Internet
The Internet is structured such various networks are interconnected, with communications effected by addressed packets conforming to a common protocol. Based on the packet addressing, information is routed from source to destination, often through a set of networks having multiple potential pathways. The communications medium is shared between all users. Statistically, some proportion of the packets are extraordinarily delayed, or simply lost. Therefore, protocols involving communications using these packets include error detection schemes that request a retransmit of required data not received within a time window. In the even that the network nears capacity or is otherwise subject to limiting constraint, the incidence of delayed or lost packets increases, thereby increasing requests for retransmission and retransmission. Therefore, as the network approaches available bandwidth, the load increases, ultimately leading to failure. In instances where a minimum quality of service must be guaranteed, special Internet technologies are required, to reserve bandwidth or to specify network pathways. End-to-end quality of service guarantees, however, may exceed the cost of circuit switched technologies, such as dialup modems, especially where the high quality needs are intermittent.
Internet usage typically involves an Internet server, an automated system capable of responding to communications received through the Internet, and often communicating with other systems not directly connected to the Internet. The server typically has relatively large bandwidth to the Internet, allowing multiple simultaneous communications sessions, and usually supports the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP), which provides, in conjunction with a so-called web browser on a remote client system, a human readable interface which facilitates navigation of various resources available in the Internet. The client systems are typically human user interfaces, which employ a browser to display HTTP “web pages”. The browser typically does not provide intelligence. Bandwidth between the client and Internet is typically relatively small, and various communications and display rendering considered normal. Typically, both client and server are connected to the Internet through Internet service providers, each having its own router.
It is also known to provide so-called proxy servers and firewalls, which are automated systems that insulate the client system from the Internet. Further, so-called Internet applications and applets are known which provide local intelligence at the client system. Further, it is known to provide a local server within the client system for locally processing a portion of the information. These local servers, applications and applets are non-standard, and thus require special software to be available locally for execution.
Thus, the Internet poses a number of advantages for commercial use, including low cost and ubiquitous connectivity. Therefore, it is desirable to employ standard Internet technologies while achieving sufficient quality communications to effect an efficient transaction.
Electronic Commerce
There is presently a high degree of interest in employing the Internet, an international set of interconnected networks with uniform protocols and addressing schemes, for conducting commercial transactions. Implementations of so-called e-commerce systems raise many issues distinct from personal contact business relationships. Further, the growing prominence of electronic commerce is altering the conduct of diverse businesses, even those that do not directly conduct business transactions on-line.
Further, traditional Internet e-commerce systems require a substantial amount of information to be communicated, both to inform the potential bidder of the nature and quantity of goods available for auction, and to identify and submit an offer. In secure systems, an additional layer of overhead is generated, increasing traffic volume and communications processing for both sender and receiver.
Market Economy Systems
In modern retail transactions, predetermined price transactions are common, with market transactions, i.e., commerce conducted in a setting which allows the transaction price to float based on the respective valuation allocated by the buyer(s) and seller(s), often left to specialized fields. While interpersonal negotiation is often used to set a transfer price, this price is often different from a transfer price that might result from a best-efforts attempt at establishing a market price. Assuming that the market price is optimal, it is therefore assumed that alternatives are sub optimal. Therefore, the establishment of a market price is desirable over simple negotiations.
One particular problem with market-based commerce is that both seller optimization and market efficiency depend on the fact that representative participants of a preselected class are invited to participate, and are able to promptly communicate, on a relevant timescale, in order to accurately value the goods or services and make an offer. Thus, in traditional market-based system, all participants are in the same room, or connected by a high quality telecommunications link. Alternately, the market valuation process is prolonged over an extended period, allowing non-real time communications of market information and bids. Thus, attempts at ascertaining a market price for non-commodity goods can be subject to substantial inefficiencies, which reduce any potential gains by market pricing. Further, while market pricing might be considered “fair”, it also imposes an element of risk, reducing the ability of parties to predict future pricing and revenues. Addressing this risk may also reduce efficiency of a market-based system.
