Method for automatically identifying, matching, and near-matching buyers and sellers in electronic market transactions

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A computer implemented method for market participants for automatically identifying and matching offer data with solicitation data, said solicitation data stored in a solicitations data base, said method comprising the steps of:

receiving offer data consisting of numerical linear ranges defining a lower point, an upper point, and a preferred point for each dimension of said offer data;

storing the received offer data in a database;

comparing points for each dimension of the stored offer data to corresponding dimensions of said solicitation data, said solicitation data consisting of numerical linear ranges defining a lower point, an upper point, and a preferred point for each dimension of said solicitation data, to:

identify solicitations with matching preferred points,

identify solicitations with preferred points having a near match with said offer data when said upper point and said preferred point of said offer data are between said upper point and said preferred point of said solicitation data, and

identify solicitations with preferred points within corresponding ranges to said offer data when at least one of said lower point, said upper point, and said preferred point of said offer data is between said lower point and said upper point of said solicitation data;

transmitting the identified solicitations with matching preferred points, near matching preferred points, and preferred points within corresponding ranges to an originator of said offer data.

2. The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

completing bargaining by receiving from originator of said offer data acceptance of one of the transmitted solicitations;

confirming transaction terms arising from the completed bargaining;

storing the confirmed transaction terms in an archive;

analyzing logistics and finance requirements imbedded in the confirmed transaction terms;

routing said logistics and finance requirements to logistics and finance vendors; and

purging the solicitation database of the solicitations comprising the confirmed transaction terms arising from said completed bargaining process.

3. The computer implemented method of claim 2, further comprising the steps of:

receiving a counter-offer to one of the transmitted solicitations from originator of said offer data;

transmitting the received counter-offer to originator of the chosen solicitation;

completing bargaining by receiving acceptance of the transmitted counter-offer from originator of the chosen solicitation;

confirming transaction terms arising from the completed bargaining;

storing the confirmed transaction terms in an archive;

analyzing logistics and finance requirements imbedded in the confirmed transaction terms;

routing said logistics and finance requirements to logistics and finance vendors; and

purging the solicitation database of the solicitations comprising the confirmed transaction terms arising from said completed bargaining process.

4. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein said market participants submit said offer data and said solicitation data through market participant interfaces executed on a computer, said market participant interfaces translating said offer data and said market data by formatting it into uniform, multidimensional, data objects.

5. The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

verifying offer data against market participant account information stored in an account registry;

accepting said offer data into said solicitation database;

matching said offer data with stored solicitation data containing congruent dimension ranges and preferred points;

matching said offer data with stored solicitation data containing congruent dimension ranges and incongruent preferred points;

matching said offer data with stored solicitation data containing intersecting dimension ranges and incongruent preferred points; and

ranking the matched data in order proximity between dimension ranges of said stored solicitation data and preferred points of said offer data.

6. The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

displaying matching solicitation data to originator of said offer data;

accepting from originator of said offer data a message identifying a corresponding offer over which to negotiate;

notifying originator of the displayed matching solicitation data of said corresponding offer over which to negotiate from originator of said offer data;

accepting a response from originator of the displayed solicitation data; and

notifying said originator of said offer data of willingness of originator of the displayed solicitation data to negotiate.

7. The computer implemented method of claim 6, further comprising the steps of:

transmitting counteroffers between originator of said offer data and originator of the displayed solicitation;

accepting a signal from originator of said offer data and originator of the displayed solicitation indicating agreement upon terms and formation of a contract;

transmitting confirmation notices to an agent for originator of said offer data and an agent for originator of the displayed solicitation;

accepting acknowledgement of the transmitted confirmation notices from said agents;

assigning a unique identification number to said contract; and

storing said contract in an archive database.

8. The computer implemented method of claim 7, further comprising the steps of:

isolating logistics components of said contract;

analyzing dimensions of the isolated logistics components;

labeling the analyzed dimensions with said unique identification number of said contract;

formatting the labeled analyzed dimensions into a multidimensional logistics offer object;

routing said multidimensional logistics offer object to a logistics gateway; and

exporting said multidimensional logistics offer object through said logistics gateway to a logistics vendor.

9. The computer implemented method of claim 8, further comprising the steps of:

isolating finance components of said contract;

analyzing dimensions of the isolated finance components;

labeling the analyzed dimensions with said unique identification number of said contract;

formatting the labeled analyzed dimensions into a multidimensional finance offer object;

routing said multidimensional finance offer object to a finance gateway; and

exporting said multidimensional finance offer object through said finance gateway to a finance vendor.

