US 8,290,809 B1Grant

Determining a community rating for a user using feedback ratings of related users in an electronic environment

Issue Date:2012-10-16

•34 Claims

•9 Drawing Sheets

Abstract

Community ratings are determined for users of an electronic marketplace. In a typical configuration, the community rating of an individual reflect the individual's reputation in the electronic community (e.g. feedback rating) as well as the reputations of the users the individual sponsors and the reputations of each user they sponsor, and so on. Various methodologies are provided for determining a community rating, such as aggregating feedback ratings, or weighting or thresholding these feedback ratings.

Metadata

Assignee

eBay Inc.

Inventors

Robert J. Ratterman
Reed Maltzman
Joshua D. Knepfle

Application Information

Application Number:US 09/503,960

Filing Date:2000-02-14

Priority Date:2000-02-14

Art Unit:3623

Classifications

IPC:

G06Q30/00

Patent Drawings (9 sheets)

Description

Copyright Notice

[0001] Contained herein is material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction of the patent disclosure by any person as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all rights to the copyright whatsoever.

Background of the Invention

[0002] 1. Field of the Invention

[0003] The invention relates generally to the field of online commerce. More particularly, the invention relates to rating systems and user feedback mechanisms for use in electronic environments, e.g., online trading environment, online shopping site, online auctioning site, online person-to-person trading site, online gaming site or other electronic environment where user feedback is provided, including those within an Internet market place community.

[0004] 2. Description of the Related Art

[0005] The Internet and the World Wide Web (“Web”) have changed the landscape of information delivery and affected numerous aspects of life, including commerce and entertainment. One area that has benefited from this technological development is the ability of individuals to buy and sell products within an Internet marketplace community.

[0006] Many companies operate auctions and other selling mechanisms on servers connected to the users over one or more networks, typically including the Internet. The users buying and/or selling items over these networks loosely comprise a market place community within an electronic environment. A distinction between non-electronic selling devices such as traditional garage sales and current electronic selling mechanisms is the component of anonymity inherent in electronic environment, which is not always conducive to forming a trusting environment in which two or more users wish to form a buyer-seller relationship.

[0007] To overcome some reservations about the anonymity component within the electronic marketplace community and to provide incentives for participating in transactions within the electronic marketplaces, Internet marketplaces, such as auction sites run by eBay, Inc. of San Jose, Calif. provide feedback ratings generated from feedback between users regarding trading transactions. A user's feedback rating is an indication of the user's reputation within the electronic community, and provides some indication of the trustworthiness and responsiveness of the user. A representation of a user's feedback rating is typically displayed along with a buying or selling transaction request by the user which provides the other party to the transaction an indication of the trustworthiness or past participation level of the user.

[0008] One implementation of feedback rating is illustrated in FIG. 1, in which feedback ratings 131-137 have been respectively established for marketplace users 121-127 based on votes 110 received from other users. These votes could reflect a positive recommendation and add one or more points to a user's feedback rate; or could reflect a negative experience and subtract one or more points from a user's feedback rating.

[0009] Feedback ratings provide a good mechanism for indicating a level of indicating a user's trustworthiness or past participation within an electronic commerce forum. Users desire to increase their feedback ratings because they are one indication of a user's reputation in the electronic community and some marketplace providers give awards or identify the users whose feedback ratings have reached a certain value, or some number of users with the highest feedback ratings.

[0010] However, feedback ratings do not provide a direct incentive for expanding the electronic marketplace. Needed is a new mechanism to provide an incentive for bringing new users into the electronic community.

Summary of the Invention

[0011] A method and apparatus are described for determining a community rating for a particular user within an electronic community. According to one embodiment a characteristic value is maintained for each user within the electronic community. The value may be representative of any characteristic of the user that is valuable or useful within the electronic community. For example, in an electronic trading community through which goods and services are bought and sold, it is advantageous for a user to have a measure of the reputation of other users with whom the user is conducting a buying or a selling transaction. A set of relationships between the various members of the electronic community is also maintained as applicable. For example, the set of relationships might contain information about new users that were brought into the community by a particular user. A community rating is derived for a particular user of the electronic community based on a characteristic value associated with the particular user and the characteristic values associated with users related to the particular user.

[0012] Advantages and other features of the invention will be apparent to one skilled in the art from the accompanying drawings and from the following detailed description.

Brief Description of the Drawings

[0013] The appended claims set forth the features of the invention with particularity. The invention, together with its advantages, may be best understood from the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings of which:

[0014] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a prior art approach for determining feedback ratings for users in the Internet community;

[0015] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an exemplary embodiment of a methodology for determining community feedback ratings for users in accordance with the invention;

[0016] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an exemplary operating environment in which the invention may be practiced;

[0017] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary operating architecture in which the invention may be practiced;

[0018] FIG. 5A is a block diagram of an exemplary data structure for maintaining a feedback rating for a user and the relationship of the user to other users within the electronic community;

[0019] FIG. 5B is a block diagram of an exemplary configuration of populated data structures corresponding to the exemplary configuration illustrated in FIG. 2; and

[0020] FIGS. 6A-B are high-level flow diagrams for determining a community feedback rating for a user in an embodiment of the invention.

Detailed Description of the Invention

[0021] A rating system is described for use in an online environment. In the following description, for the purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced without some of these specific details. In other instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form.

[0022] As will be described in greater detail below, the present invention includes features for enhancing the online trading experience for both buyers and sellers. For example, the improved rating system may be structured to encourage existing members to refer new members thereby increasing community registrations and the pool of potential trading partners. According to one feature of the present invention, when a user attaches feedback to another user, the feedback contributes to two different ratings, a Feedback Rating and a Community Rating. A user's Community Rating is based upon the user's Feedback Rating and the Feedback Ratings of other users associated with that user. For example, a user's Community Rating may be represented by the sum of the user's Feedback Rating, the number of users the user has referred to the online trading community, and the Community Ratings of all users referred. Advantageously, in this manner, the relative value of a user's contributions to the online community can be measured in terms of the number of referrals and trustworthiness of the referred users.

[0023] In the preferred embodiment, the steps of the present invention are embodied in machine-executable instructions. The instructions can be used to cause a general-purpose or special-purpose processor, which is programmed with the instructions to perform the steps of the present invention. Alternatively, the steps of the present invention might be performed by specific hardware components that contain hardwired logic for performing the steps, or by any combination of programmed computer components and custom hardware components.

[0024] The present invention may be provided as a machine-readable medium computer having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which may be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process according to the present invention. The machine-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical disks, CD-ROMs, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnet or optical cards, or other type of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions. Moreover, the present invention may also be downloaded as a computer program product, wherein the program may be transferred from a remote computer (e.g., a server) to a requesting computer (e.g., a client) via a communication link (e.g., a modem or network connection).

[0025] Importantly, while embodiments of the present invention will be described with respect to an online person-to-person trading environment, the method and apparatus described herein are equally relevant to other electronic environments in which ratings or values are assigned to users. For example, it is envisioned that an online gaming forum might want to provide an aggregate community rating based on the skill level of a particular gamer and fellow garners with whom he/she is associated.

[0026] For purposes of the specification, the term “characteristic value” shall be an indication, whether alphabetic, graphic, symbolic, or otherwise, of a characteristic of a user within a community or group of related communities. For example, as discussed herein, a “feedback rating,” which is a characteristic value based on feedback received from other users about a user relative to transactions conducted by the user, is one type of characteristic value of a user. Other characteristic values could include, but are not limited to, measures of the user's honesty, the quality of products or services provided by the user, or the skill or expertise of the user relative to a purpose of the community. The term “community rating” shall include any indication, whether numeric, graphic or otherwise, of a characteristic of a user's relationships within a community or group of related communities. For example, a user may have a community rating based on the aggregate of all the feedback ratings of other users he referred to the community. The characteristic values or community ratings of users may be indicated in any number of ways such as a thumbs-up symbol to indicate a favorable rating or a number indicating a relative measure when compared to other users or a defined scale.

Community Rating Overview

[0027] FIG. 2 and its discussion herein are intended to provide a description of a general approach to determining a community feedback rating for a user, with scope of the invention including many variations of this general approach. The invention provides different methodologies for manipulating the individual feedback ratings and other data elements and the relationships among the various users to derive a community rating for an individual user. Typically, a community rating for the individual user is, at least partially, determined by the number of other users the individual user brings into the electronic community, and in some instances, the reputation or feedback ratings of the other users.

[0028] User relationships are represented as an n-ary tree, where any user brought into the electronic community by sponsoring user is a child of the sponsoring user, and children of a same sponsoring user are siblings. An electronic community typically contains numerous trees of users, with the root of each tree representing a user who did not identify a sponsoring user. Embodiments of the invention allow a user to specify more than one sponsor, and these embodiments determine the community rating accordingly.

[0029] FIG. 2 illustrates one potential grouping of users 121-127 of FIG. 1, and further identifies an exemplary set of relationships 241-252 among these users 121-127 in the electronic community. For example, this configuration represents that user astoyroid 124 sponsored users red-deer 125 and dygsp 126, red-deer 125 sponsored carter 123, carter sponsored p2p 122 and coin-nut 121, and dygsp 126 sponsored antyques 127. The exemplary set of feedback ratings 131-137 for users 121-127 are further illustrated.