Auction Systems
When a single party seeks to sell goods to the highest valued purchaser(s), to establish a market price, the rules of conduct typically define an auction. Typically, known auctions provide an ascending price or descending price over time, with bidders making offers or ceasing to make offers, in the descending price or ascending price models, respectively, to define the market price. After determining the winner of the auction, the pricing rules define uniform price auctions, wherein all successful bidders pay the lowest successful bid, second price auctions wherein the winning bidder pays the amount bid by the next highest bidder, and pay-what-you-bid auctions. The pay-what-you-bid auction is also known as a discriminative auction while the uniform price auction is known as a non-discriminative auction. In a second-price auction, also known as a Vickrey auction, the policy seeks to create a disincentive for speculation and to encourage bidders to submit bids reflecting their true value for the good. In the uniform price and second price schemes, the bidder is encourages to disclose the actual private value to the bidder of the good or service, since at any price below this amount, there is an excess gain to the buyer, whereas by withholding this amount the bid may be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of the presumably desirable opportunity. In the pay-what-you-bid auction, on the other hand, the buyer need not disclose the maximum private valuation, and those bidders with lower risk tolerance will bid higher prices. See, www.isoc.org/inet98/proceedings/3b/3b—3.html; www.ibm.com/iaareports-technical/reports-bus-neg-internet.html.
Two common types of auction are the English auction, which sells a single good to the highest bidder in an ascending price auction, and the Dutch auction, in which multiple units are available for sale, and in which a starting price is selected by the auctioneer, which is successively reduced, until the supply is exhausted by bidders (or the minimum price/final time is reached), with the buyer(s) paying the lowest successful bid. The term Dutch auction is also applied to a type of sealed bid auction. In a multi-unit live Dutch auction, each participant is provided with the current price, the quantity on hand and the time remaining in the auction. This type of auction, typically takes place over a very short period of time and there is a flurry of activity in the last portion of the auction process. The actual auction terminates when there is no more product to be sold or the time period expires.
In selecting the optimal type of auction, a number of factors are considered. In order to sell large quantities of a perishable commodity in a short period of time, the descending price auctions are often preferred. For example, the produce and flower markets in Holland routinely use the Dutch auction (hence the derivation of the name), while the U.S. Government uses this form to sell its financial instruments. The format of a traditional Dutch auction encourages early bidders to bid up to their “private value”, hoping to pay some price below the “private value”. In making a bid, the “private value” becomes known, helping to establish a published market value and demand curve for the goods, thus allowing both buyers and sellers to define strategies for future auctions.
In an auction, typically a seller retains an auctioneer to conduct an auction with multiple buyers. (In a reverse auction, a buyer solicits the lowest price from multiple competing vendors for a desired purchase). Since the seller retains the auctioneer, the seller essentially defines the rules of the auction. These rules are typically defined to maximize the revenues or profit to the seller, while providing an inviting forum to encourage a maximum number of high valued buyers. If the rules discourage high valuations of the goods or services, or discourage participation by an important set of potential bidders, then the rules are not optimum. A rule may also be imposed to account for the valuation of the good or service applied by the seller, in the form of a reserve price. It is noted that these rules typically seek to allocate to the seller a portion of the economic benefit that would normally inure to the buyer, creating an economic inefficiency. However, since the auction is to benefit the seller, not society as a whole, this potential inefficiency is tolerated. An optimum auction thus seeks to produce a maximum profit (or net revenues) for the seller. An efficient auction, on the other hand, maximizes the sum of he utilities for the buyer and seller. It remains a subject of academic debate as to which auction rules are most optimum in given circumstances; however, in practice, simplicity of implementation may be a paramount concern, and simple auctions may result in highest revenues; complex auctions, while theoretically more optimal, may discourage bidders from participating or from applying their true and full private valuation in the auction process.
Typically, the rules of the auction are predefined and invariant. Further, for a number of reasons, auctions typically apply the same rules to all bidders, even though, with a priori knowledge of the private values assigned by each bidder to the goods, or a prediction of the private value, an optimization rule may be applied to extract the full value assigned by each bidder, while selling above the sellers reserve.
