CZ20001615A3 - Computerized dispute resolution system and method of computerized dispute resolution - Google Patents

Abstract

The computerized system serves as an automated solution web disputes through the Internet or other communication links for series transmission and processing requirements to satisfy a claim made either by itself the claimant or the person involved or in theirs representation in a dispute and at least one other person, e.g. defendant, its insurer or other guarantor, and series bids to settle claims using at least one computer base units including operating system soflvčru to control the base unit. The system is also preferred allows collection, processing and dissemination settlement data created from settlement of activities system for use by guarantors and proposers in determining the settlement values of future cases. They are also described how to forward and process a series of requests and series of offers using the system.

Description

Computerized dispute resolution system and coiqiterized dispute resolution

Technical field

The present invention relates generally to dispute resolution and in particular to Online Automated Dispute Resolution between opposing parties in a confidential environment.

Links to related applications

This application is a continuation application to application Serial No. 09 / 130,154 filed August 6, 1998, incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

It is now clear that a better way of resolving disputes is needed for a long time. Legal proceedings, once considered the only way to resolve legal disputes, are very costly and the result can be unsatisfactory for all parties involved. The resulting disappointment with traditional litigation led to the creation of an alternative dispute resolution institute. However, traditional ADR, although sometimes useful, is still costly and results are often unacceptable.

The enormous number of outstanding receivables is mature for settlement, but has not been resolved for reasons that have nothing to do with their merits. The invention is based on the assumption that the parties are best able to settle these disputes, but need a system that creates an opportunity for the parties to settle their claims easily, efficiently and relatively cheaply.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In general, from the first point of view, the main feature of the invention is a method of settling a claim. The method involves testing pairs of unequal

13341

The values submitted by the two parties to the claim to satisfy the condition. If the condition is not satisfied, the method further comprises testing a pair of unequal enforced wheel values, one from each of the two disputed parties for the claim, to satisfy the enforced wheel condition. The method further comprises calculating a binding compensation when the condition is satisfied by a pair of unequal values. The binding compensation shall be an amount at least equal to the lower of the pair of unequal values.

Generally, in the second aspect, the main feature of the invention is a method of settling a claim. The method involves receiving the values submitted by both parties to the claim. At least one of the values shall be presented to the negotiator after a report on the claim given by the negotiator to at least one of the parties to the dispute. The method further includes testing unequal values to satisfy the condition and calculating a binding compensation when the condition is satisfied by a pair of unequal values. The binding compensation shall be an amount at least equal to the lower of the pair of unequal values.

Generally, in a third aspect, the main feature of the invention is a dispute resolution method for settling a claim between two parties to a dispute. The method includes testing pairs of unequal values presented by two satisfying the compensation condition of unequal values.

The method further comprises a binding calculation when the condition is satisfied by a pair. The binding compensation comprises offsetting the unforeseen financial result when one of the parties to the dispute is the initiator of the disputed item for the receivable, at least equal to the lower of a pair of unequal values set either negative difference amount of unforeseen financial result.

Generally, in a fourth aspect, the main feature of the invention is a dispute resolution method for settling a claim between two parties to a dispute. The method involves testing pairs of unequal values presented by two controversial parties for the claim, k

13341

-300 0 0 0 00 · «0 satisfaction condition. The method further comprises calculating a binding compensation when the condition is satisfied by a pair of unequal values, in an amount at least equal to the lower of the pair of unequal values and initiating an on-line transfer of the amount of funds between the parties.

Generally, in a fifth aspect, the main feature of the invention is a dispute resolution method for settling a claim between two parties to a dispute. The method involves testing pairs of unequal values submitted by the two controversial parties for the claim to satisfy the condition. The method further comprises calculating a binding settlement payment when the condition is satisfied by a pair of unequal values, in an amount at least equal to the lower of the pair of unequal values. The method further includes automatically, when the condition is satisfied, creating a settlement document for the claim containing special case information.

In general, from a sixth point of view, the main feature of the invention is systems that operate according to the described methods using an on-line interface.

Specific embodiments of the invention may emphasize one or more of the following benefits: lower costs for each party to bring a continuing solution compared to a lawsuit or an increased likelihood of settling certain claims, encouraging that the case can be settled, some indication that the settlement can actually be achieved, greater customer satisfaction with claiming, attracting more claims to the system, lower costs for initiators compared to hiring a lawyer to participate in the system or bringing and conducting legal proceedings, greater convenience for claimants involved in the system because the legal knowledge necessary to design a simple refusal, waiver or settlement agreement is not needed, lower costs because no legal counsel is needed or is minimally needed to sign an agreement, unify and simplify multinationals effective bilateral negotiations, more flexibility for proposers because

13341

-4 • · «· ·· they manage a special method of payment, faster acceptance of balancing returns, less likely to subsequently default on the opponents' obligations upon agreement.

Specific embodiments of the system of the invention may emphasize one or more of the following: the ability of individuals to directly contact and engage in dispute resolution, the ability to receive immediate or direct credit, the transfer or initiation of value transfer achieved during negotiation, or the ability to receive unforeseen financial the dispute settlement effect if the negotiation reaches an agreement on its own initiative.

The foregoing advantages and features are merely representative embodiments and are presented to only contribute to an understanding of the invention. It is to be understood that they are not to be construed as limiting the invention as defined by the claims or as limiting the equivalents to the claims. For example, some pairs of these advantages are opposed to each other and therefore cannot be present in one embodiment at the same time. Similarly, some advantages are applicable to one aspect of the invention and not applicable to others. Thus, this summary of features and advantages should not be considered to be useful in determining equivalence. Other features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following description, drawings, and claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The following detailed description can be best understood in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:

Giant. 1 is an overview of a computerized system applicable to the practice of the invention.

Giant. 2 is a block diagram showing how the claimant involved in the dispute cooperates with the computerized system of FIG. 1.

• 9

13341

-5Fig. 3 is a block diagram of an example of how an embodiment of the invention leads a person involved in a dispute using a system.

Giant. 4 is a diagram illustrating a program flow from a user perspective according to a preferred method of operating the system of the invention over the Internet.

Giant. 5 is an overview of a computerized system including an intermediary.

Fig. 6 is a diagram illustrating a program flow from a system perspective for a system including a forced wheel option.

Giant. 7 is an overview of a computerized system including a direct payment interface option.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

A computerized dispute resolution system accessible online, for example via a website via the Internet or other communication link, is designed to communicate and process disputes between two persons using a series of claims and a series of offers.

The system compares requirements and offers on the basis of successive negotiating rounds in accordance with pre-established conditions.

A request is a monetary amount (or equivalent value) required by a person who has a claim against another person, such as the respondent or his or her insurer, that the person with the claim wants to agree on. The corresponding information is entered by the petitioner, or his phone or cellular telephone or keypad numbers. An offer is the monetary amount (or appropriate value) that the respondent or insurance company wants to settle the claim.

size of the request agent, using ftftft ftftft

13341

-6ftft · · · · ·

The person involved in the dispute is anyone or any company that has a claim against another person or against whom another person has claimed a claim, whether legal proceedings are pending or not.

The system communicates and processes requests and bids using at least one CPU by matching bids and requests and comparing them. The computer system comprises an operating system controlling the base unit, a method for supplying information to the base unit, and a memory for storing information.

The basic predetermined conditions under which the comparison is made include the following:

If in any round the offer is less than the request and is within a predetermined percentage, eg thirty percent, of the request in the same round, ie the offer is greater than or equal to seventy percent of the request, the claim is settled in accordance with the first predetermined formula, for example, the middle amount between a request and a bid.

If the offer in any round is equal to or greater than the request, the claim is settled by the amount requested.

If the offer is not within a predetermined percentage of the requirement in all rounds, for example, if seventy percent of the request is greater than the offer, the claim is not settled until the difference between the offer and the request is less than a predetermined amount, eg $ 5,000. according to a second predetermined formula, eg the median amount between the request and the offer. Thus, the first predetermined formula and the second predetermined formula may be the same or different from each other depending on the agreement of the parties.

The system is preferably designed to allow the user to communicate with the system through a standard personal computer and modem over the Internet. The system may also include

13341

-745 · «4 4

444

4 a voice message system or voice message generator to enable communication with the system via a push-button or cellular telephone connection or to guide a person in use of the system. Preferably, security is provided to prevent access to the system without entering the correct information, e.g., the dispute identification number, the dispute security code, and the dispute user security code, and the user identifying the user or his representative making a request or offer, e.g. the legal representative of the person on whose behalf the request or offer is made.