[0030] The various exemplary community ratings 231-237 respectively for users 121-127 are presented in FIG. 2. As previously mentioned, the invention provides for various methodologies to determine a community rating for an individual user by manipulating such factors as the feedback ratings, other data elements, and/or the relationships among the users of the electronic community. The methodology represented by the community ratings 231-237 is to aggregate the feedback rating 131-137 for the individual user with all the community ratings 231-237 of users brought into the electronic community by the individual user. In other words, by representing the relationships among users as a tree structure, the community rating 231-237 for a user is the aggregate of the feedback ratings of the user and all its descendants. In this manner, the community rating 232 of p2p 122 is its feedback rating 132; the community rating 233 for carter 123 is the sum of the feedback ratings 131-133 for users coin-nut 121, p2p 122 and carter 123; and the community rating 234 of astroyriod 124 is the sum of feedback ratings 131-137.

Computing Environment Overview

[0031] FIG. 3 and its discussion herein are intended to provide a description of an exemplary computing environment in which the invention can be practiced. The invention, however, is not limited to a single computing environment. Moreover, the architecture and functionality of the invention as taught herein and would be understood by one skilled in the art is extensible to an unlimited number of computing environments and embodiments in keeping with the scope and spirit of the invention.

[0032] Illustrated are viewing computer 355, communications network 345, and server computer 305. In an embodiment of the invention, sellers and buyers use a viewing computer (or a plurality of computers) 355, and server computer (or a plurality of computers) 305 receives the feedback input from sellers and buyers and determines the community ratings for the individual users.

[0033] Viewing computer 355 typically comprises a standard computer platform or a specialized computer platform, including, but not limited to a desktop computer, a laptop computer, personal data assistant, and a handheld computer. For purposes of simplicity, only one viewing computer 355 is shown; however, the number of viewing computers supported by the invention is unbounded, and can be especially large with network 345 comprises the Internet or other wide-area networking technology. In an embodiment, viewing computer 355 comprises a processor 360, memory 365, storage devices 370, a network interface 349, and a display 380, which are electrically coupled via bus 362. Network interface 349 is connected to a communications network 345 (e.g., one or more networks, including, but not limited to the Internet, private or public telephone, cellular, wireless, satellite, cable, local area, metropolitan area and/or wide area networks) over connection 348. Memory 365 is one type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprises random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), integrated circuits, and/or other memory components. Memory 365 typically stores computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 360 and/or data which is manipulated by processor 360 for implementing functionality in accordance with the invention. Storage devices 370 are another type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprise disk drives, diskettes, networked services, tape drives, and other storage devices. Storage devices 370 typically store computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 360 and/or data that is manipulated by processor 360 for implementing functionality in accordance with the invention. Additionally, viewing computer 355, communications network 345, and server computer 305 could be implemented in a single computer platform, with the communications network 345 being an internal information sharing mechanism such as message passing or shared memory.

[0034] Server computer 305 typically comprises one or more standard computer platforms or a specialized computer platforms (e.g., a computer platform optimized for retrieving information and sending information to clients), including, but not limited to one or more desktop computers, servers, mainframes, laptop computers, handheld computers, and personal data assistants. For simplicity, only one server computer 305 is depicted. However, the number of server computers contemplated by the invention is unbounded. When the invention is used in conjunction with a wide geographic area such as over the Internet, typically numerous viewing computers 355 and numerous serving computers 305 are used. When a plurality of serving computers 305 are used, they can be collocated, or distributed across the communications network 345. Typically, when the plurality of viewing computers are distributed across the communications network 345.

[0035] In an embodiment, server computer 305 comprises a processor 310, memory 315, storage devices 320, and a network interface 341, which are electrically coupled via bus 312. Network interface 341 is connected to the communications network 345 (e.g., Internet, email network, private or public network) over a public or private telephone, cellular, wireless, satellite, local area and/or wide area network connection 342. Memory 315 is one type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprises random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), integrated circuits, and/or other memory components. Memory 315 typically stores computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 310 and/or data, which are manipulated by processor 310 for implementing the server functionality. Storage devices 320 are another type of computer-readable medium, and typically comprise disk drives, diskettes, networked services, tape drives, and other storage devices. Storage devices 320 typically store computer-executable instructions to be executed by processor 310 and/or data which is manipulated by processor.

Architecture Overview

[0036] Turning now to FIG. 4, illustrated is an embodiment 400 of the invention, further illustrating an embodiment of elements 460-490 within viewing computer 355, and an embodiment of elements 410-440 within server computer 305. Viewing computer 355 typically comprises a network communication component or process 490 which interfaces with communications network 345 and enables communication with server computer 305; one or more data structures 470 for temporarily and/or permanently storing information; and an information viewer (e.g., browser) 460 for providing a user interface to a user of viewing computer 355. Server computer 305 typically comprises a network communication component or process 440 which interfaces with communications network 345 and enables communication with one or more viewing computers 305; one or more data structures 430 for temporarily and/or permanently storing information; and an information server 410 for providing information to viewing computer 305; and a community rater component or process 420 for determining the community ratings for various users.

[0037] In an embodiment, the community rater 420 is comprised of both a valuator 421 and an aggregator 422. The aggregator 422 performs a recursive routine, which aggregates the feedback ratings or characteristic values of all users in lineal succession to a patriarchal user for which a community rating is being determined. The valuator 421 combines (e.g. adds, determines a weighted average, etc), the patriarchal user's characteristic value with the aggregate value determined by the aggregator 422 to determine the patriarchal users community rating. Other embodiments of the invention are envisioned that use other methods for determining the community rating that do not specifically utilize aggregator and valuator components or routines.

Exemplary Data Structure

[0038] FIG. 5A illustrates one of numerous data structures 500 which can be used in embodiments of the present invention for storing information about users in the electronic community and their relationships. A data structure 500 is typically used for each user and typically comprises an identifier 500A (e.g., a name of a user), a feedback rating 500B, and two relationship indicators; a closest sibling pointer 500C, and first child pointer 500D. Numerous other data structures and formats could be used, such as incorporating additional pointers or distributing the information contained in data structure 500 among several data structures and possibly representing this information in other representations (e.g., lists, arrays etc.), instead of a linked list data element.

[0039] FIG. 5B, illustrates a block diagram showing a linked list data structure configuration for the group of users previously introduced in FIG. 2 and using the data structure 500 illustrated in FIG. 5A. Shown are seven users represented by data structures 521-527. List or hash table 510 provides direct access to any single user data structure 521-527. The interrelatedness of the data structures 521-527 is shown with arrows representing the closest sibling and first child pointers as they might be contained in each of the data structures to implement the tree structure illustrated in FIG. 2.

Community Rating Determination

[0040] FIGS. 6A & 6B illustrate a high-level flow diagrams describing the operation for determining a community rating for an identified user within the linked data structure embodiment illustrated in FIG. 5B using the valuator 421 and aggregator 422 introduced supra. The invention provides for variations and different flow diagrams and methodologies to be used in various embodiments to conform to design decisions in implementing the invention. Moreover, the invention could be embodied in any combination of software, hardware, firmware, etc. Furthermore, the invention provides for programming the functionality required for practicing the invention using any programming technology, paradigm, and/or language that exist today or may be developed in the future; including, but not limited to parallel programming, object-oriented technology, distributed processing, multi-processing, Java, C, C++, and assembly language.

[0041] FIG. 6A is a high level flow diagram illustrating a routine that may be performed by a valuator 421 to determine a community rating for the identified user. The routine begins at step 600, and proceeds to step 605 where the community rating for the identified user is set to the identified user's feedback rating. Next, step 610 is performed to determine whether the identified user has any children. If the identified user does not, the identified user's community rating is identical to its feedback rating and the feedback rating is returned as the identified user's community rating in step 620. If the identified user has at least one child, step 615 is invoked and a recursive aggregator routine is performed as illustrated in FIG. 6b and discussed infra. After an aggregate value is returned from the recursive aggregator routine representing the first child's community rating, the aggregate value is added to the identified user's feedback rating and the value representing the identified user's community rating is returned in step 620.

[0042] FIG. 6B is a high level flow diagram illustrating a recursive routine that may be performed by an aggregator 422 to determine an aggregate value of all the feedback values of all lineal descendants of the identified user. The routine begins at step 650, and proceeds to step 655 where the community rating for the first child of the identified user is set to the first child's feedback rating. Next, in steps 660 & 665, the feedback values for all lineal descendants of the first child are aggregated and the value returned is added to the first child's community rating. If the identified user had at least two children, the sibling field in the first child's related data structure will have a pointer to the second child. Accordingly, for each n+1th child of the identified user, the nth child will have a pointer in the sibling field to that child (where n is an integer of at least 1). In steps 670 & 675 an aggregate community value for all children other than the first child of the identified user (who are all siblings of the first child) is determined and this value is added to the community rating of the first child. Finally, the aggregate value of the community rating for all the children is returned to the valuator in step 680 to be added with the feedback rating of the identified user to determine the identified user's community rating as discussed supra.