In a known ascending price auction, each participant must be made aware of the status of the auction, e.g., open, closed, and the contemporaneous price. A bid is indicated by the identification of the bidder at the contemporaneous price, or occasionally at any price above the minimum bid increment plus the previous price. The bids are asynchronous, and therefore each bidder must be immediately informed of the particulars of each bid by other bidders.
In a known descending price auction, the process traditionally entails a common clock, which corresponds to a decrementing price at each decrement interval, with an ending time (and price). Therefore, once each participant is made aware of the auction parameters, e.g., starting price, price decrement, ending price/time, before the start of the auction, the only information that must be transmitted is auction status (e.g., inventory remaining).
As stated above, an auction is traditionally considered an efficient manner of liquidating goods at a market price. The theory of an auction is that either the buyer will not resell, and thus has an internal or private valuation of the goods regardless of other's perceived values, or that the winner will resell, either to gain economic efficiency or as a part of the buyers regular business. In the later case, it is a general presumption that the resale buyers are not in attendance at the auction or are otherwise precluded from bidding, and therefore that, after the auction, there will remain demand for the goods at a price in excess of the price paid during the auction. Extinction of this residual demand results in the so-called “winner's curse”, in which the buyer can make no profit from the transaction during the auction. Since this detracts from the value of the auction as a means of conducting profitable commerce, it is of concern to both buyer and seller. In fact, experience with initial public offerings (IPOs) of stock through various means has demonstrated that by making stock available directly to all classes of potential purchasers, latent demand for a new issue is extinguished, and the stock price is likely to decline after issuance, resulting in an IPO which is characterized as “unsuccessful”. This potential for post IPO decline tempers even initial interest in the issue, resulting in a paradoxical decline in revenues from the vehicle. In other words, the “money on the table” resulting from immediate retrading of IPO shares is deemed a required aspect of the IPO process. Thus, methods that retain latent demand after IPO shares result in post IPO increases, and therefore a “successful” IPO. Therefore, where the transaction scheme anticipates demand for resale after the initial distribution, it is often important to assure a reasonable margin for resellers and limitations on direct sale to ultimate consumers.
Research into auction theory (game theory) shows that in an auction, the goal of the seller is to optimize the auction by allocating the goods inefficiently, and thus to appropriate to himself an excess gain. This inefficiency manifests itself by either withholding goods from the market or placing the goods in the wrong hands. In order to assure for the seller a maximum gain from a misallocation of the goods, restrictions on resale are imposed; otherwise, post auction trading will tend to undue the misallocation, and the anticipation of this trading will tend to control the auction pricing. The misallocation of goods imposed by the seller through restrictions allow the seller to achieve greater revenues than if free resale were permitted. It is believed that in an auction followed by perfect resale, that any mis-assignment of the goods lowers the seller's revenues below the optimum and likewise, in an auction market followed by perfect resale, it is optimal for the seller to allocate the goods to those with the highest value. Therefore, if post-auction trading is permitted, the seller will not benefit from these later gains, and the seller will obtain sub optimal revenues.
These studies, however, typically do not consider transaction costs and internal inefficiencies of the resellers, as well as the possibility of multiple classes of purchasers, or even multiple channels of distribution, which may be subject to varying controls or restrictions, and thus in a real market, such theoretical optimal allocation is unlikely. In fact, in real markets the transaction costs involved in transfer of ownership are often critical in determining a method of sale and distribution of goods. For example, it is the efficiency of sale that motivates the auction in the first place. Yet, the auction process itself may consume a substantial margin, for example 1-15% of the transaction value. To presume, even without externally imposed restrictions on resale, that all of the efficiencies of the market may be extracted by free reallocation, ignores that the motivation of the buyer is a profitable transaction, and the buyer may have fixed and variable costs on the order of magnitude of the margin. Thus, there are substantial opportunities for the seller to gain enhanced revenues by defining rules of the auction, strategically allocating inventory amount and setting reserve pricing.
