|Publication number||USRE41545 E1|
|Application number||US 12/035,158|
|Publication date||Aug 17, 2010|
|Filing date||Feb 21, 2008|
|Priority date||May 7, 1999|
|Also published as||US7003485|
|Publication number||035158, 12035158, US RE41545 E1, US RE41545E1, US-E1-RE41545, USRE41545 E1, USRE41545E1|
|Original Assignee||Dale Young|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (4), Non-Patent Citations (1), Referenced by (2), Classifications (8), Legal Events (4)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This application is a Reissue application of U.S. Ser. No. 09/565,532, filed May 5, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,485, granted Feb. 21, 2006, which claims the priority benefits of copending U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/133,013, filed on 7 May 1999.
This invention relates to the field of on-line auctions, and particularly to on-line auctions of tickets for entertainment events.
Seats for theatrical, musical, sporting, and other events are typically sold based on a pricing system that uses broad categorizations for seat locations. For example, all orchestra seats in a theater usually are uniformly priced for a given performance. The same system applies to sporting events. All tickets for movies are priced uniformly for each showing, though discounts for certain classes of people, e.g., students and senior citizens, may be available.
This simple system disregards the fact that within each broad category some seats are more valuable than others. Moreover, setting ticket prices well in advance of a performance, and keeping ticket prices constant, often misjudges the demand and fails to optimize pricing. Not surprisingly, tickets for a given performance often sell out upon their release; for ongoing events, patrons often have to wait too long to get desired tickets. These are reliable indicators that the tickets are underpriced, i.e., that the total amount collected by the event's producer/organizer is lower than could otherwise be achieved. Alternatively, if the ticket prices are set too high, many tickets may remain unsold, also reducing the total amount collected by the event's producer, despite higher average ticket price. Because producers, as most people, prefer a bird in hand to two in the bushes, tickets are practically always underpriced. Occasionally, the sub-optimal pricing benefits the consumer; more often than not, however, it benefits the illegal re-sellers, also known as “scalpers.”
Several on-line auction methods designed to optimize revenue from ticket sales, as well as to solve other problems, have been described. One method is the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 6,023,685 issued 8 Feb. 2000 to Brett et al. (“Brett”hereinafter), hereby incorporated by reference as if fully described herein. Brett also describes several other auctioning systems and methods.
According to Brett, a central computer runs a ticket auction, receiving and evaluating bids sent by bidders from remote terminals. Although the bids are for seats in a single section with all seats subject to the same minimum bid requirement, each seat is also preassigned a preferential rank. After a predetermined bidding period, the central computer associates the seats with acceptable bids based on the bid amounts and the preferential ranks of the seats, presumably with higher bids being assigned higher ranking seats. During the bidding period, however, the bidders can cancel, raise, or lower bids at will. Brett's method also provides for ensuring contiguous grouping of seats subject to a single bid.
Brett's method has several disadvantages. First, allowing bidders to lower or even cancel their bids wreaks havoc with the auctioning process. For example, one bidder can be outbid by another, and so notified; then, the higher bidder can cancel the bid, making the first bid acceptable, despite the notification. It is not even clear at what point a bidder becomes legally obligated to pay for the tickets. In sum, allowing cancellation and lowering of the bids creates uncertainty, even chaos.
Another disadvantage is that remote auctions differ from live auctions. (By “remote auctions” I mean auctions where bidding is done online, through telephone, or by similar means.) In a remote auction, there is no reason to conduct the auction in a short period of time, with each bidder responding (or choosing not to respond) to other bidders substantially in real time; remote auctions can, and often do, last for days, even weeks. Indeed, it would be difficult to conduct a widely accessible remote auction in real time because of potential for telecommunication equipment overload caused by simultaneous attempts of multiple bidders to place or change their bids. A bidder in a remote auction would have to check the status of the bids periodically to avoid being outbid. This is an inconvenience; moreover, because most bidding will probably be done towards the conclusion of the auction, telecommunication equipment can still become overloaded, preventing the bidder from raising his bid.
Yet another problem with Brett's method is that the contiguity requirement is the same for all the bidders; i.e., the algorithm that ensures contiguous seating operates on all the bids; it does not allow each bidder, individually, to specify whether the bidder will accept scattered seats. Similarly, the algorithm does not allow each bidder to specify initially whether partially filled orders are acceptable.