[0043] In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of our invention may be applied, it will be appreciated that the embodiments and aspects thereof described herein with respect to the drawings/figures are only illustrative and should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention. To the contrary, the invention as described herein contemplates all such embodiments as may come within the scope of the following claims and equivalents thereof. For instance, there are many recursive routines well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that could be used to traverse a relationship tree such as the tree shown in FIG. 2. The methodology presented supra in FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6A & 6B is therefore merely representative.

Claims

Certificate of Correction present

The claims shown below may not include correction changes. Use the corrected PDF for authoritative text.

What is claimed is:

1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

maintaining a relationship tree representing relationships among a plurality of users of an online trading community, the relationship tree including sponsorship relationships between said plurality of users including a particular user and one or more users that were referred by the particular user to said online trading community, wherein said one or more users referred by the particular user are children of said particular user and siblings to each other, and wherein said one or more users referred by the particular user have lineal descendants that include additional users that were referred by the one or more users referred by the particular user;

storing said sponsorship relationships between said plurality of users in a data structure, wherein the data structure for the particular user contains a pointer to at least one of said plurality of users;

associating, by a first processor, one or more characteristic values with said plurality of users including said particular user, said one or more users referred by the particular user, and said lineal descendants, the one or more characteristic values representing an individual feedback rating associated with each of said plurality of users and being established based on votes from other users of the plurality of users of the online trading community;

deriving, by a second processor, a community rating uniquely corresponding to said particular user by aggregating said individual feedback rating associated with the particular user, said individual feedback ratings associated with one or more users referred by the particular user to the online trading community, and said individual feedback ratings associated with said lineal descendants, wherein deriving is performed utilizing the pointer in said data structure; and

storing the community rating uniquely corresponding to the particular user in a storage device.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the online trading community comprises an electronic community to trade merchandise over a network, wherein the trading of the merchandise comprises at least one of buying or selling of goods or services.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the network comprises the Internet.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more characteristic values comprise a feedback value based on feedback concerning the particular user received from said other users of the plurality of users in the electronic community.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the other users of the plurality of users comprise users that have previously traded with the particular user.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the relationship tree includes one or more n-ary trees.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the pointer is to the at least one user of the plurality that was referred by the particular user.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the deriving of the community rating for the particular user is performed utilizing a recursive routine.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein the community rating for the particular user represent a reputation value corresponding to the particular user.

10. A machine-readable medium having stored thereon data representing sets of instructions which, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to:

maintain a relationship tree representing relationships among a plurality of users of an online trading community, the relationship tree including sponsorship relationships between said plurality of users including a particular user and one or more users that were referred by the particular user to said online trading community, wherein said one or more users referred by the particular user are children of said particular user and siblings to each other, and wherein said one or more users referred by the particular user have lineal descendants that include additional users that were referred by the one or more users referred by the particular user;

store said sponsorship relationships between said plurality of users in a data structure, wherein the data structure for the particular user contains a pointer to at least one of said plurality of users;

associate one or more characteristic values with said plurality of users including said particular user, said one or more users referred by the particular user, and said lineal descendants, the one or more characteristic values representing an individual feedback rating associated with each of said plurality of users and being established based on votes from other users of the plurality of users of the online trading community;

derive a community rating uniquely corresponding to said particular user by aggregating said individual feedback rating associated with the particular user, said individual feedback ratings associated with one or more users referred by the particular user to the online trading community, and said individual feedback ratings associated with said lineal descendants, wherein deriving is performed utilizing the pointer in said data structure.

11. The machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the online trading community comprises an electronic community buying and selling of merchandise over a network, the merchandise having at least one of goods and services.

12. The machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the one or more characteristic values comprise a feedback value based on feedback concerning the particular user received from said other users of the plurality of users in the electronic community.

13. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

associating, by a first processor, a first characteristic value with a first user of a plurality of users within an online trading community, the first characteristic value being obtained for the first user utilizing a first feedback value based on feedback received concerning the first user from other users of the plurality of users;

associating, by a second processor, a second characteristic value with a second user of the plurality of users, wherein the second user is referred to the online trading community by the first user, the second characteristic value being obtained for the second user utilizing a second feedback value based on feedback received concerning the second user from said other users of the plurality of users;

associating a third characteristic value with a third user of the plurality of users, wherein the third user is referred to the online trading community by the second user, the third characteristic value is obtained for the third user by utilizing a third feedback value based on feedback received concerning the third user from said other users of the plurality of users;

maintaining a relationship tree representing relationships among said plurality of users, the relationship tree including sponsorship relationships between said plurality of users including said first user, said second user, and said third user, wherein said second user and one or more users referred by the first user to the online trading community are children of said first user and siblings to each other and wherein said second user has lineal descendants that include one or more users that were referred by the second user to the online community, including the third user;

deriving, by a third processor, a first community rating for the first user by aggregating the first feedback value, the second feedback value, and the third feedback value, wherein deriving is performed utilizing the pointer in said data structure; and

storing the first community rating for the first user in a storage device.

14. The method of claim 13, further comprising:

deriving a second community rating for the second user by utilizing an aggregation of the second characteristic value and the third characteristic value.

15. The method of claim 13, wherein as a child of the first user, the second user is a lineal descendent of the first user.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the relationship tree comprises a nexus between the first user, the second user, and other users referred by at least one of the first user and the second user.

17. The method of claim 13, wherein the first community rating comprises first reputation value corresponding to the first user, and the second community rating comprises second reputation value corresponding to the second user.

18. A machine-readable medium having stored thereon data representing sets of instructions which, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to:

associate a first characteristic value with a first user of a plurality of users within an online trading community, the first characteristic value being obtained for the first user utilizing a first feedback value based on feedback received concerning the first user from other users of the plurality of users;

associate a second characteristic value with a second user of the plurality of users, wherein the second user is referred to the online trading community by the first user, the second characteristic value being obtained for the second user utilizing a second feedback value based on feedback received concerning the second user from said other users of the plurality of users;

associate a third characteristic value with a third user of the plurality of users, wherein the third user is referred to the online trading community by the second user, the third characteristic value is obtained for the third user by utilizing a third feedback value based on feedback received concerning the third user from said other users of the plurality of users;

maintain a relationship tree representing relationships among said plurality of users, the relationship tree including sponsorship relationships between said plurality of users including said first user, said second user, and said third user, wherein said second user and one or more users referred by the first user to the online trading community are children of said first user and siblings to each other and wherein said second user has lineal descendants that include one or more users that were referred by the second user to the online community, including the third user;

derive a first community rating for the first user by aggregating the first feedback value, the second feedback value, and the third feedback value, wherein deriving is performed utilizing the pointer in said data structure.

19. The machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the relationship tree comprises a referral relationship having the second user, who is a child of the first user, as a lineal descendent of the first user.

20. The machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the relationship tree comprises a nexus between the first user, the second user, and other users referred by at least one of the first user and the second user.

21. The machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the first community rating comprises first reputation value corresponding to the first user, and the second community rating comprises second reputation value corresponding to the second user.

22. A system comprising:

a first storage medium; and

a first computer coupled with the first storage medium, the first computer to:

23. The system of claim 22, further comprising:

a second storage medium; and

a second computer coupled with the second storage medium and the first computer via a network interface, the second computer to receive feedback concerning the particular user from said other users of the plurality of users, generate a feedback value corresponding to the particular user based on the feedback, and transmit the feedback value to the first computer.

24. The system of claim 23, wherein the first computer comprises a server computer and the second computer comprises a client computer.

25. The system of claim 22, wherein the first computer is further to determine the one or more characteristic values based on the feedback value corresponding to the particular user.

26. The system of claim 23, wherein the second computer is accessed by the plurality of users to trade merchandise, wherein the trading of the merchandise comprises buying or selling of goods or services.

27. The system of claim 23, wherein the network interface is to couple the first computer with the second computer over a network having the Internet.

28. The machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the sets of instructions which, when executed by the machine, further cause the machine to:

derive a second community rating for the second user by utilizing an aggregation of the second characteristic value and the third characteristic value.

29. A system, comprising:

a first storage medium; and

a first computer coupled with the first storage medium, the first computer to:

30. The system of claim 29, further comprising:

a second storage medium; and

a second computer coupled with the second storage medium and the first computer via a network interface, the second computer to receive feedback concerning the first user from said other users of the plurality of users, generate a feedback value corresponding to the first user based on the feedback, and transmit the feedback value to the first computer.

31. The system of claim 30, wherein the first computer comprises a server computer and the second computer comprises a client computer.

32. The system of claim 29, wherein the first computer is further to perform a recursive routine when determining the community rating for the first user.

33. The system of claim 29, wherein the one or more characteristic values and the community rating comprise numeric values.

34. The system of claim 30, wherein the second computer is accessed by the plurality of users to trade merchandise, wherein the trading of the merchandise comprises buying or selling of goods or services.