Therefore, perfect resale is but a fiction created in auction (game) theory. Given this deviation from the ideal presumptions, auction theory may be interpreted to provide the seller with a motivation to misallocate or withhold based on the deviation of practice from theory, likely based on the respective transaction costs, seller's utility of the goods, and other factors not considered by the simple analyses.
A number of proposals have been made for effecting auction systems using the Internet. These systems include consumer-to-consumer, business-to-consumer, and business-to-business types. Generally, these auctions, of various types and implementations discussed further below, are conducted through Internet browsers using hypertext markup language (HTML) “web pages”, using HTTP. In some instances, such as BIDWATCH, discussed further below, an application with associated applets is provided to define a user interface instead of HTML.                As stated above, the information packets from the transaction server to client systems associated with respective bidders communicate various information regarding the status of an interactive auction during the progress thereof. The network traffic from the client systems to the transaction server is often limited to the placement of bids; however, the amount of information required to be transmitted can vary greatly, and may involve a complex dialogue of communications to complete the auction offer. Typically, Internet based auction systems have scalability issues, wherein economies of scale are not completely apparent, leading to implementation of relatively large transaction server systems to handle peak loads. When the processing power of the transaction server system is exceeded, entire system outages may occur, resulting in lost sales or diminished profits, and diminished goodwill.        
In most Internet auction system implementations, there are a large quantity of simultaneous auctions, with each auction accepting tens or hundreds of bids over a timescale of hours to days. In systems where the transaction volume exceeds these scales, for example in stock and commodity exchanges, which can accommodate large numbers of transactions per second involving the same issue, a private network, or even a local area network, is employed, and the public Internet is not used as a direct communications system with the transaction server. Thus, while infrastructures are available to allow successful handling of massive transaction per second volumes, these systems typically avoid direct public Internet communications or use of some of its limiting technologies. The transaction processing limitations are often due to the finite time required to handle, e.g., open, update, and close, database records.
In business-to-business auctions, buyers seek to ensure that the population of ultimate consumers for the good or services are not present at the auction, in order to avoid the “winner's curse”, where the highest bidder in the auction cannot liquidate or work the asset at a profit. Thus, business-to-business auctions are distinct from business-to-consumer auctions. In the former, the optimization by the seller must account for the desire or directive of the seller to avoid direct retail distribution, and instead to rely on a distribution tier represented in the auction. In the latter, the seller seeks maximum revenues and to exhaust the possibilities for downstream trade in the goods or services. In fact, these types of auctions may be distinguished by various implementing rules, such as requiring sales tax resale certificates, minimum lot size quantities, preregistration or qualification, support or associated services, or limitations on the title to the goods themselves. The conduct of these auctions may also differ, in that consumer involvement typically is permissive of mistake or indecision, while in a pure business environment professionalism and decisiveness are mandated.
In many instances, psychology plays an important role in the conduct of the auction. In a live auction, bidders can see each other, and judge the tempo of the auction. In addition, multiple auctions are often conducted sequentially, so that each bidder can begin to understand the other bidder's patterns, including hesitation, bluffing, facial gestures or mannerisms. Thus, bidders often prefer live auctions to remote or automated auctions if the bidding is to be conducted strategically.
Airline Tickets
In the case of airline ticket distribution through the Internet, a number of factors provide very real constraints on the auction process. For example, there are a number of sources for essentially identical (or strictly higher valued) goods, typically with a fixed sale value. In other words, tickets are available at a fixed price through the computerized reservation system (CRS) employed by travel agents, thus establishing a maximum price, at which supply generally exceeds demand. Thus, the maximum selling price is typically well defined. Most routes also have multiple carriers, providing external competition for the seller. It is also considered generally important that auction parameters be maintained in general secrecy, especially before the auction, in order to prevent a competing seller from preempting sales by offering a “better deal”. This may be accomplished by maintaining the starting price, price increment and minimum price in confidence.