Preferably, the computer is secured, for example, by using a firewall or security barrier against unauthorized traffic or by using encryption techniques, and each case is preferably protected with a triple password to ensure privacy and prevent unauthorized access. For example, the system may require a user to enter a password or a user identification number or an alphanumeric combination, a user authorization code providing access control to the system. For added security, it can be designed to require user authentication, for example using a voice pattern, a fingerprint, a physical signature, or a smart card. If a smart card is used, certain embodiments preferably allow the settlement to be terminated by direct transfer of funds to the petitioner's smart card.

Yet other benefits can be realized when the transfer of the settlement benefit from a given settled dispute can be automatically, if not immediately, made to the claimant.

We also found that some claims that cannot be settled using the basic configuration of an automated dispute resolution arrangement can still be settled in an efficient automated way that has similar advantages but eliminates some of the uncompromising baseline •

13341

-8 · · * · použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím použitím

We have also found that additional benefits can be achieved when an unforeseen financial outcome relative to normal payment is provided to the initiator, ie the first controversial party submitting a special dispute for resolution. Active opponents benefit from savings because the payment they make relative to a normal payment for a few values is lower. Active proposers benefit from an increase in the unforeseen financial result due to the normal payment of a pair of values.

In a fully automated system, strategies, evaluations and other work results are exposed, directly or indirectly, to everyone, including the counterparty, and offers that result in no settlement are never revealed to anyone. In a broker-based system, disclosure of mediation information is limited and controlled.

Additional benefits can be achieved when the system automatically produces settlement documents for handover to the parties.

Giant. 1 illustrates a basic system using the Internet or telephone as a communications link.

Preferably, the base unit receives settlement offers and the proposer places requests in communication with the system over a period of time, e.g. 30 days. A timing is applied to write requests or tenders within a specified period.

In the normal arrangement of negotiations, there will preferably be three offers for each claim. In these cases, each request will be compared to a bid of the same number (ie request # 1 with bid # 1, request # 2 with bid # 2, etc.). The computer assigns a settlement offer to the petitioner's request and performs programmed calculations to determine whether or not settlement has been achieved. Where demand and offer meet in accordance with predetermined conditions, settlement is achieved.

13341

-9 • a · a * ·

If the request is less than or equal to the bid, the case is settled by an amount equal to the request. In the case where the demand exceeds the bid and the bid is within a predetermined percentage range, eg 70% of the request (ie requirement x 0.70 <= bid), the system preferably divides the difference equally between the two parties. In this case, the settlement amount is calculated as the mean of both, ie the requirement plus the bid divided by two. If 70% of the requirement is still greater than the bid, the settlement is not achieved until the difference between the bid and the bid is less than a predetermined value, eg $ 5,000, in which case the claim is settled by the median amount between the bid and the bid.

In addition, a forced wheel may be selectively available. With a forced wheel, another opportunity is given or the parameter is changed to increase the benefit of reaching settlement.

Thus, in one type of arrangement, the parties only communicate with a computer that acts as an agent, and at all times avoid direct communication with each other for settlement settlement purposes. Unnecessary personal conflicts, infertile and irrelevant disagreements, poisons, and situations cannot occur, so the parties deal exclusively with the substance of the problem.

Alternatively, a neutral intermediary may be used to assist in settlement negotiations. An agent is a computer or a person working with or without a computer according to special instructions. Using general non-disclosure statements, the intermediary attempts to induce one or both parties to the dispute to adjust their offer (s) or demand (s) to the extent of settlement.

Giant. 2 shows how a petitioner involved in a dispute would use a confidential and fully automated system without direct communication with the other party.

13341

-10 • · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

The system is also preferably made secure, so that the system is accessible only after entering the correct authentication information, e.g., the case identification number identifying the dispute and the user security code corresponding to the dispute and identifying the person or his representative submitting the request or offer.

Preferably, the system is capable of generating voice messages to a person communicating with the system by telephone connection to guide the person in using the system. Alternatively, written messages can be used as an incentive when access to the system is from a personal computer over the Internet.

The entry of receivables and settlement offers may also be accelerated by qualified computer specialists. For example, an Internet or telephone connection may provide a variety of optional services, one of which connects users online or by telephone with a customer service that answers questions or provides other assistance. Then the user can access the system of communication with the base unit via the Internet or telephone, ie direct number, at any time of the day or week for the submission of claims or offers for settlement. The system also has a timer for entering information corresponding to requests or offers in a time period. In this way, information corresponding to requirements or offers can be input in multiple connections with the system over a period of time. However, the system can be configured to handle multiple phone calls or other connections from anywhere in the world.

Depending on the specific implementation, a currency converter is also included. This allows disputed parties to act using different currencies, such as US Dollars, Euros, Liber, Lir or Yen, without having to take into account foreign exchange rates or use unknown currencies in negotiations. When bids and requests are placed in such a system, the system automatically converts the bid and request into a common currency. As a rule, it will determine the currency

13341

-11 «· ftftft ftftft ftftft ftft ·· ·· ftftft ftft ftftft proposer. Alternatively, the currency used will be based on the joint choice of parties to the dispute, for example, the Japanese side and the Canadian side may choose the Euro as the base currency for negotiations. The computer performs its functions and results reports are transmitted to the parties in real time without waiting.

The system contains modules that act as an authorized negotiator. This encourages and enables plaintiffs to realistically approach settlement without the risk of appearing indecisive because the plaintiff's financial requirements that do not lead to settlement are never revealed. Preferably, in the normal course, the petitioners have only three or other pre-agreed number of claims or rounds to settle claims using the system, and preferably the settlement or rounds offer only a limited period or shelf life in which they are applicable, for example thirty days for all rounds, encouraging to rapid action by petitioners.

Preferably, the system also collects and processes settlement data generated from the compensation achieved by the system's dissemination and exploitation activities by users, eg guarantors and proposers, in determining the settlement amount in future cases. Settlement data may also be used by intermediaries to encourage one or both parties to determine the amount they offer for settlement. The user may be provided with means of accessing actual settlements achieved during the use of the system in other disputes, via a menu or by voice dialing, provided to the user over the telephone or the Internet, the selection of which provides the user with information on previous settlements. The data can be tabulated in memory to be accessible for certain categories, eg court, guarantor, geographic location or other category. In this way, the user can be guided through actual settlements in similar cases when creating requests and offers.

Because the system is accessible by phone and / or by phone

The Internet, petitioners may not have a solicitor to

13341

-12 • 99-999

99

9 used the system and settled the case. In addition, incentives for the use of the system can be given, either directly, by granting the unforeseen financial outcome to the party that has used the system for the case first or indirectly, using different payment options or related measures.

Various improvements may be provided to assist in the settlement process. For example, the system may be designed to generate settlement documents for parties and / or in some cases, court filing documents such as contractual settlement provisions or refusal for bias.

The invention may be readily understood from the following description of preferred embodiments with or without particular improvements in conjunction with the overview of FIG. 1. The invention provides an on-line system, preferably a web site accessible via the Internet and / or telephone, to facilitate debt settlement by enabling lawyers , claimants and / or receivables liquidators, using a simple interface to quickly send a series of monetary claims to test settlement algorithms. The system also preferably calculates, stores and tabulates settlement data once settlement has been achieved for information of other users and / or intermediary.

The person involved in the dispute against which the claim was made, such as the respondent or the insurer or other guarantor, shall preferably file claims to the computerized system using electronic media and formats agreed by the parties. Guarantors may also preferentially describe the amount for the algorithm and the percentage and, at the individual level of claims, control their potential disclosure for claims by a built-in calculator provided by a computer program in the system.

Claimants can submit requests directly without hiring a lawyer and calculate their potential gains by settling their claims. Proposers can get information about the system from advertisements, oral submissions, links to selected internet sites

13341

-13 * v * ΦΦΦ · ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ ΦΦ · ΦΦ · ·

Attorneys, on the other hand, may submit claims to the petitioners and calculate their potential settlement profits. Claimants or their legal representatives may be invited to participate in the process by an automatically generated letter which is sent as soon as the guarantor enters the case. Claimants or solicitors can then join the system using special authorization codes communicated to them in the letters.