10. A computer implemented system for identifying and matching buyers and sellers in electronic market transactions, the system comprising:

a solicitation database containing solicitation data comprising: a party component, a product component, a logistics component, and a finance component, each component having multiple dimensions and each of said multiple dimensions expressed in a linear numeric scale;

a participant interface enabling buyers and sellers to enter data into said solicitation database;

an account registry linked to said solicitation database containing account information of said buyers and sellers, said account information comprising: account holder identification, bank information, and authorization agents;

an archive database linked to said solicitation database and linked to said account registry for storing transaction contracts resulting from matching buyers and sellers and related contract logistics information derived from solicitation data and account information for said matching buyers and sellers;

a computer means automatically matching buyers and sellers according to congruence of preferred points plotted along dimensions of components of said solicitation data; and

a system gateway routing contract logistic information to buyers, sellers, and third parties.

11. The computer implemented system of claim 10, where said participant interface translates data in buyer or seller formatting into system-readable data.

12. The computer implemented system of claim 10, where said participant interface also enables buyers and sellers to query said solicitation database without submitting solicitation data.

13. The computer implemented system of claim 10, where said product component identifies a product chosen from the group consisting of tangible goods, services, requests for proposals, and requests of quotes.

14. A system for facilitating transactions between participants comprising:

a gateway computer;

an interface connected to said gateway computer for receiving multidimensional offer data and multidimensional solicitation data from and sending said solicitation data and transaction data to said participants, at least one dimension of each of said offer data and said solicitation data having an upper point, a lower point and a preferred point;

an account registry database connected to said gateway computer for storing account information for each of said participants;

a solicitation database connected to said gateway computer for storing said solicitation data received from said participants; and

computing means connected to said gateway computer, said account registry database and said solicitation database for matching said offer data with said solicitation data from said participants by comparing said dimensions.

15. The system for facilitating transactions of claim 14, where matching solicitation data is a perfect match between preferred points plotted along all dimensions of components of said solicitation data.

16. The system for facilitating transactions of claim 14, where matching solicitation data is a near match of preferred points plotted along all dimensions of components of said solicitation data.

17. The system for facilitating transactions of claim 14, where said computing means, said account registry database, and said solicitation database are all mounted on said gateway computer.

18. The system for facilitating transactions of claim 14, where matching solicitation data is solicitations with preferred points within corresponding ranges of said offer data.

19. The system for facilitating transactions of claim 14, where matching solicitation data is ranked in order of proximity between dimension ranges of said solicitation data and preferred points of said offer data.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to a method for automatically identifying and matching buyers and sellers in proposed electronic commercial transactions.

The most basic modern embodiment of electronic commerce consists of a salesman using a telephone and a facsimile machine to negotiate a sale with a customer. In this system, two parties negotiate the various components of the transaction, which may include, among other things, the quantity of goods to be purchased, the performance specifications of the goods, the payment terms, and delivery requirements. If the parties are informed and efficient in their bargaining, a transaction may be completed with one phone call. If there is uncertainty or ignorance on either side of the transactions, several calls may be necessary to complete the transaction. The buyer may take time to solicit other sellers, shopping on the basis of price, availability, quality, and so on. The seller, in the meantime, may have to investigate logistics issues, discount pricing possibilities, or the quantity of the goods in inventory. These activities cost both parties time and money that could be better allocated to more profitable pursuits.

Conventional electronic commerce systems exist to automate the documentation aspects of administering a supply or distribution chain. In a retail sales environment, this means automating order placement and delivery of consumer goods. In an industrial, that is, business-to-business sales environment, this can include automating a buyer's or seller's inventory tracking and establishing electronic systems for electronic order placement to replenish inventory. Modern electronic commerce systems fall into three broad categories.

Conventional systems of electronic commerce fall into three categories based on the metaphor used: Catalogs, Store-and-Searches, and Electronic Data Interchanges (EDIs). Catalogs are systems of electronic commerce that enable vendors to sell their ware to buyers via various public networks, e.g. the Internet. Vendors display product descriptions in a catalog format; then, buyers browse through numerous product descriptions and place their orders electronically. Catalogs offer vendors and buyers the advantage of easy access to one another via one of several public networks. But Catalog systems have the disadvantages of being slow, time-intensive for the user, and burdensome to vendors regarding computational storage requirements. There is no negotiation process between vendor and customer, nor is there a method for automatically matching vendors and sellers.