Airline ticket buyers are typically classified as business or leisure. The leisure traveler is characterized by the possibility of advance purchase of tickets and willingness to purchase a round trip ticket with a Saturday night stopover. On the other hand, business travelers typically travel on short lead times, and travel on weekdays, returning before the weekend. Leisure travelers are typically more price sensitive than business travelers. Therefore, airline yield management systems seek to maximize revenues by providing attractive fares to leisure travelers more than two or three weeks prior to departure, and subsequently raising fares in order to capture maximum profits from business travelers. Fares are also set in response to so-called fare wars between carriers, seasonal variations, and remaining inventory. Automated airline ticket yield management systems are typically employed to define these fares. In order to provide predictable alterations in fares, a set of rules are defined for different classes of fares, such as advance purchase requirements, Saturday night stopovers, holiday blackout periods, resale restrictions, and itinerary change fees. These rules may be common throughout the industry, or customized.
There are typically two quite distinct motivations for conducting an auction of airline seats. First, in a business-to-business context, an auction provides a potentially efficient means for transferring inventory to so-called “aggregators” or “consolidators”, i.e., resellers of seats. These aggregators, in turn, may seek to fill their own predicted needs, or to define a tour group. In the former case, since demand is likely to be price sensitive, the total number of seats, as well as their specific distribution through available flights, will depend on the price point. In the later case, a relatively large block of seats will be required, and the specific price per seat may be less important than the economies of scale afforded by a large block. The aggregators thus seek to efficiently procure inventory for their predicted needs, and must do so in an efficient, business-like manner, with little wasted time. Traditionally, aggregators negotiate price and volume directly with airlines. Often, aggregators return inventory to the airline if unsold, causing a variable number of unsold seats to return to inventory shortly before departure. Statistically, the airlines expect such returns, and reallocate these seats to later, higher fare travelers. Thus, prediction of the number of returns is important to assuring maximum profits.
It is also noted that the sales to aggregators are may be affected by marketing schemes employed by various carriers, since these ultimately compete in the marketplace. There mere possibility of such variations in pricing of direct sales by airlines will impact the valuation placed on the tickets by aggregators and the public. Since, the aggregators serve a very real need of the carriers, that of low cost distribution of inventory, and typically account for about 30% of ticket sales, the carriers rely on this distribution channel and would prefer not to undermine it. Thus, a proper a priori model of supply and demand is preferred to midstream corrections in pricing, such as by a sale or fare war.
The main distribution channels for airline tickets are the aforementioned aggregators, direct sales by the airlines, and the above-mentioned computerized reservation system (CRS), such as SABRE, which serves the need of travel agents. These CRS systems provide an agency fee to the selling travel agent, as well as various rules defining payments to the carrier. Typically, tickets sold through a CRS have a published price for a class of ticket, and are sold on a first-come, first served basis through authorized agents. In some cases, the CRS price is unpublished, and merely establishes a minimum price, such as tickets sold through Priceline.com. Once a ticket is sold through a CRS, the transaction is cleared through the airline host computer to take the seat out of inventory.
At present, direct sales of airline tickets through the Internet by carriers have emerged. In this case, typically the Internet web server interfaces with the airline mainframe, and thus these “direct” sales compete directly with the CRS system, at lower transactional cost to the airline due to the direct sales and elimination of agent commissions. Often, the sole use of these web sites make comparison-shopping less convenient, since each Internet web site typically caters to only a single carrier. Typically, the sales price through the Internet are at the same price as through the CRS, although various incentives, such as bonus frequent flyer miles, may be awarded for direct booking through the carrier's web site. Thus, for at least a portion of the sales, the Internet has proven efficient.
Traditionally, aggregators have directly negotiated with airlines for tickets. Therefore, the possibility of favoritism and inconsistency is significant. There is no existing market mechanism for pricing of tickets to aggregators, yielding little present choice. Therefore, there exists a present need for a system and method for establishing a market price for airline tickets to aggregators, for example by efficient auction. Since aggregators tend to be geographically dispersed, face-to-face auctions would be difficult to implement. One method of alleviating the problems of remote auctions is through the use of videoconferencing technologies. This, however, is expensive and has substantial scalability issues.
Proxy bidding, including absentee proxy bidding, is well known in both live and automated auctions. Bidders, however, are typically constrained to defining a maximum bid price, without other control parameters.
