| Patent application number | Description | Published |
|---|
| 20090177591 | ZERO-KNOWLEDGE PROOFS IN LARGE TRADES - According to one aspect, presented is a useful new mechanism that facilitates the atomic exchange of large baskets of securities in a combinatorial exchange. Some embodiments of the exchange offer institutions who wish to trade large positions a new alternative to existing methods of trading. In one embodiment of an exchange, institutions submit encrypted orders which are crossed (buys, sells, shorts, and longs, for example, are matched) leaving a “remainder”. The exchange proves facts about the portfolio risk of this remainder to third party liquidity providers without revealing the securities in the remainder. The third parties learn either (depending on the setting) the portfolio risk parameters of the remainder itself, or how their own portfolio risk would change if they were to incorporate the remainder into a portfolio they submit. They submit bids on the commission, and the winner supplies necessary liquidity for the entire exchange to clear. According to another aspect, an “institution” (a firm who invests in financial markets) wishes to execute a large basket of trades, and mitigate execution risk by having an intermediary—for example, an investment “bank”—take on the basket into its inventory and unwind the trades on its own. Instead of revealing specific information about the equities in the basket, which could be exploited, the institution and banks can conduct a zero-knowledge protocol in which the banks learn how much the risk profile of their inventory—more generally, their utility—would change if they accepted the basket. In this process, the institution learns nothing about the bank's inventory or risk management beyond the price the bank is willing to pay, and the banks learn nothing about the basket beyond how the overall risk characteristics of their portfolio would change if they accepted the basket. | 07-09-2009 |
| 20090276329 | Bid Modification Based on Logical Connections Between Trigger Groups in a Combinatorial Exchange - In a combinatorial exchange, rules can be input for processing bids and a desired exchange objective can be defined. A subset of the rules can be used to determine if an allocation of the bids exists that is optimal for the type of exchange being conducted. If the desired exchange objective is not satisfied, new allocations can be determined using different subsets of rules each time until the desired exchange objective is satisfied. Trigger bid groups and/or rules associated with trigger values can be used to determine whether to apply modification or discounts to bids. Item and bid groups can be partitioned into groups for the purpose of smoothing requirements. Trigger bid groups, rules associated with trigger values, item groups, and bid groups can be used for adjusting or constraining bids based on triggers, logical connectives, and adjustments. | 11-05-2009 |
| 20090281920 | Overconstraint Detection, Rule Relaxation and Demand Reduction in a Combinatorial Exchange - In a combinatorial exchange, a set of rules can be input for processing of bids received in connection with the exchange. At least one bid can be received from each of a plurality of exchange participants and a desired exchange objective can be defined. A determination can be made as a function of a subset of the rules if an allocation of the bids exists that is optimal for the type of exchange being conducted. If the desired exchange objective is not satisfied, the step of determining an allocation is repeated utilizing a different subset of rules each time until the desired exchange objective is satisfied. It can be determined if the exchange is overconstrained and, if so, rules can be relaxed. Also or alternatively, the demand for a quantity of an item can be increased or decreased based on the average cost of the item. | 11-12-2009 |
| 20090287560 | Items Ratio Based Price/Discount Adjustment in a Combinatorial Auction - In a combinatorial exchange, rules can be input for processing bids and a desired exchange objective can be defined. A subset of the rules can be used to determine if an allocation of the bids exists that is optimal for the type of exchange being conducted. If the desired exchange objective is not satisfied, new allocations can be determined using different subsets of rules each time until the desired exchange objective is satisfied. At least one of the bids can include a reference ratio; a discount; a price associated with a quantity Q | 11-19-2009 |
| 20100106652 | System and Method for Procurement Strategy Optimization Against Expressive Contracts - In a computer-implemented method of procurement strategy optimization, data about a number of contracts is stored in a computer storage accessible to a processor of a computer along with a forecast of a future quantity of at least one good or service to be purchased. The processor of the computer determines a first plan for future procurement against at least one of the stored contracts based on the forecast and the following data specified by the one contract: a good or service, a payment rule, a trigger condition, and an associated effect of the trigger condition. In response to the processor automatically approving the first plan subject to one or more predetermined rules or the processor receiving an approval of the first plan, the processor causes the first plan to be adopted for future procurement. | 04-29-2010 |
| 20100106653 | System and Method for Contract Execution Against Expressive Contracts - In a computer-implemented method of contract execution, data about contracts is stored in a computer storage accessible to a processor of a computer along with data about a procurement plan and data about a purchase request that includes information about a first quantity of at least one good or service. The processor determines a second quantity of the one good or service and a second contract against which to complete the purchase request based on the procurement plan, the data about the contracts, at least one purchase made against one of the contracts, a trigger condition and associated effect, and the quantity of at least one good or service. In response to the second contract and the second quantity being approved, the processor causes a purchase order for the second quantity of the one good or service to be placed to the supplier associated with the second contract. | 04-29-2010 |
| 20100114784 | System and Method for Payment Reconciliation Against Expressive Contracts - In a computer-implemented method of conducting expressive payment reconciliation, a purchase transaction is stored in a computer storage accessible to a processor. The processor identifies a contract against which the purchase transaction is made and a first payment amount for the purchase transaction. Contract data is stored in the computer storage and the processor determines a second payment amount for the purchase transaction based on at least one good or service associated with the purchase transaction and the data about the contract. In response to a difference in the first and second payments, the processor either stores computer storage a modified invoice with a modified payment amount, stores in the computer storage a reconciliation payment equal to the payment difference; outputs over a computer network an explanation of the modified payment; or outputs over a computer network a dispute notification. | 05-06-2010 |
| 20100121671 | Automated Channel Abstraction for Advertising Auctions - In a computer-implemented method of determining an abstraction of a plurality of differentiated goods available for exchange, data regarding each differentiated good is stored in a computer storage, wherein the data regarding each differentiated good includes an attribute value assigned to at least one attribute of the differentiated good. A processor of a computer determines a first abstraction of the plurality of differentiated goods based on the stored data. The first abstraction includes at least one abstract good. Each abstract good includes one or more differentiated goods. At least one abstract good of the first abstraction includes at least two distinct differentiated goods. The processor determines for each abstract good a specification for the abstract good based on the data regarding one or more differentiated goods forming the abstract good. The processor stores in the computer storage the specification determined for each abstract good. | 05-13-2010 |