Store-and-Search systems improve on the Catalog metaphor by using agents to simplify the shopping process. Buyers access agents over a proprietary network and use them to gather product information from vendors. Buyers may then sift through the information, make a purchasing decision, and complete the transaction electronically. Store-and-Search systems operate without monopolizing the users' time because agents perform the shopping function for the users. But Store-and-Search systems can lag in their responses to buyers. Additionally, Store-and-Search systems are processing intensive, impose burdensome computational storage requirements on vendors, do nothing to facilitate negotiation, and operate on a binary match/no match basis which excludes near-matches.

EDI systems consist of private network connections between buyers and vendors. These network connections are usually the product of a well-established relationship between the buyer and the seller. EDI systems do not facilitate shopping or information gathering; rather, they simply expedite order placement; thus, EDI offers few advantages to both buyers and vendors. Buyers can enjoy a customized, automated electronic order system, while vendors can establish predictable sales to existing EDI customers. These advantages come with significant disadvantages, including substantial dollar commitments to create the system, extensive user time commitments, and large computational storage requirements.

Though superior to the phone/facsimile system, these three conventional methods of electronic commerce offer limited practical advantages to their users. They all offer some degree of relief from the technical components of completing a sale. Mundane activities such as order placement or receipt and delivery are common among these systems. However, these systems vary in their sophistication and share common failings. Each system is slow, time-intensive, and expensive to initiate and maintain. Each one requires some familiarity among buyers and sellers to perform a transaction. Finally, these systems fail to provide an efficient, widely accessible, secure, and transaction-driven mechanism for conducting electronic commerce.

Existing electronic systems for selling fungible goods, futures contracts, options, and commodities most closely resemble an auction market. U.S. Pat. No. 3,581,072 to Nymeyer (1971) discloses a digital computer that matches orders and establishes market prices in an auction market for fungible goods. The computer generated automatic market pricing of goods, corrected for unpriced bids, recorded the transactions, and minimized human judgment in price calculations. As disclosed, this system suffers from serious omissions. First, price is the only transaction criteria used to determine compatibility of offers. Second, the computer does not accommodate users' internal computer and telecommunications systems. Third, the system completely omits logistics concerns from the assessment of compatibility. Fourth, the system does not accommodate differing payment terms among various buyers and sellers.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,789,928 to Fujisaki (1988) describes an auction information processing system. It allows buyers scattered over a wide area to participate in an auction in real-time and without gathering at an auction site. Several computers are linked by telephone lines and arranged in a hierarchical structure to expedite data transmission. These data consist of signals from a host to dealers and signals from various dealers and front computers to the host. The host conducts the auction by signaling start times, end times, and sell-offs. The dealer and front computers transmit bid signals from auction participants through several layers of front computers to the host. Product information is stored at the dealer level on laser discs. Price is determined by the competitive bidding occurring at the dealer level.

Like Nymeyer, Fujisaki does not address the other components of the transaction electronically. In an auction market the participants presumably know the rules or have made arrangements for delivery and payment; hence, these considerations are not a factor in the system. The auction market requires some planning as well. Sellers must transmit their product information well in advance of the auction itself. The system is not capable of accepting products for sale in real time. Additionally, the Fujisaki disclosure describes a market where one seller at a time markets to many buyers, and only one transaction may be completed at a time.

Prior art related to automated trading exchanges, like U.S. Pat. No. 4,903,201 to Wagner (1990) match bids to buy and sell on the basis of price and the terms of commodity contracts. Such disclosures are not designed to facilitate contract formation; thus, these disclosures do not provide a means for negotiation of terms. Likewise, such disclosures are not designed to facilitate contract execution. Thus, these disclosures do not provide a means for facilitating performance of a contract.

Prior art related to matching systems, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,077,665 to Siverman et al. (1991), U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,412,287; 3,573,747; 3,581,072; and 4,674,044 implement matching systems, and Silverman incorporates broadcasting capabilities and suggests their use for disseminating market information.

None of these systems provide for buyer and seller interaction. Nor do these disclosures address the problems of contract negotiation, formation, or performance.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, the present invention overcomes these problems by accomplishing the following objects:

a. providing exchange participants with prospective partners in an exchange without requiring the participants to physically gather and analyze information from secondary sources;

b. providing exchange participants with individual market summaries that describe the opportunity costs associated with a given transaction;

c. providing exchange participants with a system of electronic commerce that accommodates additional aspects of transactions other than price and quality;

d. providing a system of matching and bargaining based on the many variable dimensions of a transaction between market participants;

e. providing a system of matching participants that expedites contract formation;

f. providing a system of matching participants that streamlines the performance of an exchange;

g. providing a system that integrates with market participants' internal systems;

h. providing a system of matching participants that overcomes such barriers as differing