PRICELINE.COM, and Walker Digital, a related company, have developed systems for the sale of airline tickets and travel accommodations, which are especially suited for consumer transactions, and in fact, are in many ways intended to exclude business transactions. For example, PRICELINE.COM runs a matching service for the sale of airline tickets. In one sense, since potential buyers place bids for tickets, the system seeks to establish a market price; however, in implementation, bidders do not compete with each other, except in a general way, and rather negotiate with the airline, which often have rules regarding acceptable match prices. The tickets sold through Priceline.com, in fact, are distinguished from most normal tickets, in that they specify a departure and return date and city only, but do not allow specification of an airline carrier, flight number or time, or airport. Further, not only are these tickets non-refundable, but additionally the “bid” price is immediately charged to a credit card as a part of the “bid” acceptance process. The tickets of this special class are cleared through a CRS (Computerize Reservation System), and are assigned, by the airline that accepts the “bid”, a specific flight. This system is apparently distinct from most auctions in that there is little attempt to efficiently establish a market price, since the process makes it difficult for the “bidder” to test the acceptance price point, and because the accepted price is not published. See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,897,620, Walker, et al., issued Apr. 27, 1999, expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Strategic and operational planning for commercial airlines are highly complicated problems, especially since the industry has been deregulated. In order to cope with this complexity, computer-based decision support systems have been adopted to facilitate the planning of schedules, routes, aircraft and crew rotations and yield management. Airlines have thus developed Revenue Management Systems (RMS) (also known as yield management systems) to optimize their revenue per flight. Revenue management can be separated into two distinct parts: pricing and seat inventory control. Pricing involves the establishment of fare classes and tariffs within those classes for each flight. Seat inventory control is the periodic adjustment of available seats for the various fare classes so as to optimize the passenger mix and thereby maximize the generated revenue. In particular, the objective is to fly an aircraft as full as possible without allowing the earlier-booking (discount-fare) leisure passengers to displace the later-booking (full-fare) business passengers. Once a passenger books a ticket, the airline is required to place the passenger aboard the flight indicated on the ticket rather than aboard a different flight for the same itinerary, at risk of substantial penalty.
Revenue (or yield) management can be separated into two distinct parts: pricing and seat inventory control. Pricing involves the establishment of fare classes and tariffs within those classes for each specific origin-destination market. Seat inventory control is the periodic adjustment of nested booking limits for the various fare classes so as to optimize the passenger mix and thereby maximize the generated revenue. An airline's RMS typically knows well in advance, based on available historical data, that it will likely have empty seats on a given route or flight, with more seats empty at certain times of the day or days of the week. However, the RMS cannot simply discount the published fares for those seats without either starting a fare war or compromising its underlying fare structure (i.e., without also having to reduce its full-fare prices for business travelers).
U.S. Pat. No. 5,270,921, Hornick, issued Dec. 14, 1993, expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, relates to virtual fare methods for a computerized airline seat inventory control system. An airline seat reservation system provides seat reservations controlled using, in part, a computerized seat inventory control system, based on Network-Based Expected Marginal Seat Revenue (EMSR), incorporating a probabilistic demand model without resorting to computationally intractable integer programming. The seat inventory control system uses iterative leg-based methods to control bookings in a flight network comprised of a plurality of itinerary/fare class combinations using a plurality of flight legs. When considering a particular flight leg, the total fare paid by a passenger using the leg is adjusted by taking into account an estimate of the displacement cost of the travel on the other legs of the itinerary to create a virtual fare. Expected marginal seat revenues (or more precisely, their current approximations) provide the displacement costs on the legs when computing virtual fares. Using these virtual fares, a leg-based optimization method is applied to the individual legs one-by-one to compute new approximations of the expected marginal seat revenues. This method is iterated until the expected marginal seat revenues converge to their network-optimal values. Thus, it is clear that optimization methods exist for pricing and segmenting classes of airline seats; however, unsold seats remain, indicating that these methods are sub optimal. These methods, however, do provide useful estimates that may be fine-tuned by other techniques or used as a starting point for further optimization.