Patent Citations (204)

Patent	Date	Inventor	Cited By
US3573747(A)	1971-04-01	Adams et al.	Applicant
US3581072(A)	1971-05-01	Nymeyer	Applicant
US4412287(A)	1983-10-01	Braddock, III	Applicant
US4486853(A)	1984-12-01	Parsons	Applicant
US4674044(A)	1987-06-01	Kalmus et al.	Applicant
US4677552(A)	1987-06-01	Sibley, Jr.	Applicant
US4789928(A)	1988-12-01	Fujisaki	Applicant
US4799156(A)	1989-01-01	Shavit et al.	Applicant
US4823265(A)	1989-04-01	Nelson	Applicant
US4864516(A)	1989-09-01	Gaither et al.	Applicant
US4903201(A)	1990-02-01	Wagner	Applicant
US5063507(A)	1991-11-01	Lindsey et al.	Applicant
US5077665(A)	1991-12-01	Silverman et al.	Applicant
US5101353(A)	1992-03-01	Lupien et al.	Applicant
US5136501(A)	1992-08-01	Silverman et al.	Applicant
US5168446(A)	1992-12-01	Wiseman	Applicant
US5205200(A)	1993-04-01	Wright	Applicant
US5243515(A)	1993-09-01	Lee	Applicant
US5258908(A)	1993-11-01	Hartheimer et al.	Applicant
US5280422(A)	1994-01-01	Moe et al.	Applicant
US5285496(A)	1994-02-01	Frank et al.	Applicant
US5297031(A)	1994-03-01	Gutterman et al.	Applicant
US5297032(A)	1994-03-01	Trojan et al.	Applicant
US5305200(A)	1994-04-01	Hartheimer et al.	Applicant
US5325297(A)	1994-06-01	Bird et al.	Applicant
US5329589(A)	1994-07-01	Fraser et al.	Applicant
US5375055(A)	1994-12-01	Togher et al.	Applicant
US5394324(A)	1995-02-01	Clearwater	Applicant
US5426281(A)	1995-06-01	Abecassis	Applicant
US5485510(A)	1996-01-01	Colbert	Applicant
US5537618(A)	1996-07-01	Boulton et al.	Applicant
US5553145(A)	1996-09-01	Micali	Applicant
US5557728(A)	1996-09-01	Garrett et al.	Applicant
US5566291(A)	1996-10-01	Boulton et al.	Applicant
US5583763(A)	1996-12-01	Atcheson et al.	Applicant
US5592375(A)	1997-01-01	Salmon et al.	Applicant
US5596994(A)	1997-01-01	Bro	Applicant
US5598557(A)	1997-01-01	Doner et al.	Applicant
US5640569(A)	1997-06-01	Miller et al.	Applicant
US5657389(A)	1997-08-01	Houvener	Applicant
US5659366(A)	1997-08-01	Kerman	Applicant
US5664115(A)	1997-09-01	Fraser	Applicant
US5669877(A)	1997-09-01	Blomquist	Applicant
US5678041(A)	1997-10-01	Baker et al.	Applicant
US5689652(A)	1997-11-01	Lupien et al.	Applicant
US5694546(A)	1997-12-01	Reisman	Applicant
US5703624(A)	1997-12-01	van Kruistum	Applicant
US5706457(A)	1998-01-01	Dwyer et al.	Applicant
US5706493(A)	1998-01-01	Sheppard, II	Applicant
US5706507(A)	1998-01-01	Schloss	Applicant
US5708829(A)	1998-01-01	Kadashevich et al.	Applicant
US5710889(A)	1998-01-01	Clark et al.	Applicant
US5715314(A)	1998-02-01	Payne et al.	Applicant
US5715402(A)	1998-02-01	Popolo	Applicant
US5717989(A)	1998-02-01	Tozzoli et al.	Applicant
US5722418(A)	1998-03-01	Bro	Applicant
US5727165(A)	1998-03-01	Ordish et al.	Applicant
US5732954(A)	1998-03-01	Strickler et al.	Applicant
US5737479(A)	1998-04-01	Fujinami	Applicant
US5754939(A)	1998-05-01	Herz et al.	Applicant
US5760917(A)	1998-06-01	Sheridan	Applicant
US5761655(A)	1998-06-01	Hoffman	Applicant
US5771291(A)	1998-06-01	Newton et al.	Applicant
US5771380(A)	1998-06-01	Tanaka et al.	Applicant
US5774121(A)	1998-06-01	Stiegler	Applicant
US5778135(A)	1998-07-01	Ottesen et al.	Applicant
US5781246(A)	1998-07-01	Alten et al.	Applicant
US5787253(A)	1998-07-01	McCreery et al.	Applicant
US5790426(A)	1998-08-01	Robinson	Applicant
US5790790(A)	1998-08-01	Smith et al.	Applicant
US5793027(A)	1998-08-01	Baik	Applicant
US5794219(A)	1998-08-01	Brown	Applicant
US5799285(A)	1998-08-01	Klingman	Applicant
US5799304(A)	1998-08-01	Miller	Applicant
US5803500(A)	1998-09-01	Mossberg	Applicant
US5809482(A)	1998-09-01	Strisower	Applicant
US5810771(A)	1998-09-01	Blomquist	Applicant
US5818914(A)	1998-10-01	Fujisaki	Applicant
US5822123(A)	1998-10-01	Davis et al.	Applicant
US5826244(A)	1998-10-01	Huberman	Applicant
US5828419(A)	1998-10-01	Bruette et al.	Applicant
US5830068(A)	1998-11-01	Brenner et al.	Applicant
US5832472(A)	1998-11-01	Sheppard, II	Applicant
US5835896(A)	1998-11-01	Fisher et al.	Applicant
US5845265(A)	1998-12-01	Woolston	Applicant
US5845266(A)	1998-12-01	Lupien et al.	Applicant
US5848396(A)	1998-12-01	Gerace	Applicant
US5850442(A)	1998-12-01	Muftic	Applicant
US5862230(A)	1999-01-01	Darby et al.	Applicant
US5867799(A)	1999-02-01	Lang et al.	Applicant
US5870744(A)	1999-02-01	Sprague	Applicant
US5872848(A)	1999-02-01	Romney et al.	Applicant
US5872850(A)	1999-02-01	Klein et al.	Applicant
US5873069(A)	1999-02-01	Reuhl et al.	Applicant
US5884056(A)	1999-03-01	Steele	Applicant
US5890138(A)	1999-03-01	Godin et al.	Applicant
US5905974(A)	1999-05-01	Fraser et al.	Applicant
US5905975(A)	1999-05-01	Ausubel	Applicant
US5922074(A)	1999-07-01	Richard et al.	Applicant
US5924072(A)	1999-07-01	Havens	Applicant
US5926794(A)	1999-07-01	Fethe	Applicant
US5950172(A)	1999-09-01	Klingman	Applicant
US5970469(A)	1999-10-01	Scroggie et al.	Applicant
US5974412(A)	1999-10-01	Hazlehurst et al.	Applicant
US5991739(A)	1999-11-01	Cupps et al.	Applicant
US6029141(A)	2000-02-01	Bezos et al.	Examiner
US6035402(A)	2000-03-01	Vaeth et al.	Applicant
US6044363(A)	2000-03-01	Mori et al.	Applicant
US6047264(A)	2000-04-01	Fisher et al.	Applicant
US6052723(A)	2000-04-01	Ginn	Examiner
US6055518(A)	2000-04-01	Franklin et al.	Applicant
US6058417(A)	2000-05-01	Hess et al.	Applicant
US6061448(A)	2000-05-01	Smith et al.	Applicant
US6064980(A)	2000-05-01	Jacobi et al.	Applicant
US6066075(A)	2000-05-01	Poulton	Applicant
US6070145(A)	2000-05-01	Pinsley et al.	Applicant
US6073117(A)	2000-06-01	Oyanagi et al.	Applicant
US6085176(A)	2000-07-01	Woolston	Applicant
US6092049(A)	2000-07-01	Chislenko et al.	Applicant
US6101489(A)	2000-08-01	Lannert et al.	Applicant
US6104815(A)	2000-08-01	Alcorn et al.	Applicant
US6112186(A)	2000-08-01	Bergh et al.	Applicant
US6119137(A)	2000-09-01	Smith et al.	Applicant
US6134548(A)	2000-10-01	Gottsman	Applicant
US6141653(A)	2000-10-01	Conklin et al.	Applicant
US6148299(A)	2000-11-01	Yoshimoto	Applicant
US6161099(A)	2000-12-01	Harrington et al.	Applicant
US6178408(B1)	2001-01-01	Copple et al.	Applicant
US6189029(B1)	2001-02-01	Fuerst	Applicant
US6192407(B1)	2001-02-01	Smith et al.	Applicant
US6199049(B1)	2001-03-01	Conde et al.	Applicant
US6202051(B1)	2001-03-01	Woolston	Applicant
US6236975(B1)	2001-05-01	Boe et al.	Applicant
US6236977(B1)	2001-05-01	Verba et al.	Applicant
US6237059(B1)	2001-05-01	Dean et al.	Applicant
US6243691(B1)	2001-06-01	Fisher et al.	Applicant
US6266649(B1)	2001-07-01	Linden et al.	Examiner
US6275811(B1)	2001-08-01	Ginn	Examiner
US6311190(B1)	2001-10-01	Bayer et al.	Applicant
US6313833(B1)	2001-11-01	Knight	Applicant
US6321221(B1)	2001-11-01	Bieganski	Applicant
US6327574(B1)	2001-12-01	Kramer et al.	Applicant
US6352479(B1)	2002-03-01	Sparks, II	Examiner
US6374290(B1)	2002-04-01	Scharber et al.	Applicant
US6396472(B1)	2002-05-01	Jacklin	Applicant
US6405159(B2)	2002-06-01	Bushey et al.	Examiner
US6405175(B1)	2002-06-01	Ng	Applicant
US6466917(B1)	2002-10-01	Goyal et al.	Applicant
US6466918(B1)	2002-10-01	Spiegel et al.	Examiner
US6477509(B1)	2002-11-01	Hammons et al.	Examiner
US6484153(B1)	2002-11-01	Walker et al.	Applicant
US6493703(B1)	2002-12-01	Knight et al.	Examiner
US6505201(B1)	2003-01-01	Haitsuka et al.	Applicant
US6523037(B1)	2003-02-01	Monahan et al.	Applicant
US6539392(B1)	2003-03-01	Rebane	Applicant
US6615258(B1)	2003-09-01	Barry et al.	Applicant
US6697824(B1)	2004-02-01	Bowman-Amuah	Applicant
US6856963(B1)	2005-02-01	Hurwitz	Examiner
US6859783(B2)	2005-02-01	Cogger et al.	Applicant
US6952678(B2)	2005-10-01	Williams et al.	Applicant
US7428505(B1)	2008-09-01	Levy et al.	Applicant
US7587359(B2)	2009-09-01	Levy et al.	Applicant
US7716079(B2)	2010-05-01	Hanif et al.	Applicant
US2001/0029455(A1)	2001-10-01	Chin	Applicant
US2001/0037206(A1)	2001-11-01	Falk et al.	Applicant
US2001/0037253(A1)	2001-11-01	Kensey	Applicant
US2001/0047290(A1)	2001-11-01	Petras et al.	Examiner
US2002/0007338(A1)	2002-01-01	Do	Applicant
US2002/0069200(A1)	2002-06-01	Cooper et al.	Applicant
US2002/0095305(A1)	2002-07-01	Gakidis et al.	Applicant
US2002/0118225(A1)	2002-08-01	Miksovsky	Applicant
US2002/0138402(A1)	2002-09-01	Zacharia et al.	Applicant
US2003/0131232(A1)	2003-07-01	Fraser et al.	Applicant
US2003/0167209(A1)	2003-09-01	Hsieh	Applicant
US2004/0169678(A1)	2004-09-01	Oliver	Applicant
US2004/0210550(A1)	2004-10-01	Williams et al.	Applicant
US2004/0225577(A1)	2004-11-01	Robinson	Applicant
US2004/0243527(A1)	2004-12-01	Gross	Applicant
US2004/0243604(A1)	2004-12-01	Gross	Applicant
US2004/0267604(A1)	2004-12-01	Gross	Applicant
US2005/0125826(A1)	2005-06-01	Hunleth et al.	Applicant
US2007/0208454(A1)	2007-09-01	Forrester et al.	Applicant
US2008/0065994(A1)	2008-03-01	Wang et al.	Applicant
US2008/0320049(A1)	2008-12-01	Levy et al.	Applicant
US2010/0287064(A1)	2010-11-01	Hanif et al.	Applicant
CA2253543	1997-03-01		Applicant
FR2658635(A1)	1991-06-01		Applicant
NL9300266	1993-10-01		Applicant
US9918510	1998-10-01		Applicant
US32088	2001-04-01		Applicant
WO92/15174	1992-02-01		Applicant
WO-9215174(A1)	1992-09-01		Applicant
WO95/01711	1995-06-01		Applicant
WO96/34356	1996-04-01		Applicant
WO-9634356(A1)	1996-10-01		Applicant
WO97/37315	1997-03-01		Applicant
WO-9737315(A1)	1997-10-01		Applicant
WO99/63461	1999-05-01		Applicant
WO/PCT/US01/04811	2001-02-01		Applicant
WO-0165338(A2)	2001-09-01		Applicant
WO-0165338(A3)	2001-09-01		Applicant
WO-03010621(A2)	2003-02-01		Applicant
WO-03010621(A3)	2003-02-01		Applicant
WO-2005052835(A1)	2005-06-01		Applicant

