U.S. patent application number 11/027758 was filed with the patent office on 2005-09-08 for economic solution to the spam problem.
Invention is credited to Loder, Theodore C., Van Alstyne, Marshall, Wash, Richard L..
Application Number | 20050198174 11/027758 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 34914713 |
Filed Date | 2005-09-08 |
United States Patent
Application |
20050198174 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Loder, Theodore C. ; et
al. |
September 8, 2005 |
Economic solution to the spam problem
Abstract
An economic-based solution is provided for regulating electronic
messages (commonly referred to as spam). Analogous to a standard
bond mechanism, delivering email to an inbox requires an unknown
sender to place a small pledge into escrow with a third party. If
the recipient expects further communication with a particular
sender, they can add the sender to a list of approved senders which
will allow the sender's messages to be delivered to the recipient.
An innovative method for managing this list of approved senders is
described in the present application. A technique for soliciting
electronic messages using the underlying principles of the bond
mechanism is also sent forth in the application.
Inventors: |
Loder, Theodore C.; (Ann
Arbor, MI) ; Van Alstyne, Marshall; (Dexter, MI)
; Wash, Richard L.; (Ann Arbor, MI) |
Correspondence
Address: |
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS
MI
48303
US
|
Family ID: |
34914713 |
Appl. No.: |
11/027758 |
Filed: |
December 30, 2004 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
60533235 |
Dec 30, 2003 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
709/206 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/10 20130101;
G06Q 30/0248 20130101; G06Q 30/0255 20130101; H04L 51/12 20130101;
G06Q 30/0251 20130101; G06Q 30/0253 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
709/206 |
International
Class: |
G06F 015/16 |
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method for managing a list of approved senders in an
electronic message system, comprising: maintaining a list of
approved senders associated with a recipient; receiving an
electronic message intended for the recipient wherein the
electronic message references a sender residing on the list of
approved senders and at least one potential sender whom is not on
the list of approved senders; and placing the potential sender on
the list of approved senders associated with the recipient.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the electronic message was sent by
the sender on the list of approved senders.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the potential sender is copied on
the electronic message received by the recipient.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the potential sender is identified
in a body of the electronic message.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the electronic message was sent by
the potential sender and the sender on the list of approved senders
is either copied of the electronic message or identified in the
body of the electronic message.
6. The method of claim 1 further comprises removing the potential
sender from the list of approved senders after a predefined period
of time.
7. The method of claim 6 further comprises extending the predefined
period of time upon further interaction between the recipient and
the potential sender.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein the further interaction is further
defined as at least one of an electronic message received by the
recipient from the potential sender and an electronic message sent
by the recipient to the potential sender.
9. The method of claim 1 further comprises removing the potential
sender from the list of approved senders after a period of time,
where the period of time is determined as a function of an amount
of interaction between the recipient and the potential sender.
10. A method for regulating delivery of electronic messages to a
recipient in a electronic messaging system, comprising: maintaining
a list of approved senders associated with a recipient; demanding a
bond to be placed into escrow for delivery of an electronic message
sent by a sender not on the list of approved sender; receiving an
electronic message intended for the recipient and sent by a sender
residing on the list of approved senders, where the electronic
message references a potential sender whom is not on the list of
approved senders; and placing the potential sender on the list of
approved senders associated with the recipient.
11. The method of claim 10 further comprises delivering a
subsequent electronic message sent by the potential sender to the
recipient.
12. The method of claim 10 further comprises delivering a different
electronic message to the recipient when the sender of the
different electronic message is on the list of approved
senders.
13. The method of claim 10 further comprises delivering a different
electronic message to the recipient when the sender pays the
demanded fee to an escrow agent.
14. The method of claim 10 further comprises notifying an escrow
agent of the receipt of an electronic message from a sender not on
the list of approved senders, and delivering the electronic message
to the recipient upon confirming payment of demanded bond to the
escrow agent.
15. The method of claim 10 wherein the potential sender is either
copied on the electronic message received by the recipient or
identified in a body of the electronic message.