Internet Auctions
On-line electronic auction systems which allow efficient sales of products and services are well known, for example, EBAY.COM, ONSALE.COM, UBID.COM, and the like. Inverse auctions that allow efficient purchases of product are also known, establishing a market price by competition between sellers. The Internet holds the promise of further improving efficiency of auctions by reducing transaction costs and freeing the “same time-same place” limitations of traditional auctions. This is especially appropriate where the goods may be adequately described by text or images, and thus a physical examination of the goods is not required prior to bidding.
In existing Internet systems, the technological focus has been in providing an auction system that, over the course of hours to days, allow a large number of simultaneous auctions, between a large number of bidders to occur. These systems must be scalable and have high transaction throughput, while assuring database consistency and overall system reliability. Even so, certain users may selectively exploit known technological limitations and artifacts of the auction system, including non-real time updating of bidding information, especially in the final stages of an auction.
Because of existing bandwidth and technological hurdles, Internet auctions are quite different from live auctions with respect to psychological factors. Live auctions are often monitored closely by bidders, who strategically make bids, based not only on the “value” of the goods, but also on an assessment of the competition, timing, psychology, and progress of the auction. It is for this reason that so-called proxy bidding, wherein the bidder creates a preprogrammed “strategy”, usually limited to a maximum price, are disfavored. A maximum price proxy bidding system is somewhat inefficient, in that other bidders may test the proxy, seeking to increase the bid price, without actually intending to purchase, or contrarily, after testing the proxy, a bidder might give up, even below a price he might have been willing to pay. Thus, the proxy imposes inefficiency in the system that effectively increases the transaction cost.
In order to address a flurry of activity that often occurs at the end of an auction, an auction may be held open until no further bids are cleared for a period of time, even if advertised to end at a certain time. This is common to both live and automated auctions. However, this lack of determinism may upset coordinated schedules, thus impairing efficient business use of the auction system.
In order to facilitate management of bids and bidding, some of the Internet auction sites have provided non-Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) browser based software “applet” to track auctions. For example, ONSALE.COM has made available a Marimba Castanet® applet called Bidwatch to track auction progress for particular items or classes of items, and to facilitate bidding thereon. This system, however, lacks real-time performance under many circumstances, having a stated refresh period of 10 seconds, with a long latency for confirmation of a bid, due to constraints on software execution, quality of service in communications streams, and bid confirmation dialogue. Thus, it is possible to lose a bid even if an attempt was made prior to another bidder. The need to quickly enter the bid, at risk of being too late, makes the process potentially error prone.
Proxy bidding, as discussed above, is a known technique for overcoming the constraints of Internet communications and client processing limitations, since it bypasses the client and telecommunications links and may execute solely on the host system or local thereto. However, proxy bidding undermines some of the efficiencies gained by a live market.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,890,138 to Godin, et al. (Mar. 30, 1999), expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, relates to an Internet auction system. The system implements a declining price auction process, removing a user from the auction process once an indication to purchase has been received. See, Rockoff, T. E., Groves, M.; “Design of an Internet-based System for Remote Dutch Auctions”, Internet Research, v 5, n 4, pp. 10-16, MCB University Press, Jan. 1, 1995.
A known computer site for auctioning a product on-line comprises at least one web server computer designed for serving a host of computer browsers and providing the browsers with the capability to participate in various auctions, where each auction is of a single product, at a specified time, with a specified number of the product available for sale. The web server cooperates with a separate database computer, separated from the web server computer by a firewall. The database computer is accessible to the web computer server computer to allow selective retrieval of product information, which includes a product description, the quantity of the product to be auctioned, a start price of the product, and an image of the product. The web server computer displays, updated during an auction, the current price of the product, the quantity of the product remaining available for purchase and the measure of the time remaining in the auction. The current price is decreased in a predetermined manner during the auction. Each user is provided with an input instructing the system to purchase the product at a displayed current price, transmitting an identification and required financial authorization for the purchase of the product, which must be confirmed within a predetermined time. In the known system, a certain fall-out rate in the actual purchase confirmation may be assumed, and therefore some overselling allowed. Further, after a purchase is indicate, the user's screen is not updated, obscuring the ultimate lowest selling price from the user. However, if the user maintains a second browser, he can continue to monitor the auction to determine whether the product could have been purchased at a lower price, and if so, fail to confirm the committed purchase and purchase the same goods at a lower price while reserving the goods to avoid risk of loss. Thus, the system is flawed, and may fail to produce an efficient transaction or optimal price.