Non-Patent Literature (294)

“Beyond/com Adds Customer Ratings to Web Site; First Internet Store to Post Comprehensive Online Buyers' guide to Software.” Business Wire. Nov. 16, 1998.Examiner
Caruthers, Crystal. “Home Builder has Customer Satisfaction as its Cornerstone” . Daily Herald. Nov. 25, 1998.Examiner
“@ Home Network Names BUYDIRECT.COM as Its Online Software Retailer”. PR Newswire. Nov. 16, 1998.Examiner
Harris, Donna. “Product Helps Dealers Reward Loyal Customers”. Automotive News. Jan. 11, 1999. vol. 73. Iss. 5801. p. 38.Examiner
Vandelo, Morton Thanning. “Narrating Corporate Reputation: Becoming Legitimate through Storytelling”. International Studies of Management and Organization. Fall 1998. vol. 28. Iss. 3. pp. 120-137.Examiner
Epinion.com www.webarchive.org/epinions.com. Nov. 27,1999 to Jan. 22, 2000. p. 1-18.Examiner
Patience, Nick. “Epinions Launches Online Shopping Guide Built on Trust”. Computergram International. Iss. 3744. Sep. 10, 1999. pp. 19-20.Examiner
Nielsen, Jakob. “Reputation Managers are Happening”.http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990905.html. Sep. 1999.Examiner
Aho, Alfred; John Hopcroft, Jeffrey Ullman. “Data Structures and Algorithms”. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1983 pp. 75-89.Examiner
Epinions.com, www.epinions.com, Nov. 28, 1999 [retrieved Nov. 12, 2003], pp. 21-28, retrieved from: Google.com and Archive.org.Examiner
Zacharia, Giorgis, et al., “Collaborative Reputation Mechanism in Electronic Marketplaces”, IEEE,1999, pp. 1-7, retrieved from Google Scholar.Examiner
Foner, Leonard N., “Yenta: A Multi-Agent, Referral-Based Matching System”, MIT Media Lab/ACM, 1997, pp. 301-307, retrieved from Google Scholar.Examiner
Malone, TW; Yates, J; et al., “Electrnic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies”, Communications-of the ACM, Jun. 1987, pp. 484-497, vol. 30, No. 6, USA.Applicant
Warbelow, A; Kokuryo, J, “Aucnet: TV Auction Network System”. Harvard Business School Case/Study, Jul. 1989, pp. 1-15, HBVR#9-190-001, USA.Applicant
“Personal Optimized Decision/Transaction Program”, IBM Technocal Disclosure Bulletin, Jan. 1995, pp. 83-84, vol. 38, No. 1, USA.Applicant
Neo, BS, “The implementation of an electronic market for pig trading in Singapore”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Dec. 1992, pp. 278-288, vol. 1, No. 5.Applicant
Rockoff, TE; Groves, M., “Design of an Internet-based system for remote Dutch auctions”, Internet Reaearch—Electrnic Networking Applications and Policy, Jan. 1, 1995, vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 10-16.Applicant
Massimb, MN; Phelps, BD, “Electronic Trading, Market Structure and Liquifity”, Financial Analysts Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1994, vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 39-50, Charlottesville, Virginia.Applicant
Post, DL; Coppinger, SS, et al., “Application of Auctions as a Pricing Mechinism for the Interchange of Electric Power”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Aug. 1995, pp. 7, vol. 10, No. 3.Applicant
Hess, CM; Kemerer, CF., “Computerized Loan Organization System: An Industry Case Study of the Electronic Markets Hypothesis”, MIS Quarterly, Sep. 1994, vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 251-274.Applicant
Reck, Martin, “Formally Specifying and Automated Trade Execution System”, Journal of Systems and Software, 1993, pp. 245-252, vol. 21, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. New York, Ny.Applicant
“Anonymous Delivery of Goods in Electronic Commerce”, IBM Technocal Disclosure Bulletin, Mar. 1996, pp. 363-366, vol. 39, No. 3.Applicant
Lee, G., “Electronic Brokerage and Electronic Auction: The Impact of IT on Market Structures”, Proceedings of the 29th HICSS, 1996, pp. 397-406, vol. IV.Applicant
Clemins, E; Weber, B., “Evaluating the Prospects for Alternative Electronic Securities Markets”, International Conference on Information Systems, 1991, pp. 53-61, vol. 12.Applicant
Mardesich, J., “Onsale Takes Auction gavel electronic”, Computer Reseller News, Jul. 8, 1996, p. 2 continued on p. 32, Mountain View, California.Applicant
“Onsale joins fray as online shopping picks up speed: Internet Booms”, Computer Reseller News, Jun. 5, 1995, p. 73, CMP Publications, Inc., USA.Applicant
Siegmann, Ken, “Nowhere to go but up”, PC Week, Oct. 23, 1995, p. 1-3, vol. 12, No. 42, Ziff-Davis Publishing Company.Applicant
“Onsale: Onsale Brings Thrill of Auctions and Bargain Hunting Online; Unique Internet retail service debuts with week-long charity auction for the Computer Museum in Boston”, May 24, 1995, pp. 3.Applicant
Schmid, BF., “The Development of Electronic Commerce”, Newsletter of the Competence Centre Electrnic Markets, Oct. 1993, No. 9/10.Applicant
Tjostheim, I; Eide, J., “A case study of an on-line auction for the World Wide Web”, Norwegian Computing Center, No Date Given, pp. 1-10.Applicant
Graham, I., “The Emergence of Linked Fish Markets in Europe”, Focus Theme, No Date Given, pp. 1-3.Applicant
Reck, Martin., “Trasing-Process Characteristics of Electronic Auctions”, Focus Theme, No Date Given, pp. 1-7.Applicant
Van Heck, E; Ribbers, PM., “Experiences with Electronic Auctions in the Dutch Flower Industry”, Focus Theme, No Date Given, pp. 1-6.Applicant
Lee, HG., “Aucnet: Electronic Intermediary for Used-car Transactions”, Focus Theme, No Date Given, pp. 1-5.Applicant
Klein, S., “Introduction to Electronic Auctions”, Focus Theme, No Date Given, pp. 1-4.Applicant
Turban, E., “Auctions and Bidding on the Internet an Assessment”, Focus Theme, No Date Given, pp. 1-5.Applicant
Zwass, Vladimir., “Electronic Commerce: Structures and Issues”, International Journal of Electrnic Commerce, Fall 1996, pp. 3-23, vol. 1, No. 1.Applicant
International Search Report, PCT/US01/04811.Applicant
Resnick, Paul et al. Reputation Systems. Communications of the ACM, v43,n12, pp. 45-48.Applicant
Mediapraise. Mediapraise receives national award for web-based technology that enables companies to solve thorny HR problem. Business Editors, Dec. 14, 1998.Applicant
Meade, Jim. Visual 360: a performance apprasial system that's fun. HR Magazine, v44, n7, p. 118.Applicant
Chris Preist, Marten vAN Tol, “International Conference on Information and Computation Economies”, Adaptive Agents in a Persistant Shout Double Auction, (c) 1999, pp. 2.Applicant
Ekstrom, Martin. A Rating System for AEC e-Bidding. PhD Dissertion. Nov. 27, 2000 [downloaded from the internet Nov. 13, 2001] from http://www.stanford.edu/˜mekstrom/research/PhDQualifyingDocument.pdf. pp. 13-17, Fig. 2 p. 17.Applicant
Patience, Nick. Epinions Launches Oniline Shopping Guide Built on Trust. Computergram International. Sep. 10, 1999. pp. 1-2.Applicant
Nielsen, Jacob. Reputation Managers Are Happening. Alertbox., Sep. 5, 1999, Epinions.com, What is the Web of Trust. Epinions.com FAQ sheet. Downloaded Nov. 13, 2001 from the internet URL http://www.epinions.com/help/faq/?show=faqwot#001.Applicant
“Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies” Jordi Sabater, IIIA—Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, Carles Sierra, IIIA- Artificial Intelligence Research Institute. pp. 1-9.Applicant
“Collaborative Reputation Mechanisms in Electronic Marketplaces”, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-1999. Giorgos Zacharia, Alexandros Moukas and Pattie Maes, MIT Media Laboratory, pp. 1-19.Applicant
“Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies” Jordi Sabater, IIIA—Artifical Intelligence Research Institute, Carles Sierra, IIIA—Artificial Intelligence Research Institute. pp. 1-9.Applicant
“Collaborative Reputation Mechanisms in Electronic Marketplaces”, Proceedsings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences- 1999. Giorgos Zacharia, Alexandros Moukas and Pattie Maes, MIT Media Laboratory, pp. 1-19.Applicant
A.J. Cann, Innovations in Education and Training International, Journal Paper, Feb. 1999, pp. 44-52, vol. 36, Routledge, United Kingdom.Applicant
Mike Heck, InfoWorld, Software Review, Aug. 2, 1999, 1 page, vol. 21, Perseus Development, United States.Applicant
Bonny L. Georgia, PC Computing, Software Review, 1 page, vol. 11, EZSurvey 98 for the Internet, United States.Applicant
Chicago Tribune, “Amazon.com (Seattle) is expanding into toys and consumer electronics in time for the Christmas holiday; will offer extensive product reviews and buying guides” Newspaper, Jul. 14, 1999, United States.Applicant
Computer Resller News, “Microsoft Corp's Office 97 brings together hundreds of new and improved features and organizes them more logically than before, according to product review” Journal, Feb. 16, 1998, United States.Applicant
Computer Reseller News, “Cybersource launches Software.net service, which provides product reviews and marketing material linked by key words” Journal, Nov. 28, 1994, p. 56, United States.Applicant
Alexandra Barrett, “What's Your Epinion?” Network World, Article, Sep. 13, 1999, United States.Applicant
Wayne Rash, “On the Prowl for the Best Internet Products”, InternetWeek, Editorial, Feb. 1, 1999, p. 46, United States.Applicant
Ross M. Greenberg, Computerworld, Brief Article, Evaluation, Mar. 30, 1998, p. 53, United States.Applicant
Beth Lipton Krigel, Big chances ahead for Deja News, CNET News.com, Online Article (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-225101.html), Apr. 28, 1999, 3 pages, United States.Applicant
Janet Kornblum, Consumer Reports an online win, CNET News.com, Online Article (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-217386.html), Nov. 2, 1998, 2 pages, United States.Applicant
Troy Wolverton, Productopia launches-product review site, CNET News.com, Online Article (http://news.com.com/2100-1017-228811.html), Jul. 21, 1999, 2 pages, United States.Applicant