16. The method of claim 10 further comprises removing the potential
sender from the list of approved senders after a predefined period
of time.
17. The method of claim 16 further comprises extending the period
of time upon further interaction between the recipient and the
potential sender.
18. The method of claim 17 wherein the further interaction is
further defined as at least one of an electronic message received
by the recipient from the potential sender and an electronic
message sent by the recipient to the potential sender.
19. The method of claim 10 further comprises removing the potential
sender from the list of approved senders after a period of time,
where the period of time is determined as a function of an amount
of interaction between the recipient and the potential sender.
20. A method for soliciting electronic messages by a solicitor over
a computer network, comprising: posting a request for electronic
messages with an market operator, the message request specifies a
topic of interest to the solicitor and includes a bond for payment
to at least one respondent of an electronic message sent in
response to the message request; sending, in response to the
message request, at least one electronic message from a respondent
to the solicitor; and releasing the bond from the market operator
to the respondent subsequent to the receipt of the electronic
message by the solicitor.
21. The method of claim 20 further comprises selecting one
electronic message from a plurality of electronic messages received
in response to the message request, and releasing the bond to the
respondent of the selected electronic message.
22. The method of claim 21 wherein the one electronic message is
selected by either the solicitor or the market operator.
23. The method of claim 20 wherein the step of posting a message
request further includes specifying a criterion by which the bond
is to be released by the market operator.
24. The method of claim 20 further comprises assessing content of
an electronic message in relation to the topic specified in the
message request and releasing the bond to the respondent when the
content of the electronic message correlates to the topic.
25. The method of claim 20 wherein the bond is released by the
market operator after a specified period of time or a specified
number of electronic messages have been received by the solicitor
in response to the message request.
26. The method of claim 20 wherein the step of releasing the bond
further comprises allocating the bond amongst a plurality of
respondents whom sent electronic messages in response to the
message request.
27. The method of claim 20 further comprises posting the request
for electronic messages with the market operator and posting the
bond with an escrow agent independent from the market operator.
28. A method for brokering exchanges of electronic messages over a
computer network through the use of an escrow agent, comprising:
receiving a request for electronic messages from an intended
solicitor, the message request specifies a topic of interest to the
solicitor and includes a bond for payment to at least one
respondent of an electronic message sent in response to the message
request; monitoring receipt of at least one electronic message sent
from a respondent to the solicitor in response to the message
request; and releasing the bond to the respondent subsequent to the
receipt of the electronic message by the solicitor.
29. The method of claim 28 further comprises receiving a plurality
of electronic messages in response to the message request and
releasing the bond to the respondent of an electronic message
selected by the solicitor.
30. The method of claim 28 wherein the message request further
includes specifying a criterion by which the bond is to be
released.
31. The method of claim 28 further comprises assessing content of
an electronic message in relation to the topic specified in the
message request and releasing the bond to the respondent when the
content of the electronic message correlates to the topic.
32. The method of claim 28 further comprises releasing the bond
after either a specified period of time or a specified number of
electronic messages have been received by the solicitor in response
to the message request.
Description
[0001] This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C.
.sctn.119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/533,235 filed
on Dec. 30, 2003, and entitled "An Economic Solution to the Spam
Problem" the specification and drawings of which are hereby
expressly incorporated by reference.
FIELD OF INVENTION
[0002] The present invention relates generally to electronic junk
mail (also referred to as spam) and, more particularly, to an
economic mechanism for regulating electronic junk mail.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] Due to its low cost, speed, and freedom from geographical
constraints, email has become a ubiquitous and arguably essential
means of communication. Unfortunately, the same properties that
make it so useful, combined with its openness and trusting design,
enable unscrupulous marketers to broadcast email to untargeted
audiences. The result is unnecessary and unwarranted costs for
recipients.
[0004] Recent estimates indicate more than 50% of email is now
spam, the volume of spam is growing rapidly, and worldwide costs
exceed $20 billion annually. This enormous quantity of unwanted
communications has reduced the signal to noise ratio of email to
such an extent that it has become an issue of national
importance.