The parties may agree in advance the amount for the algorithm and the percentage, or the first person involved in the dispute may enter these data into the system, which are then agreed by the other person. Furthermore, the parties may agree to allow a forced wheel. Depending on the particular embodiment, the enforced round may include another round, a change to any criterion, and / or an agreement to change payment if settlement is reached. The parties may be subject to an unforeseen financial benefit to the outcome of the dispute settlement, based on who first used the claim system.

In an Internet-based embodiment of the invention, a web page is created, providing an interface between the system and the user. The main areas of the website preferably contain a login area for the guarantor or their representative, a login area for the proposers or their legal representative, and a login area for the administrative staff supervising the system. If required, the website may also include a publicly accessible area that highlights system information. For added security, a separate website can be created with this information.

Individuals using a computerized system preferably have to log on to the system before they can manipulate the data. Preferably, they can see the entry and change of those

13341 ·· * · «·« ·· information that is within the limits of their access restrictions as the plaintiff's solicitor, directly acceding plaintiff, guarantor user, guarantor administrator or system administrator.

A guarantor is a receivable liquidator or other agent who works for a guarantor, such as an insurance company or a large self-insurance organization that has acceded to a computerized system contract. The guarantor user is preferably limited to entering and viewing cases relevant to their own cases, not to the case of other guarantor users of the same guarantor.

The guarantor may preferentially access the system login website, for example by using a username and password combination or pair, read and agree to the guarantor's participation in the system, enter new cases for the petitioner's legal representative and review any discontinued, pending or ongoing cases introduced into the system by the guarantor user.

The guarantor trustee is the guarantor user to whom the guarantor has granted the management privilege. Preferably, in addition to performing all tasks that a regular guarantor can perform, the guarantor administrator may access the website to change the guarantor's contact information, change the guarantor's login to the system and add, delete or delete the guarantor user, create the guarantor user with administrative privileges and reviewed cases for all guarantor users of the guarantor.

Claimants and their attorneys may access the system login website using the username and password pair, read and agree to the claimant's agreement, review the case information as prepared by the guarantor, the status of the case and report claims in the case.

13341

-15System administrators who work for a system management company primarily assist in implementing the system. System administrators with proper authorization, such as a combination of a username and password identifying them as such, may access the website to review, modify, delete and create guarantors, guarantors and guarantors, and review, modify and delete cases and claims, to be processed by the system. The system may preferably be provided with a case report generator comprising current case status information that may be retrieved by date, guarantor, guarantor user, case name, and status accessible to the system administrator. Also, designers and other system users may be provided with a more limited form of output report generator about a case in which information can only be retrieved to the extent of user access.

The system of the invention is preferably designed to facilitate both the claimant directly entering the system and the claimant's solicitor using an online connection such as a conventional Internet search engine or telephone to facilitate access to the system and attempt to settle a legal dispute involving a quantifiable settlement amount.

When using the system, the guarantor enters the system, for example by logging into the website. The guarantor may at that time enter any information relating to the case and the applicant's legal representative. Upon addition or revision of the details of the case, the guarantor shall submit settlement proposals all at once or gradually over time, preferably not more than three for each claim submitted. Each alignment proposal is marked with a wheel number. For example, the guarantor may submit $ 40,000 for the first round (round 1), $ 60,000 for the second round (round 2) and $ 80,000 for the third round (round 3). If a forced wheel option is available, it may be

13343 * ·· 4444 ···

444 The guarantor is also asked to enter information for use in a possible enforced round.

If required in web-based systems, an online calculator can be used to inform the guarantor what the highest potential detection at that time can be. For example, if the predetermined conditions are such that the case settles on the median value between the request and the offer, if the offer is at least 70% of the request or in the range of $ 5,000 from the request, for a round, it can calculate that the possible detection is $ 85,000 (corresponding to the $ 100,000 requirement, ie the highest requirement that will cause settlement under these conditions).

Once the claim has been entered into the system, the claimant or the solicitor's attorney is contacted, for example by routine or electronic mail. (For simplification, the applicant's legal representative will be mentioned, but the interpretation applies equally to the applicant or his other representative). The petitioner's solicitor selects the solicitor's security code, which is preferably a unique numerical personal identification number (pin) that will give the solicitor access to the computerized system. The Claimant's solicitor must also agree to be bound by any settlement made by the parties using the computerized system and may at the same time agree to the percentage difference in which the bid and bid must move in order to settle, an amount that can be zero. the extent of which the case will be settled, however, if the difference between the request and the bid in a given round is less than or equal to that amount and the formula for determining the amount of settlement in that case. The claim is now ready for settlement, and the claimant's attorney will have three normal rounds, or opportunities, to determine the claim that can be deposited over time or at once.

♦ 0000

13341 00 000 00 000

Referring to the block diagram of FIG. 2, the plaintiff's attorney or other user (e.g., respondent or guarantor) enters the system via the Internet using a conventional browser or via a conventional tone dial or cellular telephone. No special equipment or training is required for a solicitor to use the system. The system prompts the solicitor at every step of the process and provides automatic on-demand help whenever needed.

For example, referring to the block diagram of FIG. 3, upon access, the user will encounter a welcome (step 30) followed by menus that can be selected by pressing the appropriate tone dial or cellular phone number (step 31).

In steps 32 to 35, a solicitor's personal identification number (PIN) and preferably two numeric passwords are required to initiate an alternate claim settlement. The system preferably generates a voice acknowledgment of information that the user can confirm or cancel and re-enter the new information (see step 34). After confirming the information, the system can determine its accuracy and user authorization to access the system in the case. After entering and confirming the required numbers, the attorney follows the incentives and makes requests using the telephone keypad or by typing the request on his personal computer. The system may also request confirmation of the information provided by a solicitor. See Fig. 3 for phone-based designs.

The computerized system is designed to comply with the will of the parties and does not attempt to force settlement. Preferably, no information is received in the system regarding facts, rights or claims related to the claim. The case may be settled only by a digit acceptable to the parties, not by a digit arbitrarily determined by the interviewing third party. Even if an intermediary is used, the intermediary can only create rules-based or generic statements intended to encourage the parties to the extent of the settlement and preferably is not directly initiated into any of the requirements, or

13341

-18bids made in the next round. Thus, the parties can resolve disputes by using the system without abandoning settlement authority.

The wheels may preferably be terminated in one, two or three calls or computer sessions over a specified period of time, preferably thirty days. The system instantly compares each request with a settlement offer for each round once it is placed. If the request and offer match or are within a predetermined range, the case is settled. For example, if the offer is within twenty percent of the requirement, the claim is settled according to a predetermined formula, for example, the claim is settled by a mean value. If the offer and demand differ by more than twenty percent in all three rounds, the case is not settled or, if available, triggers a forced round. If, during normal rounds, the settlement offer is equal to or greater than the claimant's request, the claim is settled by the amount requested.

The predetermined conditions are preferably such that even if the offer and demand differ by more than a predetermined percentage in all three rounds of claim the settlement will nevertheless be settled if the offer and demand are within a predetermined amount, eg $ 5,000, in which the claim will be settled in accordance with a second predetermined formula, which again may be a mean value.

Two examples of normal wheel series are presented in Table 1. In these examples, the predetermined formula is the mean value between supply and demand. In Example 2, the predetermined value is $ 5,000 and the second predetermined formula is the same as the first predetermined formula, i.e. the requirement plus bid divided by two is equal to the settlement amount.

• iii · i ’ϊ

13341 -is- TABLE 1 «· · · · · · · · EXAMPLE 1 (predetermined Percentage: 80% of the request) Bike The Claimant requirement Offer settlement Result 1 $ 200,000 $ 40,000 outstanding 2 $ 150,000 $ 60,000 outstanding 3 $ 100,000 $ 80,000 settled by $ 90,000 EXAMPLE 2 (predetermined Percentage: 70% of the request) Bike The Claimant requirement Offer settlement Result 1 $ 19,000 $ 4,500 outstanding 2 $ 14,000 $ 6,500 outstanding 3 $ 12,000 $ 8,000 settled by $ 10,000 The system shall promptly notify the parties to the settlement such as online users or email (email

parties that are offline or by phone, followed by a written confirmation message. Unaccepted offers and requests shall expire without any other party, preferably after thirty (30) days.