NAD 412 Reviews, Found on WayBackMachine (http://web.archive.org/web/19990203004345/www.audioreview/com/reviews/Tuner/nad—412—tuner.shtmil) Online Reviews, 5 pages, Feb. 3, 1995, (printed Aug. 28, 2003) United States.Applicant
Welcome to Product ReviewNet! Your Source for Product Review Information, Online Review (http://web.archive.org/web/19991114054251/www.productreview/com/splash.htmil), 1 page, United States.Applicant
Paul Festa, Have an Epionion?, CNET News.com, Online Article, Jul. 9, 1999, 2 pages, United States.Applicant
Aho, A. V., “Directed Graphs”, Date Structures And Algorithms, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California,(1983), 198-219.Applicant
BEYOND.COM, “IMS Web Spinner Personal V1.26 for Win95/98/NT”, http://web.archive.org/web/20000125152017/www.beyond.com/PKSN104373/prod.htmcrewiew, (1998-2000),3 pages.Applicant
BUYCLEARANCE.COM, “The Internet Clearance Superstore: Product Information”, http://web.archive.org/web/20000124120021/www.buy.com/clearance/productasp?sku=70000254, [Field error on website], 1 page.Applicant
Consumer Review!, “49,000 Product Reviews by Consumers for Consumers”, http://web.archive.org/web/19981206010249/http://www.consumerreview.com, (1996-1998).Applicant
Guglielmo, Connie, “BizRate Lets Consumers Rate Sites”, Interactive Week, 4(22), (Aug. 4, 1997).Applicant
Miller, Michael J., “The Best Products of 1999 Revealed”, ZDNethttp://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,5019537,00.html,(Dec. 13, 1999),2 pages.Applicant
MTB Review, “http://www.mtbr.com”, http://www.mtbr.com, The attached mtbr.pdf which includes screen shots from a Mountain Biking Resource Review web site taken from Wayback Machine Internet Archive located at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php.,(Archived Jan. 25, 1997).Applicant
PRICESCAN.COM, “PriceSCAN: Your Unbiased Guide to the Lowest Prices on Books, Computers, Electronic . . .”, http://web.archive.org/web/19991117123352/www.pricescan.com, (1997-99),1 page.Applicant
Product Reviewnet!, “Welcome to Product ReviewNet! The Premier Online Source for Product Review Abstracts”, http://web.archive.org/web/19981201205356/www.productreviewnet.com/splash.html, (1996-1998).Applicant
http://pages.ebay.com/helo/feedback/questions/leaving-feedback.html. Wayback Machine Internet archive, (Nov. 10, 1999),3 pages.Applicant
“International Search Report PCT/US00/17136”, PCT/US00/17136.Applicant
“International Search Report PCT/US01/12398”, PCT/US01/12398.Applicant
“Social Network”, Wikipedia the free encyclopedia—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soical—networking, (Archived Apr. 1, 2004), 1-7.Applicant
Annen, Kurt , “Social Capital, Indusive Networks, and Economic Performance”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. vol. 50. Issue 4, (2003), 1-27.Applicant
Barrett, Alexandra , “What's Your Epinion? On Epinion.com, read product reviews by regular folks, then post your own”, Network World, (Sep. 13, 1999),2 pgs.Applicant
Business Wire, “Mediappraise Receives National Award for Web-based Technology That Enables Companies to Solve Thorny HR Problem”, Business Wire, (Dec. 14, 1998), 1-2.Applicant
Hanneman, Robert A., “Introduction to Social Network Methods”, On-line textbook, Riverside. CA: University of California Riverside, (2001), 1-150.Applicant
Jordan, Ken , “The Augmented Social Network: Building identity and trust into the next-generation Internet”, firstmonday. peer-previewed journal on the internet.http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8—8/jordan/. (Archived Aug. 2, 2003), 1-66.Applicant
Mardesich, Jodi , “Site Offers Clearance for End-of-Life Products—Onsale Takes Auction Gavel Electronic”, Computer Reseller News, (Jul. 8,1998),2 pages.Applicant
Mui, Lik , “A Computational Model of Trust and Reputation”, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences—2002, (2002),9 Pages.Applicant
Pujol, Josep M., “Extraxting Reputation in Multi Agent Systems by Means of Social Network Topology”, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, (2002),8 Pages.Applicant
Rasmusson, Lars , “Simulated Social Control for Secure Internet Commerce”, Proceedings of the 1996 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, Lake Arrowhead, California, United States,(Apr. 1, 1998)18-25.Applicant
Sabater, Jordi , et al., “Reputation and Social Network Analysis in Multi-Agent Systems”, IIIA—Artifical Intelligence Research Institute. CSIC—Spanish Scientific Research Council Bellaterra, Catalonia. Spain, 8 pages.Applicant
Vivian, Nathan , “Social Networks in Transnational and Virtual Communities”, Informing Science, InSITE—“Where Parallels Intersect”, (Jun. 2003).1431-1437.Applicant
Wellman, Barry , “An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network”, almost final version of Chapter 9 in Sara Kiester. ed.. Culture of the Internet, Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum, (1997),26 Pages.Applicant
Yu, Bin , “A Social Mechanism of Reputation Management in Electronic Communities”, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents IV, The Future of Information Agents in Cyberspace, (2000),154-165.Applicant
www.archive.org/web/19991122031437/http://pages.ebay.com/help/basics/f-feedback.html#3via—the—Wayback—Machine, (Nov. 10, 1999).Applicant
http://web.archive.org/web/19990825071501 and http://web.archive.org/web/19991122063932, Retrieved on Jan. 20, 2006 from wayback machine, www.ebay.com, (Nov. 10, 1999), 5 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Advisory Action mailed May 19, 2003”, 3 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 6, 2003”, 8 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2002”, 7 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Preliminary Amendment mailed May 3, 2000”, 7 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed May 6, 2003 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 6, 2003”, 4 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Dec. 9, 2002 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2002”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Advisory Action mailed Jun. 19, 2006”, 3 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Advisory Action mailed Oct. 11, 2005”, 3 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 final office action mailed Feb. 17, 2004”, 16 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 final office action mailed Mar. 27, 2006”, 32 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Final office action mailed Jul. 26, 2005”, 22 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 final office action mailed Nov. 30, 2004”, 14 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 non final office action mailed Mar. 7, 2005”, 15 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 non final office action mailed Jul. 22, 2004”, 14 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 non final office action mailed Oct. 21, 2003”, 14 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 non final office action mailed Nov. 22, 2005”, 20 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Response filed Jan. 22, 2004 to non final office action mailed Oct. 21, 2003”, 26 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Response filed Feb. 21, 2006 non final office action mailed Nov. 22, 2005”, 16 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Response filed May 30, 2006 final office action mailed Mar. 27, 2006”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Response filed Jun. 4, 2004 to final office action mailed Feb. 17, 2004”, 15 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Response filed Jun. 7, 2005 non-final office action mailed Mar. 7, 2005”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Response filed Sep. 24, 2005 final office action mailed Jul. 26, 2005”, 15 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893 Response filed Sep. 29, 2004 non-final office action mailed Jul. 22, 2004”, 15 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Notice of Allowance mailed Mar. 8, 2007”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 6, 2008”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Supplemental Amendment filed Oct. 4, 2007”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Advisory Action mailed Mar. 22, 2004”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Advisory Action mailed Dec. 12, 2006”, 3 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.312 filed Jun. 4, 2007”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2002”, 19 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Final Office Action mailed Sep. 22, 2006”, 18 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Final Office Action mailed Dec. 17, 2003”, 18 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 21, 2006”, 17 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 13, 2004”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 18, 2001”, 16 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2005”, 18 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2002”, 19 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Jan. 17, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2005”, 11 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Feb. 27, 2004 to Final Office Action mailed Dec. 17, 2003”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Apr. 21, 2003 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2002”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Jun. 21, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 21, 2006”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Sep. 16, 2002 to Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2002”, 15 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Oct. 