[0005] Legislative and technological solutions continue to be the
primary means pursued to stop or limit spam. No fewer than eight
bills are pending before Congress, and more than half the states
have enacted laws to regulate email. At the same time, the
technology industry is rushing to provide products and services
that give individuals and organizations back some control over
their mailboxes. In 2002, at least $54.4 million was invested in
anti-spam startups, up 65% from the previous year.
[0006] Pure technological and regulatory approaches limit unwanted
communications by blocking or banning them. This goes against a
principle of textbook economics: in terms of individual and
aggregate social welfare, a system that facilitates valuable
exchange will generally dominate a system that grants universal
veto power to either power. An improvement in exchange follows from
mechanism design and the principles of information asymmetry. The
primary assumption is that the sender composing an email message
has a better understanding of its relative value than does the
recipient prior to reading it. This private information favors the
sender. Therefore, a screening mechanism has been proposed that
allows recipients to discriminate between classes of high and low
quality senders or conversely a signaling mechanism that allows
high quality senders to rise above the noise.
[0007] Analogous to a standard bond mechanism, delivering email to
an inbox requires an unknown sender to place a small pledge into
escrow with a third party. In the case of screening, recipients
determine the value of this fee, which they can dynamically adjust
to their opportunity costs. After the fee is placed into escrow,
the email is delivered. When the recipient opens the email, they
may act solely at their discretion to seize the pledge. Taking no
action releases the escrow. This mechanism is most appropriate for
situations where recipients have no pre-established relationships
with the sender. If a recipient expects further communication with
a particular sender, they can add the sender to a whitelist which
will allow sender messages to pass through the screen
unencumbered.
[0008] The present invention extends this electronic message system
in two respects. First, an innovative method is proposed for
managing the whitelist used by electronic message system. Second,
an additional method is also proposed for soliciting electronic
messages by a solicitor.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0009] In accordance with the present invention, an innovative
method is provided for managing a list of approved senders in an
electronic message system. The method is comprised of: maintaining
a list of approved senders associated with a recipient; receiving
an electronic message intended for the recipient, where the
electronic message references a sender residing on the list of
approved senders and a potential sender whom is not on the list of
approved senders; and placing the potential sender on the list of
approved senders associated with the recipient.
[0010] In another aspect of the present invention, a method is
provided for soliciting electronic messages by a solicitor. The
method is comprised of: posting a request for electronic messages
with an escrow agent, where the message request specifies a topic
of interest to the recipient and includes a bond for payment to at
least one sender of an electronic message sent in response to the
message request; sending at least one electronic message from a
sender to the recipient in response to the message request; and
releasing the bond from the escrow agent to the sender subsequent
to the receipt of the electronic message by the recipient.
[0011] Further areas of applicability of the present invention will
become apparent from the detailed description provided hereinafter.
It should be understood that the detailed description and specific
examples, while indicating the preferred embodiment of the
invention, are intended for purposes of illustration only and are
not intended to limit the scope of the invention.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0012] FIG. 1 is a diagram of an economic-based bond mechanism for
regulating electronic messages;
[0013] FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a method for managing a
list of approved senders in accordance with one aspect of the
present invention; and
[0014] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating how the bond mechanism may
be used to solicit electronic messages in accordance with another
aspect of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0015] By way of background, an exemplary economic bond mechanism
is described for regulating electronic junk mail. While the
following description is provided with reference to email messages,
it is readily understood that the concepts of the present invention
are applicable to other types of electronic communications,
including but not limited to telephone calls, voice messaging,
instant messaging and short message services.
[0016] First, a few pertinent definitions are set forth. A sender
is a person, machine, or entity that may take action to cause a
message to be transmitted to a recipient. A recipient is the target
party (person, machine, or entity) specified in the envelope, and
the intended endpoint of a message transmission. A sender server is
one or more agents (typically machines), acting in behalf of a
sender (under administrative control of the sender), that the
sender makes use of to send messages. Similarly, a recipient server
is one or more agents (typically machines), acting in behalf of a
recipient (under administrative control of the recipient), that the
recipient makes use of to receive messages.