Case data processing begins when the person involved in the dispute, preferably the party representing the person against whom the claim or series of claims is asserted, such as the guarantor or unrepresented petitioner enters the system, enters into the base unit a series of dispute settlement rounds to satisfy the claim). Information relating to the claim is presented electronically in a system compatible format, for example

13341

-20to this to the telephone input or personal computer for processing by the base unit.

The other person involved in the dispute, for example, when the first person in the dispute is the guarantor, the party representing the claimant inserts into the system a series of claims to satisfy the claim. Requests and offers are submitted without disclosure to other parties involved in the dispute. The series of requests and the series of offers are matched and compared on a one-by-one basis in accordance with predetermined conditions. For example, the parties may agree to be legally obliged to settle the case if the request and offer are the same in any round (in which case the claim is settled by that amount) or are in a pre-agreed range or formula, such as 20% or $ 5,000 or some combination ( in this case, the claim is settled in accordance with a pre-agreed formula (for example, the median value between request and offer). Otherwise, the system moves to the next round and the values from the previous round that do not lead to settlement are normally cleared. After each round, the system will communicate to the parties the result of the value comparison, ie pending or settled by a certain amount.

Computerized Alternative Dispute Resolution can be accomplished by Internet-based embodiments using a computer program representing the use of distributed databases written in Mark-up Language such as ColdFusion Markup Language and HyperText Markup Language (HTML). The system is preferably distributed across ColdFusion Server locations that provide interactive processing and a Microsoft SQL Server to allow solicitors and receivers to access a web browser such as version 3.0 and above of Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator, which can be found on various platforms, including Microsoft Windows, Mackintosh and UNIX operating systems.

The information entered for the dispute is submitted to the central database via the Internet. The database shall primarily record guarantors, guarantor users and administrators associated with the guarantor, and cases related to the guarantor. It also preferably records the attorneys involved in the cases.

If the user connects online for a period of time, for example 20 minutes, without activity under normal network transmission conditions, the user is automatically disconnected for security reasons. The system can be designed so that if all or part of the data is entered, the guarantor or other user has a period of time, eg 30 minutes, during which the data can be changed or deleted but after which the data cannot be deleted.

Referring to the flowchart of Fig. 4, a preferred computer program executing the system in a normal multi-round session enters at step 10 when the guarantor opens its web browser (eg, Netscape or Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.x or 4.x) enters the system website. The user is prompted by a menu with menus, one of which is input as a guarantor of his choice. If desired, the system can automatically write information in the form of ASCII text or cookies to the user's hard disk as a means of monitoring the user and its use of the system. The memory means preferably stores this information. When a user accesses the system, any pre-existing user cookies may be changed to reflect the user's respective access to the system. If a user has not explicitly rejected cookies on their browser, the computerized system checks the user's name using variables stored in the user's browser. If a user has connected before, it is greeted with its user name, provided that the user is connecting with the same computer.

In step 11, the guarantor user is presented with a selection of added and / or edited cases showing all

13341

-22 případy »případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy případy As mentioned earlier, all or part of the data in the system cannot be deleted after the expiry of the deadline, in which case the user will not be allowed to modify such information. Preferably, a menu is provided in which the user can select one or two links to separate functions. For example, on the left side of the screen, a menu bar may be provided in which the user selects by clicking on the appropriate part of the menu corresponding to the function. The user's selection is saved using the intermediate input and the contract screens that follow. Alternatively, step 11 may be used after the input (step 12) explained below.

The program then proceeds to step 12, in which the user must enter the system before he can edit or view the cases. The user must enter a user name (unique to the entire database) and a corresponding password. If this does not match the known system pairs, the user is notified of an error screen with the opportunity to try again.

Alternatively, if a user has previously connected to the same computer, his user name may have already been entered into the system and the server serving the web site will check the password against the user name. If desired, the system can be constructed such that the user has the option of entering a new or different user name to allow multiple users to access the system from the same computer.

The computer program modules are preferably written to use various process steps. For example, the module controlling the identity of the guarantor user may be designed to maintain all variables related to the identity of the guarantor user and the cases of the respective guarantor.

A ValidateNewUserName module can be created that is called when a user enters the username field and leaves the completed form.

The username input form has a JavaScript object,

13341

-23 • • • • which checks whether the given username has already been used and if so an error message appears.

If the correct username and password have been entered in step 13, the user will be shown a system access agreement. The agreement shall set out in detail the terms of use of the system and the details of the process. In the menu, a button is either available for acceptance or disagreement with the contract. If the user agrees to the terms of the contract, he proceeds to the initial selection menu (adding / editing cases or viewing cases), otherwise the user is returned to the entry screen where all information is erased.

If the user agrees to the system access agreement, the system can send the user to the initial selection menu in step 11. Alternatively, the system can be constructed by sending the user to a menu with menus to request a new case, view cases, add / edit cases or disconnect .

If adding / editing cases was first selected, the program enters step 14 where the adding / editing cases screen preferably allows the guarantor to enter the following information into the database:

name of the petitioner case description case identification of the guarantor of the value for each of the 3 settlement rounds name of the petitioner's legal representative, company, address, location, state, postal code, telephone, fax and email

In telephone-based embodiments, some or all of this information may be entered with the assistance of system administrators.

13341

-24 • · · · · · ·

The guarantor case identification is preferably the Guarantee Internal Monitoring Number selected by the guarantor.

Value inputs do not have to be made at the same time. The system will prompt the user to enter the amount for each round individually, with the option to leave the amount blank for any given round (to be entered later if necessary).

The dollar value inputs preferably include calculation functions that calculate the total possible disclosure of the amount entered. The screen can show the status of the case. After entering the information, the user can be offered a verification screen with all the information entered, according to which the user can accept the changes or return to further editing the case. Preferably, the system provides the user with a period of time, eg, thirty minutes, for editing some or all of the case information before it is terminated and analyzing whether the corresponding values have been submitted to the counterparty. Information that has been terminated but for which there is no corresponding counterpart (ie after the expiry of the deadline) may only be edited or deleted with the consent of all parties.

Preferably, the refill and edit screen includes a menu button at the bottom that sends information to be checked for formatting. This will show missing or incorrectly formatted text, or return the text for verification. If the text is received, the data is sent to the database as a tween or update. Preferably, the guarantor cannot edit the case in which the petitioner's legal representative began to enter requests into the system, except for administrative information such as address and telephone number.

The CaseDataEntry module (case data input) can be created to maintain a template for processing the case user input data and adding or inserting it into the database. The main features of the program are checking the elapsed editing time and whether or not the legal representative of the petitioner

13341

-25 ft ft ftft · ftft ftft puts requests in the system. In any case, the form is canceled and an error message appears.

The program is preferably written so that when a record is to be inserted, embedding is supported and locked using a suitable program until the system reads the record so that the details can be displayed to the user on the confirmation screen and the system can provide an HREF to the primary key that is automatically provided by databases.

Another module called SponsorsAssignsCase preferably controls the entry of the guarantor user case into the database.

The replenishment and editing calculator may be any suitable computer program such as a JavaScript program that uses the algorithm amounts specified by the guarantor to determine the maximum possible publication.

If the original selection was viewing all cases, the program proceeds to step 15 where the case viewing screen lists all information for that case that was previously entered when the tween and edit option was selected. Preferably, the user is also given the opportunity to edit information, preferably within a limited time period (eg 30 minutes) for bidding rounds, provided that the petitioner's legal representative has not initiated the submission of requests. The viewing screen may also, if desired, also display a list of cases that have been referred to the guarantor.

The module called SponsorUserShow contains a template that shows the user these records. If the guarantor user has administrator privileges, the module displays all user records related to that guarantor. A similar module called SponsorShowCases preferably functions to display case information.

In step 16, the user can disconnect from the system from the selection menu to end the session and return the connection

-2613341 φ »obrazovky φ obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky obrazovky This selection menu preferably also follows completion of the completion and editing and selection of viewing steps 14 and 15. If the user attempts to reconnect to the system, they will have to log in their name / password pair. The logout preferably deletes the password but does not delete the user's name, so that after the next logon the computerized system can check by the user's name in the user's cookie to see if the user accesses the system from the same computer.

Screens that appear while the system is working can be created by a suitable computer program written in Standard Generalized Mark-up Language as ColdFusion Script.

The computer program code for the logon screen creates a logon form if the user is determined not to be in a fixed logon (FIG. 4, step 12). This form preferably passes a variable value indicating the user's potential destination.

The licensing screen module monitors the login program and checks the user's authentication credentials, if the user passes, the licensing screen is displayed (fig.

4, step 13),

The module called login results preferably follows the license module and sets the user status to the subscribed. If a user has not explicitly refused cookies on their browser, the program also checks if the user cookie has been correctly received and sends an error message if not. If everything is OK, the module sends the user to a destination of his / her choice.

A logout module can be used to log off the user. After attempting to use the menu item, the user will be prompted for a password and approval of the license agreement.

If the user disagrees with the license, the module following the license module displays a disagreeing screen that

13341

-27 * · * · 0 00

000

0 · • 00 preferably indicates that the user must agree to the license in order to use the system.

A pre-created access denied screen may be presented to a user attempting to access a portion for which he is not authorized.

A pre-built page can also be used to troubleshoot the current user login status. This page is primarily intended for system administrators and other users cannot access it unless explicitly stated.

The steps described above preferably apply equally to the guarantor administrators (the guarantor users that the guarantor has given management privileges). However, the system may preferably be constructed such that if the user is identified as the holder of the management privileges, he will consult the extended version of the menu for the guarantor user. In addition to providing the user with the ability to enter a new case, review cases and log out, the Guarantee Manager menu provides options to change the guarantor information, change your own user information, add users, view and edit users, and delete users.

If the option to change the guarantor information is selected, the program will show the user changing the guarantor information screen, which allows you to add and edit user information stored in a database containing the following items:

Guarantor name

Address

City

State

Postal code

13341

-28 »9 ·

99999 99 9 99 9 «

Telephone

Fax

E-mail

If the delete user option is selected, the program sends the user to the user information screens that the guarantor user manager can use to modify, delete, or add information to any guarantor user record that they have access to their guarantor.

For example, the user information screen may allow the user to add, edit the following information to a database:

username

Guarantor name

Address

City

State

Postal code

Telephone

Fax

E-mail

Username

Password

Active user (yes or no)

Administrator (yes or no)

The computer modules preferably include on-screen forms for entering and editing the guarantor user and the new guarantor user information. These modules can also check user privileges, for example, before allowing records to be edited.

Many of the above steps preferably also apply to the plaintiff's attorney, that is, a solicitor representing an individual or company that has a dispute or has brought legal proceedings against a guarantor who has entered into a participant agreement to use the system.

A solicitor may be informed, for example, by regular mail, that he can log on to the website and offer a specified number, for example, three, of claims to meet a claim under pre-established conditions. A solicitor may be required to sign a participant agreement, preferably sent to him before he receives the enrollment authorization. Once the patent attorney signs and submits the agreement to the system administrators, he receives the proper login credentials.

Similarly, the petitioner may contact the system to bring a dispute without using a solicitor. The petitioner may be asked to sign or otherwise confirm that it is bound by a participatory agreement and in some cases by offering some form of payment to connect to the system.

As in the case of the guarantor, the petitioner's attorney opens his web browser and enters the system website (see Figure 4, step 10). However, the solicitor selects the input menu as the solicitor in the menu that appears.

In step 11, the solicitor is presented with an overview of cases requesting the cases assigned to him.

Preferably, it is provided with a menu in which the user can

13341

-30 ·· · ···· Select one of the three separate function links using the menu bar on the left side of the screen. As in the case of the guarantor, the selection of the plaintiff's legal representative is saved by means of an intermediate login and the contract screen that follows.

The program then proceeds to step 12, in which the user must first log on to the system before making requests or consulting cases. A solicitor login computer file similar to the guarantor login file will preferably take this step. Preferably, the user must enter the case identification number, security code, e.g., an internally generated random number that acts as a password, and the security attorney's security code (preferably the code generated by the guarantor). If the codes do not match the information known to the database, a retry error screen appears.

As in the case of the guarantor, if the correct username and password were entered, step 13 will show the claimant's solicitor a systemic participation agreement with the same offers and results as previously described. A license file similar to the guarantor user license file will preferably take this step.

If the user agrees to the terms of the agreement, proceeds to the original selection menu (viewing cases or making requests). Alternatively, the system can be designed to send a user to the main menu with offers to receive case information, place a request for the next round of a particular claim, or set up another case. The connection result file and the disagreement file, similar to the corresponding files for the guarantor, follow the license file to perform this step, depending on whether or not the petitioner's legal representative agrees. Similarly, disconnect files are preferably available,

13341

-31 • ·· · * ·· · «· access denied and a preference corresponding to similar files for the guarantor.

If the case information menu has been selected, a case information screen is provided that preferably allows the petitioner's attorney to view the following information from the database:

Name of the case

State

Name of petitioner

Name of legal representative

Company solicitor

Address of the legal representative

City attorney

State attorney

Attorney postal code

Counsel telephone

Attorney fax

Email attorney

The screen preferably shows the current status of the case with the appropriate details without allowing the solicitor to edit any of this information. The case state control module can be written to maintain all the variables related to the attorney's case.

An AttorneyCaselnfo module can also be created to show the information a solicitor needs to get started

13341

-32 proti proti proti «proti proti proti proti proti proti proti Preferably, the data in the module cannot be deleted.

If the next round has been selected in the current case offer, the program advances to the next round screen, which provides the solicitor with an offer to place a claim against a particular claim. The CaseNextRound module can be created to formulate a template to determine what the next round is, and to submit a bid form to the user. Preferably, the screen will provide a form field in which the attorney places the request and, if required, a menu to test the request against the detection calculator (preferably a implemented JavaScript program using the algorithm values specified by the guarantor) to determine the lowest possible value to be settled or submitting a request.

Once the solicitor has submitted a request for the following round, the case is subject to comparison. A CaseNextRound module can be created to create a template for determining the results of a comparison based on the information submitted by the proposer in the CaseNextRun form and on pre-set conditions. The pre-set conditions are preferably determined on a guarantor-by-guarantor basis but may be case-specific.

If the request and the corresponding guarantor offer for the given round are within the preset conditions, the user is presented with a case acceptance screen. If the request and the corresponding bid are not within the preset conditions, the user is linked to the next round screen, if available, i.e. the pre-agreed number of request rounds has not been used and the enforced round is not available. If a round is not available, eg the parties have agreed to three rounds and the petitioner's attorney has entered three rounds of requests, the user will see a message that the case in the system is now closed.

13341

-33 * · φ «·· ♦ ···« φ φφ

If the user is presented with a case acceptance screen, the claim is settled by the claimant or the solicitor is informed of the dollar settlement amount and preferably details of where to send the final settlement request (eg guarantor address). As shown in FIG. 4, the system is preferably constructed such that, after settlement of the claim, settlement data is collected and stored for access and use by the guarantor and the claimant in determining the settlement value in future cases.

The system is preferably managed by a system administrator who may be a third-party employee who has been granted access rights to the system's management function for the purpose of adding guarantors, reporting or performing customer service on a website.

The system administrator accesses the web page by opening its web browser, pointing to the web page interface, and entering the appropriate identification numbers or passwords to identify it as an administrator. It is possible to create a module that contains a management form for assigning or editing a case.

The administrator can then access the management menu, which provides the following menus:

Guarantee offers including guarantor replenishment and editing menus and list and links to all guarantors.

User offers for displaying users (preferably a list and links to all guarantor users searchable by username and guarantor name) to add a new user and to delete the sponsor user.

Case offers including case view preference via list and link to all cases searchable by case name, guarantor name, date * · · ·· ··

13341 ”34“ ······· »** ··· Start, end date and status, to assign a new case and to delete the case.

Site menus (test modules), including deleting cookies to lose stored connection information, disconnecting to disconnect the system, and, if required, deleting cookies and displaying the connection status for the associated connection details.

Preferably, modules may be provided to convey these offers. For example, the AdminNevSponsorUserEntryForm module can be created, which contains an input form for entering a new guarantor's user. This form is preferably different from the usual form with respect to the user name check that takes place during user interaction with the party.

An AdminGetSponsorNewCase module can be created that selects a guarantor to add a new case. Preferably, the identity of the guarantor should be known when the case is added so that the case can be properly assigned to the sponsor user.

An AdminShowCases ”module can also be created that displays all open cases in the administration form.

An AdminSponsorUserData Entry module can also be created to maintain a template that inserts or updates the sponsor user. The module performs an interrogation to obtain the initial user identification if the system does not have this information to set up the edit link.

An AdminSponsorUserEntryForm module can also be created to maintain a template that represents an input form for sponsor user manager information.

An AdminUserShow module can also be created that contains a management form for displaying all users.

13341

-35 • · * ·· ······ φ * «« »

A CaseDataEntry module can also be created that contains a form for loading or pasting cases into the database.

If the Add or Edit Guarantor menu is selected, the Add or Edit Guarantor screen will preferably appear, allowing the Administrator to view and edit the following information from the database:

Guarantor name

Address

City

State

Postal code

Telephone

Fax

Post

The value for the algorithm

Percentage for algorithm

System identification

Active account (yes or no)

SponsorDataEntry, SponsorEntryForm and SponsorShow modules can be created to add a new guarantor to the database and display an entry form to insert a new guarantor and to display a table of all guarantors loaded into the system.

ValidateNewUserName and

ValidateUserName, which check whether the user name

13341

-36 * 99 ····

99 *

999 exists in the guarantee table and if so displays an error message. Preferably, these modules are called from the JavaScript lost focus event. The ValidateNewUserName module preferentially disregards the current user name because it assumes there is none.

The delete user option provides the administrator with a screen in which the administrator can change, delete, or add information to any record of the guarantor user, as in the case of removing the user option. Preferably, the DeleteUser and RemoveUser modules may be created that display a form that allows a user to delete a sponsor user and make a database call to remove the user.

The Add / Edit Case option provides the administrator with a Add / Edit Case screen similar to the Add / Edit Case screen for the Guarantor Administrator. In addition, the system preferably allows the administrator to add case status information, including:

Case status

Last edit by guarantor (date - time)

Edited by

Guarantor name

Last Edited by Attorney (Date-Time)

Last edited by administrator (date / time)

DeleteCase and RemoveCase modules can be created to display a form that allows the user to delete a case and make a database call to delete the case.

Preferably, the system also provides a report generator or a case information lookup module for reporting. Querying a report generator

13341

-37 * · to to · · ·

444 4444 ··

444

4 toto

4This administrator can view the status of any number of cases for internal reporting purposes.

Preferably, case information can be retrieved based on the following criteria:

Name of the case

Guarantor name

State

Specified date (start and end dates)

Modified criteria (start and end dates, eg all records modified on a specific date)

Original attorney's records for inspection only

The platform and hardware selected for implementing the system should be sufficiently adaptable to handle large operational and data burdens in response to user requirements.

Similarly, the selected database should be sufficiently customizable to handle a distributed data environment and be able to handle large data loads in response to user requests.

Similarly, the application server should be sufficiently customizable to handle a distributed data environment and be able to handle large data loads while responding to user requests. Application Server is a popular platform for building applications of this type to support future changes, additions, modifications, etc.

The server is preferably a computer with an open architecture that can quickly replace broken hardware parts. This configuration also retains the ability to increase machine performance as needed. For example, a computer is suitable for the system,

13341

-38 • 0000 • 0 00 • 0 00 with a Pentium 400 MHz processor with 128 MB SDRAM, a pair of multi-gigabyte HDDs, a Promise PCIRAID Level 0 or RAID Level 0 controller, 32xCD-R0M and an COM 10-BaseT Ethernet card.

The system platform has the advantage of being able to work with open database systems, providing a reliable and scalable platform for the Internet and a variety of business applications, and offering file and print services development that allows the user to easily and efficiently access information and resources. For example, Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0, a powerful multipurpose server operating system, is a suitable platform because it has broad support for many application servers, customizability to support the system of the invention, and popularity with developers who create applications of this type. The platform advantageously integrates the following services into the underlying operating system infrastructure:

Embedded network and communication services

Well-arranged web services for the Internet and connected intranets

Complete form of distributed application platform

Enterprise-wide directory services

Integrated and robust security services

Easy to use and flexible control functions.

The system of the invention preferably utilizes a web server, such as Microsoft Internet Information Server 4.0, which offers proven scalability and tight integration with the operating system and other products used in the system. Advantageously, the web server includes publishing features, customizable tools and technologies that enable website creation, publication worldwide, file and data sharing on operating systems such as Windows NT, Novell NetWare and UNIX, and through numerous databases

13341

-39 including Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle and Sysbase, and search capabilities for Hypertex Markup Language (HTML) and document types for Microsoft office and many languages .

A web server offers process isolation, a feature that protects applications and websites from malfunctions caused by misbehaving folders or web applications by running in separate storage spaces. The web server, when combined with the operating system, should also have built-in application services that automatically adapt to serve thousands of users simultaneously.

Preferably, a high-performance, open architecture server with a customizable database such as Microsoft SQL 6.5 or 7.0 is used.

Advantageously, in one embodiment, a customizable platform provides a computer program delivering high performance web applications to any Windows or Solaris web server. Allaire ColdFusion Application Server 3.1 and its collaborative ColdFusion Markup Language are suitable for system development.

Advantageously, in another embodiment, the computer program provides a scalable three-tier platform delivering high performance web applications to any Windows or Solaris web server. The front side is ΑΞΡ / HTML, the intermediate layer is Com Object written in C ++ or JAVA and the back side is SQL Server and MTS.

Advantageously, the system is a guest at a quality data center, such as a worldwide data center company that provides Internet access and monitors servers to ensure they meet Internet requirements.

Although in the basic configuration there are numerous advantages for exclusively dealing with the backsheet, there is in some cases a potential disadvantage arising from the use of

13341

-40 • · ··· ···· specific, discrete and quantifiable criteria. In particular, lack of flexibility for close cases. In a given round, both parties may be very close to settlement, but unable to use it because they are just outside the criteria. However, since the system does not reveal the amounts proposed by the parties, they will have no idea how far or close they are. For example, if the difference must be in the range of $ 10,000 to settle a claim, the same result of "not reaching settlement" will occur with the base system or in a way whether the difference is $ 10,005 or $ 75,000.

Optional accessories

Additional optional features may be added to increase the number of receivables that can be settled. In particular, if the opposing parties do not meet the criteria used in the normal rounds but are not too far from them, settlement may still be possible. Using a neutral power wheel negotiator ”or a combination of two additional claims can be efficiently and appropriately settled.

The negotiator may optionally be employed to encourage one or more parties to discuss a value proposal that is more likely to lead to settlement. The negotiator acts as a neutral automaton by working mechanically. In fact, however, it may be a living person, a computer, or some combination thereof. Giant. 5 illustrates a representative base system further comprising a negotiator option. As described above, the system includes a main processor and memory illustrated for simplicity as a server 50 comprising one or more microprocessors and memory and a connected secure database 52 stored on disk and / or tape accessible to the server. The negotiator's equipment includes, as a minimum, rules and restrictions 54 that govern the types of incentive statements that the negotiator can use. As shown, the negotiator is implemented such that a fully automated or partially automated mode can be used. For fully automated mode, the main processor is guided by programmed rules and constraints and directly

13341

It communicates with the negotiating entities via the online interface 56 shown in the connection (via communication lines 58, 60) to the telephone 62 of one of the entities and to the computer 64 of the other entity. Alternatively, a separate negotiation processor 46 may be used to formulate incentives or access appropriate information to identify one or more suitable communications. The negotiator processor 66 communicates with the main processor to provide information for use by the main processor, either as passed or after further formatting or processing. In a simpler case, the negotiator processor 66 provides the message in a ready-to-send format, and the main processor acts only as a conduit. In more complex cases, the main processor may be separately programmed to make further decisions, such as selecting from the provided incentives or reformatting the selected incentive to communicate to one or both entities. The negotiator may also have access to stored information in a secure database such as offers, requests, prior settlement, geographic information, etc. The negotiator processor 66 may also include a conventional display 68 and input means 70 that allows the living person to act as part of the negotiation processor 66. The negotiator operates in accordance with a set of prescribed rules, separate from the settlement criteria. In order to perform its function, the negotiator may, in some configurations, have access to round information that is not disclosed to the opposing parties or their representatives. For example, a negotiator may know one or more of: bid and demand in a given round, the actual number difference between them, the percentage difference between them, the magnitude of the change or the small difference between each or both entities that might trigger a claim settlement; the possibility of settlement or any or all of them. Ideally, the negotiator will know the differences or small differences, rather than specific offers or requirements, to ensure that there is no unwanted disclosure of one-party information to the adversary, especially when the negotiator's realization involves a human being. In other words, the negotiator has a certainty

13341

The basis for knowing how close the parties are to the settlement, even if the negotiator does not know certain proposed settlement numbers for each party in one or more rounds.

In the simplest case, the negotiator may be engaged before the first value is provided by a party. In that case, the negotiator is likely to use the information provided by the parties during registration in conjunction with the latest settlement information to provide a starting point for negotiation. For example, a negotiator may first communicate with one or more of the opposing parties with a statement that takes into account the extent of the last settled settlement for similar disputes.

For example, suppose that the petitioner was injured and brought legal proceedings in a particular jurisdiction. The petitioner submits a claim to a dispute settlement system involving negotiators. The petitioner considers that the damage corresponds to a settlement of $ 200,000. Before the petitioner submits any values applicable to the round, the negotiator invites the petitioner to declare similar claims in your jurisdiction between $ 38,000 and $ 55,000. The petitioner will now have an indication that his expectations are unrealistic. As a result, the petitioner may decide not to proceed with the dispute resolution or may decide to try it differently. As a result of the call, the petitioner ideally sets out more realistic requirements, thus increasing the prospect of settlement from the outset.

Alternatively, or in addition, the negotiator may be connected between one or more wheels. The advantage is that the negotiator now has some information available to match the current state of the parties' prospects in a particular dispute. Once the information is available, the negotiator will communicate with one or both of the opposing parties in a neutral manner in order to get one or both parties to adapt their proposals for settlement.

13341

-43ft ftftftftft ftftftft ftftftft ftftft ftftft ftft ftftft ftftft ftftft ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft

Because it is important that each party to the proposed value remain secret from any counterparty, communications that either directly report amounts or small differences or indirectly allow calculation or a reasonable estimate of amounts are not used where possible. Of course, in some implementations, there may be an unusual case where more detailed statements are justified, but allow the party to make a reasonable estimate of the counterparty's proposed number. Suppose, for example, the extreme case where the proposals of both parties were $ 67,100 and $ 66,000 and the difference for settlement was agreed to $ 1,000. The parties differ only by $ 1,100. In this case, a statement to both parties stating if each of you withdraws from its amount will almost certainly reach a settlement likely tells both parties that they are extremely close to the settlement and thus will allow an estimate of what the other entity has suggested. However, in such an extreme case, even though proposals have been specifically communicated to both parties, they are likely to withdraw in the interest of settlement. Thus a challenge or encouragement can significantly increase the prospect of settlement.

In the specific case of a human negotiator, guidelines should be attached to formulate neutral messages and / or a set of recommended messages to limit the use of discretion and to keep negotiator actions within certain limits. This minimizes the possibility that any party's bid may be estimated or known. In this way, a higher degree of flexibility is achieved with respect to the fully automated negotiator, since the human negotiator can use his own judgment, which should be limited.

In the case of a fully automated negotiator or a person working in conjunction with computerized guidance, the rules or instructions should preferably be programmed into a computer or part of a negotiated accessible knowledge base. These optional configurations limit the judgment of a purely human negotiator more strictly, but a computer-led man still allows one

13341

Or both parties have human interaction during negotiations, if desired.

Regardless of whether the negotiator is a human being, a computer, or some combination of both, the statements made in the communications should be similar. Depending on factors such as: the identity or sophistication of the parties, the experience of the parties with a particular dispute resolution arrangement described here, geographical assumptions, etc., the statements used as prompts or encouragements may be more or less colloquial. In addition, statements should generally have a positive or encouraging tendency in most cases to assure the parties that the prospect of settlement is good. The following are some examples of acceptable statements or incentives considered to be representative, but which are by no means to be considered exclusive or exhaustive:

a) The insurance company will increase its offer if you reduce your requirements.

(b) The draftswoman has significantly modified her requirements downwards, but the bid must also be increased.

c) You are close to settlement, but you still have to retreat a little.

d) Settlement in the next round is a real probability if you adjust your [bid / request].

e) The parties are meters apart and not kilometers.

(f) Parties should consider examining settlements made in similar cases before the next round.

g) You should consider that two similar cases have been settled during your negotiations, one with $ 125,000 and the other with $ 138,000.

A forced wheel can be used as an alternative or addition to the negotiator. The forced wheel is

13341

-45φ φ φφ

ΦΦΦ φφ φφφ an additional round which, either as agreed by the parties or as a result of the implementation parameter, either gives a small advantage to one party or changes the rules in a predetermined manner if the prescribed number of rounds did not lead to the settlement of the case. In particular, the enforced round may result from an agreement between the parties at a certain point in the process, or may be provided through the use of a system parameter, eg which party first contacted the claim system, the difference in the last round relative to other rounds and the requirement in the most recent round or rounds, the amount that one or both parties have modified their proposals for the round, the bid and demand analyzes against any statistical data tabulated and / or maintained by the system with respect to other settlements or other appropriately used considerations.

Giant. 6 illustrates a simplified program run when the system includes a forced wheel. Negotiation begins (100) when one entity presents at least one value. Once the system has a value from each entity (if there are only two), the processor receives one or more values from the first entity (102) and for the second entity (104) the values are matched (106) and evaluated (108). If the pair satisfies the criteria in a normal way (110) and the settlement value is communicated (112). This is essentially the basic operation of the system described above. However, if normal rounds do not result in a settlement and all normal rounds have been exhausted (114), it will check if a forced round is available for negotiation (116). If the case is not settled (118). If a forced wheel is available, the system checks whether the forced wheel is possible for this given negotiation (120). Although not required, the flexibility of the system is allowed, for example, to inquire whether one or more entities wish to buy a constrained wheel, trigger negotiator intervention (if available), prompt for criteria modification or such other modifications or properties considered desirable. If a forced wheel is not allowed (122), due to the lack of willingness of the entity to buy them or, for example, the inability of the acting entities

13341 -46- ϊ · ** :: ί *! t:

* Agree on the criteria, the case is not settled. If the forced wheel is enabled, the system performs the evaluation of one or more pairs of the forced wheel using the forced wheel criteria (126) or forced wheel guidelines agreed by the parties. As with normal wheels, when a forced wheel fails, the case is not settled (128). If the enforced wheel criteria are met, the case will be settled. Depending on the implementation, the settlement value may be subject to agreement, in which case the system optionally further decides whether the agreement should be implemented (132) and what it is (132). The system then transmits the agreement message (134) generally in the same manner as described above.

In one exemplary forced round following the limit of three rounds, one party, usually the petitioner, is invited to submit a fourth value analysis in conjunction with the respondent's last value (in this case the third value). In this scheme, the system holds, rather than discards, at least the opponent's last value from the final normal round until the enforced round is complete. The petitioner's fourth submission is then analyzed with the opposing value used in the third round against the use of the specified criterion. Depending on the particular system, the criteria used in the first to third rounds may be reused or new criteria may be applied. For example, if the criteria used in the first to third rounds were determined by a percentage, the system may use different criteria, for example by changing from a percentage difference to a fixed difference amount, widening the percentage difference, increasing the difference amount or using special criteria allowed or used in the enforced round normal round of choice of the implementation.

In any case, if the enforced wheel criteria are met, the case could be settled. If not the case should not be settled. Even with a forced wheel as soon as it is or is not

13341

-47 «·· ···· • φ settlement reached, all bids and requests from all rounds that have not been deleted are discarded.

Another example of a forced round is allowing one party to submit multiple additional values (either bids or requests) that are each used against the last value by the opposite party until either settlement is achieved or the party surrenders.

Another example of a forced round is a change in the settlement criteria for the final round. For example, in a five-lap variant, the first four rounds will be run using the common criteria, but new or modified criteria will be used for the fifth round. For example, the parties may agree that if the fifth round is needed, the system will increase the percentage difference by 2%, increase the current difference by $ 1,000, or allow some specified adjustment of the formula to be used by some predetermined amount. Then the fifth round can run like the previous four.