13, 2004 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 13, 2004”, 14 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Oct. 18, 2001 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 18, 2001”, 23 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Response filed Nov. 7, 2006 to Final Office Action mailed Sep. 22, 2006”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575 Notice of Allowance mailed Apr. 23, 2008”, NOAR, 5 PgS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 final office action mailed Jan. 27, 2006”, 23 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 final office action mailed Mar. 2, 2005”, 23 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 final office action mailed Apr. 19, 2007 Pgs”, 12 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 non-final office action mailed Oct. 19, 2006”, 12 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 non-final office action mailed Aug. 8, 2005”, 23 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 non-final office action mailed Sep. 16, 2004”, 21 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Response filed Jan. 23, 2007 non-final office action mailed Oct. 19, 2006”, 11 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Response filed Nov. 8, 2005 non-final office action mailed Aug. 8, 2005”, 27 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Response filed Dec. 16, 2004 non-final office action mailed Sep. 16, 2004”, 25 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Response filed Mar. 27, 2006 final office action mailed Jan. 27, 2006”, 24 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Response filed May 1, 2005 final office action mailed Mar. 2, 2005”, 22 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Response filed Jul. 5, 2007 final office action mailed Apr. 19, 2007”, 5 PGS.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Advisory Action mailed Apr. 24, 2006”, 4 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 19, 2007”, 4 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 31, 2008”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Preliminary Amendment mailed Dec. 2, 2003”, 20 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Mar. 24, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2008”, 9 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Oct. 22, 2007 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 19, 2007”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Response filed Oct. 30, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 31, 2008”, 17 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502 Final Office Action mailed Jan. 14, 2009”, 17 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740502, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2008”, OARN, 3 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 10, 2008”, 27 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Sep. 3, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, 17 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 28, 2006”, 11 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Final Office Action mailed Sep. 1, 2005”, 9 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 3, 2006”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 16, 2005”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2009”, 09 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Jan. 3, 2006 to Final Office Action mailed Sep. 1, 2005”, 11 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Jun. 13, 2005 to Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 16, 2005”, 18 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Jul. 3, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 3, 2006”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Notice of Allowance mailed Mar, 20, 2008”, 8 Pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Preliminary Amendment filed Oct. 4, 2007”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Supplemental Preliminary Amendment filed Nov. 16, 2007”, 7 pgs.Applicant
“Ebay—What is Mutual Feedback Withdrawal?”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://pages.ebay.com/help/feedback/questions/mutual-withdrawal.html>, (Accessed Apr. 3, 2006), 6 pgs.Applicant
“Entry for “Withdraw””, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus, Property of U.S. Government, (1988), 859.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 04819526.7, European Search Report mailed Jun. 17, 2008”, 3 pgs.Applicant
“International Application Serial No. PCT/USO4/38096, International Search Report mailed Mar. 16, 2005”, 5 pgs.Applicant
“International Application Serial No. PCT/USO4/38096, Written Opinion mailed Mar. 16, 2005”, 8 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583 Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, OARN, 6pgs.Applicant
“Ebay Community chat”, ebay.com—webpage—from—web.archive.org, (Dec. 12, 2000), 1-2.Applicant
“eBay Help: Basics : FAQ : Feedback”, ebay.com webpage from web.archive.org, (Oct. 12, 1999), 1-3.Applicant
“eBay Help: community Standards: eBay Help: Rules and safety”, ebay.com webpage from—web.archive.org, (Aug. 1, 2000), 1-2.Applicant
“eBay Leave Feedback about an eBay User”, ebay.com—webpage from web.archive.org, (Aug. 25, 1999), 1-2.Applicant
“ebay Listings : Cufflinks, Studs”, ebay.com—webpage—from—web.archive.org, (Feb. 8, 2001), 1-3.Applicant
“ebay: The ebay Q&A Board”, ebay.com—webpage—from—web.archive.org, (Oct. 3, 2000), 1-21.Applicant
“See the Feedback Profile of an eBay User”, ebay.com—webpage—from—web.archive.org, (Dec. 5, 2000), 1.Applicant
“The Feedback Forum”, ebay.com—webpage—from—web.archive.org, (Dec. 17, 2000), 1-2.Applicant
Abdul-Rahman, A., et al., “Supporting Trust in Virtual Communities”, Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,6(6), (2000), 1-25.Applicant
Abdul-Rahman, Alfarez, et al., “Using Recommendations for Managing Trust in Distributed Systems”, IEEE Malaysia International Conference on Communication, (1997), 1-7.Applicant
Aberer, Karl, et al., “Managing Trust in a Peer-2-Peer Information System”, Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, (2001), 310-317.Applicant
Baumann, G. W, “Personal Optimized Decision/Transaction Program”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, (Jan. 1995), 83-84.Applicant
Carter, Jonathan, et al., “Reputation Formalization Within Information Sharing Multiagent Architectures”, Computational Intelligence, 2(5), (2002), 45-64.Applicant
Dellarocas, C., “Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behaviour”, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on Electronic commerce, (2000), 150-157.Applicant
Dellarocas, C., “The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and challenges of Online Reputation Mechanisms”, Sloan School of Management, MIT, (Oct. 1, 2002), 1-38.Applicant
Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, “Mechanisms for coping with unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior in online reputation reporting systems”, Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems, (2000), 520-525.Applicant
Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, “The Design of Reliable Trust Management Systems for Electronic Trading Communities”, Working Paper, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2001), 1-45.Applicant
Donath, J., “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community”, In Kollock, P. and Smith, M. (Eds.) Communities in Cyberspace: Perspectives on New Forms of Social Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press, MIT Media Lab, 1997 , 1-25.Applicant
Friedman, E. J, et al., “The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms”, Rutgers University, Dept.of Economics, (Aug. 2000), 1-32.Applicant
Friedman, Eric, “Robust Social Norms in Bargains and Markets”, Draft, Rutgers University, (1999), 1-23.Applicant
Friedman, Eric, et al., “The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(2), (2000), 173-199.Applicant
Malaga, R. A, “Web-Based Reputaton Management Systems: Problems and Suggested Solutions”, vol. 1, 2001 , 403-417.Applicant
Malone, T., et al., “Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies”, Communications of the ACM, (Jun. 1987), vol. 14, Issue 25.Applicant
Mui, L., et al., “Ratings in Distributed Systems: A Bayesian Approach”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS), 1-7.Applicant
Neo, B S, “The implementation of an electronic market for pig trading in Singapore”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems. vol. 1 (5), (Dec. 1992), 278-288.Applicant
Ono, C., et al., “Trust-Based Facilitator for e-Partnerships”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, (2001), 108-109.Applicant
Resnick, P., et al., “Trust among Strangers in Internet Transactions: Empirical Analyses of eBay's Reputation System”, NBER Workshop, (Feb. 5, 2001), 1-26.Applicant
Sabater, J., et al., “Reputation and Social ntework analysis in multi-agent systems”, International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Bologna, Italy.: Session 2D: group and organizational dynamics, (2002), 475-482.Applicant
Schneider, Jay, et al., “Disseminating Trust Information in Wearable Communities”, 2nd International Symposium on Handheld and Ubitquitous Comput- 10 ing (HUC2K), (2000), 1-5.Applicant
Venkatraman, Mahadevan, et al., “Trust and Reputation Management in a Small-World Network”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000), (2000), 1-2.Applicant
Warbelow, A, et al., “Aucnet: TV Auction Network System”, Harvard Business School Case/Study, HBVR#9-190-001, USA, (Jul. 1989), 1-15.Applicant
Yu, Bin, et al., “A Social Mechanism of Reputation Management in Electronic Communities”, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents IV, The Future of Information Agents in Cyberspace, (2000), 154-165.Applicant