An Internet declining price auction system may provide the ability to track the price demand curve, providing valuable marketing information. For example, in trying to determine the response at different prices, companies normally have to conduct market surveys. In contrast, with a declining price auction, substantial information regarding price and demand is immediately known. The relationship between participating bidders and average purchasers can then be applied to provide a conventional price demand curve for the particular product.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,835,896, Fisher, et al., issued Nov. 10, 1998, expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, provides method and system for processing and transmitting electronic auction information over the Internet, between a central transaction server system and remote bidder terminals. Those bids are recorded by the system and the bidders are updated with the current auction status information. When appropriate, the system closes the auction from further bidding and notifies the winning bidders and losers as to the auction outcome. The transaction server posts information from a database describing a lot available for purchase, receives a plurality of bids, stored in a bid database, in response to the information, and automatically categorizes the bids as successful or unsuccessful. Each bid is validated, and an electronic mail message is sent informing the bidder of the bid status. This system employs HTTP, and thus does not automatically update remote terminal screens, requiring the e-mail notification feature.
The auction rules may be flexible, for example including Dutch-type auctions, for example by implementing a price markdown feature with scheduled price adjustments, and English-type (progressive) auctions, with price increases corresponding to successively higher bids. In the Dutch type auction, the price markdown feature may be responsive to bidding activity over time, amount of bids received, and number of items bid for. Likewise, in the progressive auction, the award price may be dependent on the quantity desired, and typically implements a lowest successful bid price rule. Bids that are below a preset maximum posted selling price are maintained in reserve by the system. If a certain sales volume is not achieved in a specified period of time, the price is reduced to liquidate demand above the price point, with the new price becoming the posted price. On the other hand, if a certain sales volume is exceeded in a specified period of time, the system may automatically increase the price. These automatic price changes allow the seller to respond quickly to market conditions while keeping the price of the merchandise as high as possible, to the seller's benefit. A “Proxy Bidding” feature allows a bidder to place a bid for the maximum amount they are willing to pay, keeping this value a secret, displaying only the amount necessary to win the item up to the amount of the currently high bids or proxy bids of other bidders. This feature allows bidders to participate in the electronic auction without revealing to the other bidders the extent to which they are willing to increase their bids, while maintaining control of their maximum bid without closely monitoring the bidding. The feature assures proxy bidders the lowest possible price up to a specified maximum without requiring frequent inquiries as to the state of the bidding.
A “Floating Closing Time” feature may also be implemented whereby the auction for a particular item is automatically closed if no new bids are received within a predetermined time interval, assuming an increasing price auction. Bidders thus have an incentive to place bids expeditiously, rather than waiting until near the anticipated close of the auction.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,905,975, Ausubel, issued May 18, 1999, expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, relates to computer implemented methods and apparatus for auctions. The proposed system provides intelligent systems for the auctioneer and for the user. The auctioneer's system contains information from a user system based on bid information entered by the user. With this information, the auctioneer's system determines whether the auction can be concluded or not and appropriate messages are transmitted. At any point in the auction, bidders are provided the opportunity to submit not only their current bids, but also to enter future bids, or bidding rules which may have the opportunity to become relevant at future times or prices, into the auction system's database. Participants may revise their executory bids, by entering updated bids. Thus, at one extreme, a bidder who wishes to economize on his time may choose to enter his entire set of bidding rules into the computerized system at the start of the auction, effectively treating this as a sealed-bid auction. At the opposite extreme, a bidder who wishes to closely participate in the auction may choose to constantly monitor the auction's progress and to submit all of his bids in real time. See also, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/582,901 filed Jan. 4, 1996, which provides a method for auctioning multiple, identical objects and close substitutes.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds