carter et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251329 | Wei | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251340 | Martin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100281108 | Cohen | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100291910 | Sanding et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110029882 | Jaisinghani | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110029981 | Jaisinghani | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110053555 | Cai et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078278 | Cui et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110081008 | Lawson et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110083179 | Lawson et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110093516 | Geng et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110096673 | Stevenson et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110110366 | Moore et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110131293 | Mori | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110167172 | Roach et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110170505 | Rajasekar et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110176537 | Lawson et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110211679 | Mezhibovsky et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110251921 | Kassaei et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110255675 | Jasper et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110265172 | Sharma et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110267985 | Wilkinson et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110274111 | Narasappa et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110276892 | Jensen-Horne et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110276951 | Jain | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110280390 | Lawson et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110283259 | Lawson et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110289126 | Aikas et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110299672 | Chiu et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110310902 | Xu | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320449 | Gudlavenkatasiva | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320550 | Lawson et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011274 | Moreman | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120017222 | May | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120023544 | Li et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120028602 | Lisi et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120036574 | Heithcock et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120039202 | Song | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120059709 | Lieberman et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120079066 | Li et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120083266 | VanSwol et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120089572 | Raichstein et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120094637 | Jeyaseelan et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120110564 | Ran et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120114112 | Rauschenberger et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120149404 | Beattie et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120170726 | Schwartz | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120173610 | Bleau et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174095 | Natchadalingam et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120179907 | Byrd et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120180021 | Byrd et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120180029 | Hill et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120198004 | Watte | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120201238 | Lawson et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120208495 | Lawson et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120226579 | Ha et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120239757 | Firstenberg et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120254828 | Aiylam et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120281536 | Gell et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120288082 | Segall | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120290706 | Lin et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120304245 | Lawson et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120304275 | Ji et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120316809 | Egolf et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120321070 | Smith et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130029629 | Lindholm et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130031158 | Salsburg | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130047232 | Tuchman et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130054684 | Brazier et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130058262 | Parreira | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130067448 | Sannidhanam et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130097298 | Ting et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130156024 | Burg | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130179942 | Caplis et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130201909 | Bosch et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130204786 | Mattes et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130212603 | Cooke et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130244632 | Spence et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140064467 | Lawson et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140105372 | Nowack et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140106704 | Cooke et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140123187 | Reisman | May 2014 | A1 |
20140129363 | Lorah et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140153565 | Lawson et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140185490 | Holm et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140254600 | Shibata et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140274086 | Boerjesson et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140282473 | Saraf et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140355600 | Lawson et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140379670 | Kuhr | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150004932 | Kim et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150004933 | Kim et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150023251 | Giakoumelis et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150066865 | Yara et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150181631 | Lee et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1684587 | Mar 1971 | DE |
0282126 | Sep 1988 | EP |
1464418 | Oct 2004 | EP |
1522922 | Apr 2005 | EP |
1770586 | Apr 2007 | EP |
2134107 | Sep 1999 | ES |
10294788 | Apr 1998 | JP |
2004166000 | Jun 2004 | JP |
2004220118 | Aug 2004 | JP |
2006319914 | Nov 2006 | JP |
9732448 | Sep 1997 | WO |
02087804 | Nov 2002 | WO |
2006037492 | Apr 2006 | WO |
2009018489 | Feb 2009 | WO |
2009124223 | Oct 2009 | WO |
2010037064 | Apr 2010 | WO |
2010040010 | Apr 2010 | WO |
2010101935 | Sep 2010 | WO |
2011091085 | Jul 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
RFC 3986: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax; T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter; Jan. 2005; The Internet Society. |
Complaint for Patent Infringement, Telinit Technologies, LLC v. Twilio Inc., dated Oct. 12, 2012. |
NPL, “API Monetization Platform”, 2013. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150079927 A1 | Mar 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61879016 | Sep 2013 | US |