[0017] A bond is a binding agreement (and the record thereof) to
pay a specified party under specified conditions. An escrow service
is a company, person, or entity that acts as custodian for a posted
bond. The escrow service may release the bond or the funds
specified in the bond to various parties under specified
conditions. An escrow server is a collection of one or more agents
(typically machines) under administrative control of the escrow
service, that facilitates posting of a bond and verification of
bond status for sender and receiver (and potentially other
parties).
[0018] Referring to FIG. 1, the economic mechanism 10 is defined by
a set of parties, a sequence of messages that may be exchanged
between the parties, and the actions that may occur as a result
from their exchange. Aside from exchanging information, the
mechanism enables funds to be transferred between parties under
certain conditions. The following is a description of the sequence
of messages and activities in one possible configuration of the
economic bond mechanism.
[0019] The sender 12 initiates delivery of a message by providing
the message and its envelope to the sender server 13 as
diagrammatically shown at 21. If the sender 12 knows in advance
that a message might be blocked and an escrow fee demanded, he can
include an authorization of payment, up to some maximum amount,
which can be acted upon by their sender server. Alternatively, a
means could be implemented which allows the sender 12 to provide a
rule to the sender server 13 to be used to evaluate a demand for
bond message, if received, to allow it to act without intervention.
Such a rule might, in effect, state the following: "Should a demand
for bond message be received from a recipient server to which I
(the sender) have sent a message within the last two days, post a
bond of the requested size only if the requested size is less than
$1.00; otherwise, do not post bond, but instead forward the demand
for bond message to me".
[0020] Using the envelope accompanying the message, the sender
server 13 contacts the recipient server 15 and attempts to deliver
the envelope and message as shown at 14. The recipient server 15
checks a set of rules (specified in advance by the recipient 14) to
determine if the message from the sender 12 is authorized. In the
case that the message is authorized, several steps may be skipped.
The message can be immediately delivered to the recipient 14 as
shown at 26.
[0021] A whitelist serves as one exemplary authorizing step. A
whitelist is a list of pre-authorized sender identities, as set by
the recipient and/or their institution, from which email will pass
through the server software and into the recipient mailbox. Strong
identities may be needed to prevent spoofing. Use of cryptographic
identities (e.g., public keys) represent a suitable technology
which may be incorporated into the present invention. Although a
certifying authority is not necessary for individual recipient and
sender identities (for example, this approach is used with `Secure
Shell`, in common use today for remote administration and access to
server computers), it may be desirable for certain
applications.
[0022] Aside from using a certificate of proof that a bond is
posted as the criteria for allowing an email from a non-whitelisted
sender to pass through to the recipient, it is envisioned that the
sender can furnish other information to certify their identity. For
example, the sender may enter additional information via a web
page. The recipient server hosts this web page (or it is hosted by
another party or server with which the recipient server has a
relationship of trust). The challenge email sent back to the sender
by the recipient server upon receipt of a non-whitelisted message
contains the bond size, amount, and escrow account information, as
necessary for the bond mechanism. However, to remove the
requirement of bond posting, it can also include a URL describing
the location of the challenge web page. Should a human sender
choose not to post the bond, they have the option of visiting the
recipient server-hosted web page and providing other evidence of
authorization (determined in advance by the recipient), such as a
password, or evidence of the sender having a previously established
relationship with the recipient (such as indicating their birthday,
real name, place of work, address, or a security code or password,
given to them by the recipient).
[0023] In the case where the email is not authorized, the recipient
server 15 keeps a copy of the message but does not deliver it to
the recipient 14. Next, recipient server 15 attempts to deliver a
message to the sender 12 containing a demand for a bond at 23a. The
demand message includes information identifying and specifying how
to contact the recipient's escrow service, the escrow account
number of the recipient, the size of a required bond, and a means
of identifying the original message that is held undelivered on the
recipient server 15. To minimize the requirement for recipient
intervention, the recipient sets the size of the bond demanded for
unauthorized messages in advance (given as a preference or rule to
the recipient server). Since the recipient 14 has control over the
demanded amount, and this is the means of screening, adjusting the
size of the bond amounts to adjusting the size of their screen. The
recipient 14 can adjust according to their individual
preferences.