It is the object of this invention to remedy the above as well as related deficiencies in the prior art. In particular, one object of this invention is to provide an automated method for remotely auctioning tickets that eliminates chaos resulting from cancellation and lowering of previously entered bids.
It is another object of this invention to provide each bidder in a remote ticket auction with automatic means to increase the bid in response to actions of other bidders.
It is yet another object of the invention to allow each participant in a remote auction to bypass the bidding process entirely and ensure purchase of tickets.
It is still another object of the invention to let each bidder in a remote auction to specify, at the time of bidding, whether noncontiguous seating and a partially filled order are acceptable in order to improve the bidder's chances of purchasing a ticket or tickets.
To fulfill these and other objectives, the present invention provides for a computer-based, remote ticket auctioning method that advises each participant, during the participant's registration with the auction or at some other time before bidding, that each bid represents an unconditional offer to purchase and therefore cannot be lowered or withdrawn. Also during the registration process, the participant provides credit card information, or makes alternative payment arrangements.
The remote auctioning system will accept bids only from registered participants. When bidding, each participant specifies one of four options:
At the expiration of the bidding period, the central computer that runs the auction assigns all available tickets so as to maximize total amount received. Thus, selecting options 2-4 increases the participant's chances of obtaining the tickets at the bid amount because, for example, single seats may be filled.
To obviate the need for each bidder to check periodically the status of the bids, this invention provides a “proxy bid” (100)—a way for the participant to enter the initial bid is to agree to a predetermined, bid increment, and the maximum amount of the bid. The proxy then increases the participant's bid automatically, to ensure purchase of tickets, up to the maximum bid amount. Alternatively, if available, the participant may choose the “buy now” function to purchase the tickets immediately, albeit at a high predetermined price.
According to the method of this invention, producers of entertainment events transmit the following information to the central computer (101) that implements the method:
The ticket seller of the auction may break the available seats for the same event into multiple auctions, and thereby further minimizing scalping.
Templates (114) for the auditorium are obtained before an auction and stored on the central computer (100). The best sources I know for these templates (114) are the following books: Sandy Millman, SEATS (for New York area), and Denise Cady, GOOD SEATS (for Los Angeles and Chicago). The template (114) is displayed to the general public on the auction's Web site (116).
When a potential customer (potential auction participant or bidder) visits the site, the customer is given the options of registering (118), logging-in (129), or browsing (122) the site. If the customer chooses to register, he will be prompted to enter identifying and billing information (124). Typical data (126) requested are:
After registering, the customer returns to the main page (128) of the web site. Registered (118) and non-registered browsing (122) customers can first click on a one of the available geographical locations (128), e.g., a State, which can potentially be anywhere in the world. Typical geographical choices presented are:
The list of available events (13) in the category selected for that particular date (106) is displayed next. Assume, for example, that the customer selected “Theaters” in “New York.” If available, the following shows would be listed:
The customer then selects the desired performance date (132) and goes to the next page. Upon clicking on a specific event (130), a seating chart (102) appears. Available seats (104) being auctioned will be listed, also base (minimum) prices (134) for bidding.
If a given event is of interest to the customer, the customer indicates how many seats are desired. The amount needed to bid per seat (136) is displayed to the customer. Note that the per-seat amount may depend on the number of seats desired: if there are a hundred seats available and someone wants 6 seats, he might have to bid more per seat than someone who bids for one seat, depending upon bids already placed.
Only registered customers (118) are allowed to bid, and no one may bid an amount less than what is required to secure a ticket at the time of the bid. That minimum amount can of course increase as higher bids are received.
At this time, the customer may be asked if he would like to increase the bid automatically by predetermined increments up to a certain amount if he is outbid. This is the “proxy bid” (100) service described earlier.
An order form is next presented to the customer. The form requests the following information:
To make bidding decisions more informed, the following data can be made available to all browsers: (1) bidding history (150), and (2) a running clock (152) indicating how long bidding will continue. Based on this information, the bidder may increase his bid at any time; the bid, however, may not be canceled or decreased.
For those customers who absolutely “must” have the tickets, a way to bypass the auction may be provided. For example, the central computer may be programmed to accept bids at some predetermined amount (154), at the time the bid is made, and to reserve the seats immediately.
