Computer-based method and system for aiding transactions

• US 6,353,812 B2
• Filed: 02/19/1998
• Issued: 03/05/2002
• Est. Priority Date: 02/19/1998
• Status: Expired due to Term

• Current Assignee: Certco
• Original Assignee: Certco
• Inventors: Frankel, Yair, Kravitz, David William, Montgomery, Charles Thomas, Yung, Marcel Mordechay
• Primary Examiner(s): Millin, Vincent
• Assistant Examiner(s): Kazimi, Hani M.
• Application Number:
  US09/026,466
• Publication Number:
  US 20010011220A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,475 Days
• Field of Search: 705/17, 705/44, 705/76, 705/64, 705/75, 705/78, 713/156, 235/379, 235/380, 707/9
• US Class Current: 705/44
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/382 insuring higher security of transaction
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/3821 Electronic credentials
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/40 Authorisation, e.g. identification of payer or payee, verification of customer or shop credentials; Review and approval of payers, e.g. check credit lines or negative lists
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/401 Transaction verification
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/4037 Remote solvency checks
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/04 Billing or invoicing
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0613 Third-party assisted
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/00 Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
• CPC Class Codes: G07F 7/08 by coded identity card or credit card or other personal identification means without personal verification means G07F7/02

Abstract

A method for aiding transactions by providing warranties against various aspects of a transaction which may be hard to assure ahead of time or when high risk is involved in relying on them. The method employs an infrastructure of a computer and communication systems communication with various distributed organizations working together and providing warranties. Different parties may trust different organizations and user representatives of the infrastructure. A party in a transaction may ask for a warranty against another party. As a response, the infrastructure, through its organizations, calculates and provides a decision regarding the request. Relying on the warranty, the risk involved in conducting the electronic transaction is reduced. In the case where the transaction does not reach sound completion, the warranty can be claimed. The method also involves managing and administering the infrastructure, the entities in the transaction system and their outstanding warranties. Cryptographic sub-systems within the infrastructure components and the entities they serve are used to assure party/organization authentication and the validity of electronically signed messages within the transaction system. The warranty granting process, in turn, assures the transaction: its content, context, the parties and the parties'"'"' identification mechanisms, such as digital certificates.

Claims

1. A method of performing an electronic transaction using a supporting infrastructure having at least a first and a second local representative, the method comprising:

(A) a first client and a warranty subject entering into an agreement to conduct a transaction;

(B) the first client and the second client exchanging information relating to specific aspects of the transaction and their respective ability to complete the transaction, wherein the transaction places certain obligations on the second client and wherein the first client wishes to obtain assurance, in the form of a warranty from a known, reliable party, that the second client at least has the ability to honor the obligations;

(C) sending a first message which includes a description of the agreed-upon final version of the transaction and information which forms the basis for a warranty request;

(D) sending a second message which includes at least some of;

(d1) an identification of the first client and of the second client;

(d2) information specifying minimum standards that the first client must meet in order to be issued a warranty on the transaction or to be provided other non-public information about the second client;

(d3) information held by a local representative which maybe relevant to the subject transaction;

(d4) a coverage limit supported by the second client for this transaction;

(d5) a time period of coverage being an effective time period for the warranty designated by the second client;

(d6) information related to this specific transaction which would be relevant to supporting the warranty;

(E) sending a third message as an acknowledgement to the first client that the second message was received and that it contained the required information to support warranty processing;

(F) sending from the first local representative to the second local representative a fourth message which includes components from the second message as created by the second client plus a hash of the transaction created contained in the third message as created by the first client;

(G) sending from the second local representative to the first local representative a fifth message which includes;

(g1) an identification of the first client;

(g2) a transaction count for the first client;

(g3) a support/non-support decision;

(g4) warranty parameters as listed in the warranty parameters categories;

(g5) a coverage limit authorized;

(g6) database transaction element descriptions;

(g7) a reason for a not-support decision;

(H) sending from the first local representative to the first client a sixth message which provides the status of the warranty;

(I) sending from the first client to the first local representative a seventh message, being an agreement by the first client to accept, and pay for, the warranty,

(J) sending from the first local representative to the second local representative an eighth message which includes;

(j1) an identification of the first client based on information in the second message;

(j2) a transaction count as identified in the second message;

(j3) a statement of issued/non-issued status of the requested warranty, generated by a first local representative and indicating the final status of the request related to this transaction;

(j4) a final coverage value, when coverage approved for this transaction; and

(K) sending from the first local representative to the first client a ninth message which is a signed indication of the warranty.

2. A method as in claim 1 wherein the fourth message includes:

a) a signed version of the second message; and

b) an identification of the second client.

3. A method as in claim 1 further comprising:

upon receipt of the fourth message, the second local representative performing the following;

(i) verifying the signature on the second message;

(ii) checking whether the fourth message is a repeated message;

(iii) reviewing data available for the second client for compatibility with maximum reasonable warranty coverage limits as well as the total coverage limits outstanding.

4. A method of performing an electronic transaction using a supporting infrastructure having at least a first and a second local representative, the method comprising:

(A) a warrantee requestor and a warranty subject entering into an agreement to conduct a transaction, whereby the warrantee requestor and the warranty subject exchange information relating to specific aspects of the transaction and their respective ability to complete the transaction, wherein the transaction places certain obligations on the warranty subject and wherein the warrantee requestor wishes to obtain assurance, in the form of a warranty from a known, reliable party, that the warranty subject at least has the ability to honor the obligations;

(B) sending a description of an agreed-upon final version of the transaction and information which forms the basis for a warranty request;

(C) sending a second message from the warranty subject to the warranty requestor which includes at least some of;

(c1) information specifying minimum standards that the warrantee requestor must meet in order to be issued a warranty on this transaction or to be provided other non-public information about the warranty subject;

(c2) information held by a local representative which maybe relevant to the subject transaction;

(c3) a coverage limit supported by the warranty subject for this transaction;

(c4) a time period of coverage being an effective time period for the warranty designated by the warranty subject; and

(c5) information related to this specific transaction which would be relevant to supporting the warranty;

(D) sending an acknowledgement from a first local representative to the warrantee requestor that the second message was received and that it contained the required information to support warranty processing;

(E) sending from the first local representative to the second local representative a fourth message which includes components from the second message;

(F) sending from the second local representative to the first local representative a fifth message which includes;

(f1) an identification of the warrantee requestor;

(f2) a transaction count for the warrantee requestor;

(f3) a support/not-support decision;

(f4) warranty parameters as listed in the warranty parameters categories;

(f5) a coverage limit authorized;

(f6) database transaction element descriptions;

(f7) a reason for a not-support decision;

(G) sending from the first local representative to the warrantee requestor a sixth message which provides the status of the warranty;

(H) sending from the warrantee requestor to the first local representative a seventh message, being an agreement by the warrantee requestor to accept, and pay for, the warranty;

(I) sending from the first representative to the second local representative an eighth message which includes;

(i1) an identification of the warrantee requestor based on information in the second message;

(i2) a transaction count as identified in the second message;

(i3) a statement of issued/non-issued status of the requested warranty, generated by a first local representative and indicating the final status of the request related to this transaction;

(i4) a final coverage value, when coverage approved for this transaction; and

(J) sending from the first local representative to the warrantee requestor a ninth message which is a signed indication of the warranty.