[0024] The sender server 13 receives the bond demand message, and
it may then take several actions, depending upon how it has been
instructed (in advance) by the sender 12. First, it may forward a
copy of the demand message back to the sender 12, as indicated at
step 23b. The purpose of this is to alert the sender 12 that the
original message to the recipient 14 requires a bond and is being
held, undelivered. If the sender server 13 does not have the
instructions or capability to automatically trigger posting of the
bond, the sender 12 can do so manually by contacting the escrow
server 16 at the location specified in the demand message indicated
by step 24b.
[0025] It is at this step that the sender 12 may choose to signal.
By authorizing the posting of a bond greater than the minimum bond
size specified by the recipient 14, the sender 12 can signal their
good intentions and message quality to the recipient 14, who will
be able to assess the size of the bond upon delivery. If authorized
and configured in advance, the sender server 13 may contact the
escrow server 16 directly (indicated at 24a) and authorize the
posting of the bond. The sender server 13 can then notify the
sender 12 it has taken action.
[0026] When the escrow server 16 receives the authorization from
the sender (or sender server), the escrow server 16 checks the
sender's account to see that the sender 12 has enough funds to
cover the bond. If so, the bond is posted, as specified, to an
escrow account controlled by the recipient 14. If not, the sender
12 is notified that they must increase the funds in their account.
Assuming the sender account has the funds to cover the requested
bond and the bond is posted to the recipient account, the escrow
server 16 sends a message to the recipient server at step 25. This
message includes authentication of the escrow server 26, the
identity of the original message (held by the recipient server),
and an indication that the bond is posted.
[0027] It is envisioned that the third-party escrow service or
services (e.g., one for the sender and one for the recipient) will
have a record of bonds posted and claimed between parties, and
therefore can, if authorized by the parties of the transaction,
release this information to other parties. For example, if a
recipient always keeps the bond posted by a sender to allow the
delivery of email concerning products for sail boats, this could be
a useful signal in the marketplace that the recipient is not
interested in sailboat products. In this example, other sailboat
marketers could use this knowledge to avoid posting bonds and/or
sending email to this recipient, thereby reducing their marketing
costs.
[0028] Once the recipient server 15 receives the notification from
the escrow server 16, it releases the identified message it has
been holding. At this point, the message is forwarded to the
recipient, indicated in step 26. Given the different needs and
preferences of people or entities making use of the proposed
mechanism and a competitive marketplace, it is likely that several
specialized escrow services will emerge. The network effects of the
present invention are significant. Should the escrow services fail
to interoperate, it will slow adoption and prevent the economies of
scale for low cost transactions. Worse, like in the early days of
the telephone, users would be required to maintain several
relationships, one with each escrow service that their target
recipients use. To address this issue, it is envisioned that an
inter-escrow service payment network be deployed and a suitable set
of protocols established.
[0029] In step 27, the recipient 14 receives the message. If the
message is one that required the sender 12 to post a bond it,
includes an indication of the bond size (attached to the message by
the recipient server) along with an identifier for the bond held in
escrow at the escrow service. The recipient 14 may choose whether
or not they wish to seize the bond. If they wish to seize the bond,
they notify the escrow service, which then places the bond funds
held in escrow into their account. The recipient 14 may also decide
to release the bond rather than keeping it. They may do this
passively, by not actively indicating that they want the bond to be
kept, or they may do it actively, by expressly notifying the escrow
service. The latter approach causes the bond to return to the
sender's account faster than the former.
[0030] In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the
economic bond mechanism contemplates the use of "letters of
reference" that allow people to temporarily be placed on a
recipient's whitelist. For example, if someone on your whitelist
that you trust sends you an email and copies a third party, that
third party can gain a temporary entry onto your whitelist which
would allow them to communicate with you for at least a defined
period of time. This would function as a letter of reference from a
trusted third party. However, as noted above, this concept extends
beyond email to other types of electronic communications.
[0031] FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary method for managing a list
of approved sender's (also referred to as a whitelist) in
accordance with this principle. This method presumes a list of
approved senders is being maintained by a recipient directly or by
an agent of the recipient's choice (to which the recipient has
delegated this function) as shown at 32.
[0032] Upon receiving an electronic message from an approved
sender, the recipient server may review the message at step 34 for
references to other potential senders whom are not currently on the
list of approved senders. For example, a potential sender may be
copied on the electronic message. In another example, the potential
sender may be identified in the body of the message. In this
example, an automated mechanism may parse the text of the message
in order to identify references to potential senders. In the
context of a voice message, known speech-to-text algorithms may be
used to convert the voice message to text. Alternatively, the
electronic message may be sent from the potential sender, but
references an approved sender on the recipient's list. It is
envisioned that other types of references to a potential sender may
be embodied in the electronic message.
[0033] Based on this reference, the potential sender is deemed
trustworthy and placed on the list of approved senders associated
with the recipient at step 36. In one embodiment, the potential
sender is placed on the list after a single reference. In another
embodiment, the potential sender is placed on the list after a
series of references which meet some specified criteria. For
example, references to the potential sender are made in multiple
messages from the same approved sender or one or more references to
the potential sender are made in messages from different approved
senders. It is readily understood that other criteria are within
the scope of the present invention.
[0034] After a defined period of time, the potential sender may be
removed from the list of approved senders as shown at step 38. To
do so, an expiration date may be associated with each of the
entries on the list of approved senders. In an exemplary
embodiment, the window would have a base length (e.g., one month)
where once a person gets added to the list, the expiration date is
set to the length of that window in the future. Each time the added
recipient interacts with the sender, the window is extended, i.e.,
set to a new expiration date one length of that window ahead of the
last interaction. In this way, continued interaction is allowed,
and a person can stay on the list as long as the interaction
continues. What constitutes interaction, may have different
interpretations (configurable by the recipient). For example, it
might mean simply `an email is received from the sender` or
something more sophisticated like `the recipient sent an email in
response to an email received from the sender`. This latter
definition prevents a sender from paying once then repeatedly
sending new emails to keep the window from expiring.
[0035] In addition, the length of this window can also be a
function of the interactions. If you have a very dense (timewise)
set of interactions (you correspond a lot in a short period of
time), then the length of the window can be elogated such that the
person can go longer in time without contacting you before their
whitelist entry expires. Someone you correspond with very
frequently, such as family, will end up with very long windows, and
people who you correspond with infrequently will have fairly short
windows. Stated generally, the interaction history (content,
messages, and timing), and other information available to the
recipient or recipient server can serve as the input to a policy
which decides window length.
[0036] In another aspect of the present invention, the economic
bond mechanism described above may be used to solicit electronic
messages by an intended recipient. The underlying principle is the
use of a monetary bond posted to a third party in advance of a
request for information. Since the reputation of the parties is
unknown, the presence of a reputable third party facilitates
exchange by reducing perceived risk. This creates the possibility
for larger markets or for the existence of markets that would not
otherwise exist. Again, this technique extends to other types of
electronic communications.
[0037] Information flow is essential to knowledge management and
effective decision making. To this end, a system is described that
facilitates the exchange of valuable information, not just blocking
of unwanted information such as spam. The class of information good
for which this design is targeted contains information products
that are commonly customized or created specifically for a
particular solicitor based upon requirements that the solicitor
states in advance. Such goods may be referred to as "ad-hoc"
information goods. The solicitor's requirements could be as simple
as the statement of a question for which they want an answer or may
be more elaborate and could be represented, for example, in a
detailed description with appropriate background and include
references to outside information, meta-information, or supporting
data. The production of the ad-hoc good may be from scratch, solely
due to the solicitation of a potential solicitor, or it may be
produced by editing, merging, or modification of one or more
documents which pre-exist the solicitation. Either way, the cost of
customization is expected to be high enough that a producer of the
information product would not be willing to undertake production
and transmit the finished good without advance payment or some
assurance that they will later receive appropriate
compensation.
[0038] Prior to describing an exemplary embodiment, a few pertinent
definitions are set forth. A solicitor is a person or organization
seeking ad-hoc information. A respondent is a person or
organization who responds to a solicitation by producing or
customizing information being requested. An escrow service is a
third party who will hold funds in behalf of the primary parties in
an exchange (i.e., solicitor and respondent) and releases the funds
to one or the other party under certain circumstances. A
solicitor's financial agent (SFA) is an agent in the employ of or
under administrative control of the solicitor whose primary purpose
is to be caretaker of a solicitor's funds. The SFA must be able to
both send and receive funds in the currency of the marketplace to
and from the other participants. Similarly, the respondent's
financial agent is the caretaker of a respondent's funds.
[0039] A marketplace operator is an intermediary that provides
several services to the other parties. For instances, the
marketplace operator facilitates discovery of parties (sellers find
buyers, buyers find sellers), maintains transaction records,
assigns and manages identities and authentication of participating
parties, and provides tools to primary parties to facilitate
negotiation of the terms of exchange. Lastly, an underwriter is a
financial institution that underwrites the electronically
represented currency, essentially by guaranteeing its exchange
value.
[0040] The principal risk to a solicitor is that he or she will be
required to pay for a low quality good. Quality of good is
addressed by requiring the solicitor to pay only when certain
conditions are met. For example, the market operator could require
payment from solicitor when at least r different respondents submit
a response (e.g. a candidate good). The minimum r can be set by the
market operator or by the solicitor at the time a solicitation is
posted to the marketplace. The result of such a policy is the
solicitor can be assured that he will be required to pay only if
there is sufficient competition. To create the incentive for
creation of a quality good in response to the solicitation, the
solicitor, if required to pay, will have the choice as to which
respondent actually receives the payment. Respondents know that if
sufficient competition exists, at least one of them will be paid.
Which one is paid depends on how the solicitor judges the
usefulness of each of the candidate responses.
[0041] Although a solicitor is required to pay at or above r, they
may still optionally pay for a good response when r is not reached.
Whether or not solicitors have chosen to reward respondents under
the condition of less than required competition can be a displayed
component of a solicitor's reputation, made available to potential
respondents when they review the solicitation. A respondent might
choose to take the risk of undertaking the creation of a candidate
response even when he suspects that the solicitation will not
generate the specified number r of required responses if the
solicitor has a reputation for paying regardless.
[0042] In contrast, the risk to a respondent is uncompensated
effort to create the good, or the risk of non-payment. Risks to
respondents are reduced in several additional ways. If the
solicitor is required to post a bond before a request in made, the
solicitation can be seen by respondents and the market operator
enforces release of the bond from escrow according to known
conditions, respondents have more information about the exchange
outcome and are assured that compensation will be paid. It is also
envisioned that the market operator may employ a reputation system
for evaluating solicitors. Since solicitor reputation for paying
(and under what criteria) is collected and displayed by the market
operator, it is easily observable by a respondent before
undertaking product creation, thereby further reducing the risk of
respondents.
[0043] Optionally, the solicitor may not be required to post a bond
in advance. Should he agree to post a bond, the rules of release of
the bond still apply. Not posting a bond may increase perceived
risk to respondents, but there may exist circumstances where a
respondent is willing to accept this.
[0044] Product quality is addressed is at least two ways. First,
since the solicitor may not be required to pay unless sufficient
competition exists and respondents compete against each other for
any payment, they have the incentive to create a product of high
quality, or at least of higher quality than that of any of the
other respondents. Second, the reduction of risk due to the bond
and market operator regulation of the market should increase the
number of potential respondents willing to participate.
[0045] Referring to FIG. 3, a further description is provided as to
how the marketplace may work, and the typical order in which
communication and exchange between parties occurs. It is readily
understood that other implementations and/or communication
exchanges between the parties may occur within the broader aspects
of the present invention.
[0046] First, a solicitor 42 posts a request at step 52 for an
ad-hoc information product to the marketplace. This message request
or product request specifies a topic of interest to the solicitor
and the terms of payment. Although the request may include other
types of information, the market operator may restrict the variety
of terms to simplify participant decision-making and reduce their
costs. The market operator 44 publishes the request where
respondents 46 with the appropriate expertise can easily find it
(the process of selecting an appropriate location may be aided by
information provided by the solicitor).
[0047] To the solicitor 42, the market operator 44 furnishes a
receipt of the posting with a reference identifier for the
exchange, specification of the escrow agent 48, and the identity of
a transaction-specific bond holding account. Using this
information, the solicitor 42 sends notification to their financial
agent 43 as indicated at 54 authorizing the posting of a bond to
the bond holding account at the escrow service. The SFA 43 in turn
transfers the appropriate funds to the escrow agent 48 at step 56,
passing along the reference identifier.
[0048] At step 58, the escrow agent 48 sends notification to the
market operator 44 that the bond has been posted (is held in
escrow) and is of a valid currency. The market operator 44
indicates, in close proximity to the original solicitation (so that
potential respondents can see), the status of the bond as `posted`.
It is also envisioned that the market operator may provide the
escrow function such that the bond is posted directly with the
marker operator.
[0049] In response to the request, one or more respondents may
submit candidate products at step 60 to the market operator.
Submission are made in electronic form and then published in an
area where they can be read by the solicitor. Submissions may be
made available for review by other respondents and/or potential
respondents. It is further envisioned that respondents may revise
their submissions upon reviewing the submissions made by others and
this history of revisions is also made available for review by the
various parties.
[0050] Moreover, the responsiveness of the submissions may verified
by the market operator. In particular, the content of a submission
is assessed in relation to the topic specified by the solicitor.
Software-implemented algorithms for determining and correlating the
content of electronic documents are readily known in the art and
may be used to implement this feature of the present invention.
[0051] The solicitor 42 reviews the responses at step 62. If
required to pay or if the solicitor voluntarily decides to pay, the
solicitor 42 indicates to the market operator 44 which of the
respondents 46 should receive payment (e.g. the value of the posted
bond or a voluntary payment of the solicitor's choice). It is
envisioned that the solicitor may select more than one of the
respondents, including allocating the bond amongst all of the
respondents. Alternatively, it is envisioned that the recipient of
the bond may be selected either randomly or in accordance with a
defined criteria (e.g., order of receipt) by the market operator.
In the case where the solicitor posted a bond in escrow, the market
operator sends notification to the escrow service, indicating which
of the respondents should receive the payment. The escrow agent
releases the bond held in escrow and transfers its value to the
appropriate respondent financial agent(s).
[0052] In an alternative embodiment, respondents may be required to
post a bond with the market operator (or an escrow agent) before
their submissions will be considered by the solicitor. Thus, the
bond posted by the respondents is in addition to the bond posted by
the solicitor. In operation, the market operator would likely
release the solicitor's bond to designated respondents before
claiming any bonds posted by the respondents. Although bonds may be
claimed from all of the respondents, the market operator preferably
collect bonds only from respondents whose submissions were deemed
non-responsive to the solicitor's request. For example, respondents
who did not receive at least a portion of the solicitor's bond are
deemed to have been non-responsive, although other criteria for
assessing non-responsiveness are also envisioned.
[0053] Respondents may also post bonds of varying amounts, thereby
signaling their interest to the solicitor. To the extent that the
solicitor elects to consider submissions only from a subset of the
respondents, the bond amount may be used to select the subset. For
example, only submissions associated with the highest n bids may be
considered by the solicitor. In this example, bonds are not claimed
from respondents whose submissions were considered, but is
collected from the remaining respondents. To the extent that bonds
are collected from all of the respondents, the solicitor may
collects an amount from respondent whose submissions were
considered which is equal to the amount posted by the first losing
bid. In any of these examples, the solicitor preferably does not
collect an amount from the respondents which exceeds the amount
posted by the solicitor.
[0054] The description of the invention is merely exemplary in
nature and, thus, variations that do not depart from the gist of
the invention are intended to be within the scope of the invention.
Such variations are not to be regarded as a departure from the
spirit and scope of the invention.
* * * * *