The next screen displayed to the customer shows a detailed summary (156) of the order and what the order will cost if and when accepted, including service charges, if any. The computer asks the customer to confirm that (1) the bid is correct, and (2) the total charge is accurate and is authorized by the customer. The specifics (158) of the desired transaction are displayed to the customer to avoid any misunderstanding of expenses. If the information is accurate, the customer advances to the next screen, which asks for another confirmation:
When the bid is complete, the customer is given a confirmation code (160) so that at any time prior to the close of the auction the status of the desired seats can be obtained and the bid can be raised. Registered participants are able to access all current and past orders (164). As described above, the customer can also elect to have the “proxy bid” increase the customer's bid automatically at preestablished increments up to a certain amount.
Throughout the process, each customer is repeatedly reminded that the bids are commitments to purchase tickets, and are binding if accepted.
After a given offer is submitted, the customer will have the options of bidding on a different event (168), exiting the site, and purchasing related materials (170). Under the last option, links can be provided to sites (172) selling, for example, music CDs and memorabilia.
Before exiting the site, the customer is asked if he would like to receive e-mail notifications (174) of other events. If so, a form listing the types of events of interest is presented to the customer.
When the time allotted for bidding expires, the central computer runs an algorithm (176) that determines the winning bids so as to maximize the total amount realized from ticket sales. Note that the algorithm does not necessarily allocate the seats to the highest bidders; a higher bid can be bypassed in favor of a lower bid when the total realized amount is increased by accepting the lower bid. This generally happens when some lower bid is made by someone willing to take a partial order or noncontiguous seats. Thus, a bidder willing to accept noncontiguous seats or partial orders improves his chances of obtaining the tickets.
The customer's credit card (178) is billed prior to seats being allocated.
After completing the auction, the auction site's operator submits a list of customers and seat allocations to the event's producer/operator. Each successful bidder is notified by e-mail that (1) he has won the bid on “x” seats, (2) the exact amount charged against the customer's credit card, (3) a special code (180) that will uniquely identify the successful bidder to the event's operator, and (4) a reminder (182) that the e-mail should be printed and brought to the box office (184) along with identification. If the tickets are a gift, the box-office must be notified who will be retrieving the tickets. If the ticket purchase was a phone order, the customer is notified by phone under the same protocol.
The box office prints the tickets with the amounts for which they were purchased, which of course are the amounts of the winning bids. This should preclude any charge that the tickets have been scalped; when tickets are scalped, they are sold for an amount higher than the price printed on them. It will also allow the event's producer to verify the amounts for which the tickets were sold.
Three days after the event, the event's producer will be paid the contractual amount, for example the base ticket price plus one half of the amount over the base price, less pro-rated credit card charges. If the event is canceled, refunds are automatically given to the customers, and the producers are charged all credit card fees.
All information exchanges described in this document can also be made via telephones. It is, however, less cost efficient and more cumbersome than using the Internet.
Although a number of specific features have been described in this specification, those skilled in the art will be able to devise various other modifications that although not explicitly described or shown herein, embody the principles of the invention and are thus within its spirit and scope.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US6023685 *||May 23, 1997||Feb 8, 2000||Brett; Kenton F.||Computer controlled event ticket auctioning system|
|US6240396 *||Sep 4, 1997||May 29, 2001||Priceline.Com Incorporated||Conditional purchase offer management system for event tickets|
|US6496809 *||Jun 9, 2000||Dec 17, 2002||Brett Nakfoor||Electronic ticketing system and method|
|JPH08315046A||Title not available|
|1||*||"The Fundraiser Family, Special Event" Jul. 1997.|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8315918 *||Aug 28, 2009||Nov 20, 2012||Ticketmaster||Systems for dynamically allocating finite or unique resources|
|US9672562||Jan 25, 2013||Jun 6, 2017||Fedbid, Inc.||Price determination in an auction system|
|U.S. Classification||705/37, 705/25, 705/26.8|
|Cooperative Classification||G06Q30/08, G06Q40/04|
|European Classification||G06Q30/08, G06Q40/04|
|Feb 18, 2010||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: PALUS A6, LLC, DELAWARE
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:YOUNG, DALE;REEL/FRAME:023953/0804
Effective date: 20071025
|Mar 18, 2013||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 8
|Dec 29, 2015||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: F. POSZAT HU, L.L.C., DELAWARE
Free format text: MERGER;ASSIGNOR:PALUS A6, LLC;REEL/FRAME:037378/0616
Effective date: 20150812
|Jul 28, 2017||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 12