Zacharia, Giorgos, et al., “Collaborative Reputation Mechanisms in Electronic Marketplaces”, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (1999), 1-7.Applicant
Zachiara, et al., “Collaborative reputation mechanisms for electronic marketplaces”, Decision support systems, vol. 29, (Dec. 2000), 371-388.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 20, 2009”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Preliminary Amendment filed Oct. 5, 1999”, 1 pg.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2010”, 16 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Sep. 10, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2009”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Mar. 4, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2010”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583 , Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 15, 2009”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Jan. 15, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 15, 2009”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Jul. 17, 2009 to Restriction Requirement mailed Jun. 17, 2009”, 8 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Restriction Requirement mailed Jun. 17, 2009”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 14, 2009”, 4 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 24, 2009”, 5 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Aug. 31, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed May 29, 2009”, 11 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Office Action mailed Dec. 4, 2009”, 9 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 04819526.7, Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed: Jan. 28, 2010”, 7 pgs.Applicant
Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, “The design of reliable trust management systems for electronic trading communities”, - Arbeitsbabier, MIT, Citeseer, (2002), 45 pgs.Applicant
Langley, Paul A., “Building cognitive feedback into a microworld learning environment: Results from a pilot”, System dynamics, - systemdynamics.orq, (1995), 1 pg.Applicant
Svensson, Lars, “Discursive evaluation in a distributed learning community”, Australian Journal of Educational Technology—Citeseer, (2002), 11 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Appeal Brief filed Aug. 2, 2006”, 26 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2002”, 7 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Preliminary Amendment filed Sep. 8, 2003”, 23 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/412,893, Response filed Dec. 9, 2002 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2002”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Apr. 17, 2003”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Aug. 13, 2002”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Sep. 6, 2007”, 3 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/515,575, Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 21, 2006”, 17 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Mar. 17, 2008”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2009”, 15 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Preliminary Amendment filed Apr. 28, 2003”, 14 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 09/740,502, Response filed Mar, 16, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 14, 2009”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Mar. 10, 2009 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 10, 2008”, 16 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Appeal Brief filed Dec. 18, 2006”, 23 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Examiner Interview Summary filed Jan. 2, 2009”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Dec. 2, 2008”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Dec. 10, 2008”, 4 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Final Office Action mailed May 29, 2009”, 9 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review filed Sep. 27, 2006”, 5 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/749,736, Response filed Apr. 7, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2009”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Notice of Allowance mailed Apr. 23, 2009”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,196, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 1, 2008”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“eBay Feedback Removal Policy”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:. http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/fbremove.html>, (Jun. 19, 2000), 2 pgs.Applicant
“eBay, eBay Feedback Removal Policy”, [Online] Archived Feb. 14, 2005. Retrieved from the Internt: <URL: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/fbremove.html>, (Jun. 19, 2000), 3 pgs.Applicant
“eBay: The Feedback Forum”, www.archive.org:, (Oct. 12, 1999), 4 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01274337.3, Office Action Mailed Feb. 13, 2009”, 4 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 04519526.7, Office Action mailed Feb. 4, 2009”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“Feedback Overview and Feedback Forum”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www.ebay.com>, (1999), 4 pages.Applicant
“Give some feedback on an Auction Web user”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19981203032739/www2ebay.com/aw/user-feedback.html>, (May 18, 2005), 2 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 3, 2010”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 01822389.3, Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2007”, 9 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 01822389.3, Response filed Jul. 24, 2007 to Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2007”, 19 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Response filed Apr. 8, 2010 to Office Action mailed Dec. 4, 2009”, 33 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01274337.3, European Search Report mailed Nov. 15, 2005”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01274337.3, Response filed Aug. 24, 2009 to Office Action mailed Feb. 13, 2009”, 37 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Office Action mailed Sep. 16, 2005”, 1 pg.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Office Action mailed Nov. 18, 2005”, 6 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Response filed Apr. 28, 2006 to Office Action mailed Nov. 18, 2005”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Search Report mailed Sep. 14, 2005”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 01913244.8, Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed on: Nov. 15, 2010”, 11 pgs.Applicant
“International Application Serial No. 2005052835, International Preliminary Examination Report Mar. 17, 2006”, 21 pgs.Applicant
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/06709, International Preliminary Examination Report mailed Mar. 25, 2002”, 14 pgs.Applicant
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/50499, International Preliminary Examination Report mailed Dec. 3, 2004”, 4 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 28, 2010”, 14 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/746,583, Response filed Jul. 28, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 28, 2010”, 10 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Non-Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2010”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Response filed Sep. 3, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2010”, 21 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144 Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 5, 2010”, 3 pgs.Applicant
“Celebrating Its Third Year Anniversary eBay Sets Standard for Online Person-To-Person Trading”, PR Newswire, New York, (FeedbackForum) downloaded from ProQuest Direct on the Internet on May 9, 2010, (Sep 15, 1998.), p. 1.Applicant
“European Application Serial No. 04819526.7, EPO Written Decision to Refuse mailed Jun. 2, 2010”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“Meg Muscles eBay Uptown, Fortune”, Special Report,, downloaded from ProQuest Direct on the Internet on May 9, 2010, 7 pages, (Jul. 5, 1999), 81-88.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 7, 2011”, 15 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Response filed Mar. 7, 2011 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 5, 2010”, 12 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Office Action mailed Jan. 25, 2011”, 5 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 25, 2011”, 3.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/202,145, Applicant's Summary of Examiner Interview filed Jan. 3, 2011”, 1 pg.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Appeal Brief filed Feb. 16, 2012”, 16 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief mailed Mar. 8, 2012”, 18 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Final Office Action mailed Aug. 17, 2011”, 16 pgs.Applicant
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/777,144, Response filed Aug. 8, 2011 to Final Office Action mailed Aug. 7, 2011”, 13 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Final Office Action mailed Feb. 28, 2012”, w/ English Translation, 10 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Office Action mailed Aug. 2, 2011”, With English Translation, 16 pgs.Applicant
“Chinese Application Serial No. 200480038176.0, Office Action Response filed Oct. 17, 2011”, 2 pgs.Applicant
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US01/06709, International Search Report mailed Sep. 10, 2001”, 2 pgs.Applicant

Abstract