In another variant of the enforced round, all rounds will proceed in the normal way, and if the result is not settlement, one or more of the earlier rounds are progressively returned with the new agreed criteria. This forced wheel variant requires all values to be maintained until either the case settlement criteria are satisfied or the forced wheel ends without settlement.

In yet another variation, each of the rounds is repeated, but the criteria are changed incrementally. For example, if the parties agree to a 3% spread, each round may be repeated, first with a 1% spread, then with a 2% spread, etc. If any point in the criterion used is met, the dispute will be settled. Similarly, a $ 6,000 extension can always be used with a real $ 6,000 round expansion, or, for example, by gradually changing the amount in steps of $ 6,000, $ 4,000, $ 2,000 and $ 1,000 in each from first to fourth round or $ 2,000, $ 4,000, $ 6,000 in three rounds.

· · · · 4 4 4 33 33 33: 33 i334i -48- · .. ·.:. · .. ·.

Still other variants of forced wheels openly exploited for a similar effect may be envisaged, an important moment being the provision of some additional settlement opportunity using known, albeit possibly different, parameters compared to normal wheels.

As an additional implementation detail, it may be desirable to impose a forced wheel price. For example, if one party gains an advantage in a forced turn, that party may be required to agree to the amount discussed above, which will be subject to the final settlement fee. In other words, if the normal payment is based on the median of the two values that triggered the settlement, the calculation of the enforced round payment may include some adjustments to a lower than the median value for the petitioner or higher than the median value for the guarantor or defendant. In other words, suppose the settlement was triggered by a $ 50,000 bid and a $ 55,000 claim. In a round where the normal payment amount will be a median value, the normal payment amount will be calculated at $ 52,500. In a forced round, the petitioner could only pay $ 51,250 because the petitioner agreed to a fixed Amount of $ 1,250 or a calculated adjustment of 50% of the difference between the bid and the median value for buying the forced round. Similarly, if the respondent bought a forced wheel, the payment could be $ 53,750.

Obviously, many types of adjustments can be made, and it is important that there is some compensation at the expense of the forced buyer. In other words, this type of forced laps contains the question: Are you willing to give up any amount to have another opportunity to reach an acceptable settlement?

It is further understood that an alternative arrangement may combine the use of a negotiator to prompt the use of a forced wheel, or only the use of a negotiator for the forced wheel. In one variant, the negotiator may be the one who designs the forced wheel after a series of failed rounds. Otherwise, the negotiator may propose

13341

-49 * · · ···· · · · · · change the criteria for a forced wheel without proposing a specific change. This will allow for greater settlement without inviting either party to consider their opponent's proposals. Thus the intervention of the negotiator does not affect the neutrality of the system. Alternatively, the negotiator may intervene immediately after purchasing the forced wheel, for example, by providing a statement derived from a previous settlement data table.

For example, the petitioner buys a forced wheel for a reduction of the settlement payment by $ 3,000. In this forced round, the bid from the last round will be compared to the new request. The last bid was $ 100,000, the last bid was $ 118,000, so the difference is $ 18,000. Suppose a bid and request must be in the range of $ 12,000 to match. The negotiator will intervene with a factual statement derived from the data table: Over 75% of similar claims like yours have been settled between $ 85,000 and $ 110,000 in this jurisdiction or your last bid / request varied by more than 15% from the average settlement of similar cases in your jurisdiction. Upon receiving one of these calls, the petitioner will reduce the claim to $ 110,000 and the case is settled. In this example, a payment is normally calculated as the mean between the bid and the request that met the criteria. Because the settlement is based on a $ 100,000 offer and a $ 110,000 requirement, the median value is $ 105,000. However, since the settlement was the result of a forced buyer buy for $ 3,000, the settlement payment will be reduced by $ 3,000 to $ 102,000.

Although in the basic arrangement the settlement criteria may vary between rounds, in some cases it is desirable to force a binding order structure that changes the criteria used based on the amounts requested and offered.

For example, the system may be set up so that for a request or bid below $ 10,000, the settlement criteria may be 30% or $ 2,500. If either the bid or demand equals or exceeds $ 10,000, the criteria change to 30% or $ 5,000.

• ·

If either the bid or request is equal to or exceeds $ 25,000, the criteria may change to 35% or $ 8,000. Of course, the specific limits, ranges to which the criteria apply, or the specific percentage and / or difference values used in the ranges may vary from system to system or from agreement to agreement. In addition, in some cases it may be desirable to allow one or more parties to determine the details according to one or more of the above.

Depending on the implementation, it is possible for a request to fall within one range and a bid within another range. In this case, it is preferable to require that the difference between (a) the maximum exposure and the minimum profit satisfy the broadest criteria; or (b) the actual difference between the offer and the requirement satisfies the broadest criteria. Alternatively, the use of exposure / gain versus bid / request, one criterion over the other, or the requirement to satisfy both may be used.

In some cases, particularly when the settlement amount is calculated as a median value, the use of a layered arrangement may result in a settlement amount that is higher than the maximum exposure or, depending on the other options used, may go below the minimum profit.

An example of such a variant is given in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Offer Criteria Specifications $ 10,000 AND 30% or $ 2,500 > $ 10,000 (B) 30% or $ 4,000 $ 85,000 C 35% or $ 10,000

φ φ

13341 -51- • · φ · · · · · · · Bike Offer Requirement Criteria Exposure / profit Result 1 $ 6,000 AND $ 6,900 outstanding $ 13,000 (B) $ 11,050 outstanding 2 $ 8,000 AND $ 9,200 settled $ 12,000 (B) $ 10,000 settled In the above in the variant mentioned, criteria A are used in both

rounds for both offers since they did not exceed $ 10,000. Similarly, criteria B are used in both rounds for requirements, because both were larger than $ 10,000. Settlement was not achieved in the first round because neither the actual bid and the requirement nor the exposure / profit met the criteria,

Settlement was achieved in round 2 because the $ 4,000 difference criterion was met by bid and demand and both A and B criteria were met by the exposure / profit difference.

Because the exposure / profit determines the maximum to be paid or the minimum to be received, the use of the median value of $ 8,000 and the requirement of $ 12,000 results in a payment of $ 10,000. But because the maximum exposure based on the $ 8,000 bid is $ 9,200, the payment amount will be equal to that exposure rather than the median value. Otherwise, the payment amount should not be less than the minimum profit.

As another alternative with a layered arrangement, if the maximum exposure and the minimum gain are equal, this condition can be used as an additional or alternative settlement criterion. Depending on the implementation, the match between the minimum profit amount and the maximum exposure may be set to automatically trigger settlement and suppression of any other specified criteria. In the event of a match between exposure and profit, this value should also override the calculation of the payment amount.

As described herein, guarantors and solicitors may maintain an account with a dispute resolution system provider if:

13341

-52 · · · ávají · · · ávají · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·ávají ávají · · · · · · However, it is well known that in contingencies, the plaintiff's attorneys may take one third or more of the settlement payment on fees, costs and / or expenses. Advantageously, since the system is directly accessible online without legal counsel, for example via the Internet or telephone, dispute resolution is available to individuals without the normal risks or problems that may arise from a person acting as their own lawyer. As a result, petitioners and opponents can each benefit from one or more of the following methods.

There are four potential claimant benefits that may specifically arise from the petitioner's direct initial dispute resolution for automated first-instance dispute resolution. First, because the system does not deal with law or facts, the petitioner does not need to be perfect, knowledgeable in legal nuances or capable of negotiating to achieve an acceptable settlement. Secondly, the plaintiff is not subject to the lawyer's share of the amount at issue or other legal costs, although he may be charged a participation fee as evidence of good faith or to deter the submission of insignificant claims. Keeping the online aspect of implementation, the subscription fee is likely to be payable to the credit card number submitted directly by the acceding party. Alternatively or in addition, the participation fee should be refundable if settlement is reached, for example if the guarantor agrees to pay a fixed fee if the dispute is negotiated using the system or settlement is achieved using the system. Third, the case can be resolved much faster than normal legal dispute resolution channels, as the petitioner has more control over the negotiation, as they represent requirements rather than entrusting a solicitor with a settlement not less than the amount specified. Finally, as discussed in more detail below, the use of the system may result in receiving the payment more quickly and / or more advantageously.

13341

-53 There are also at least three potential benefits when triggering the defendant's dispute resolution process for a given claim. First, legal fees are limited because the involvement of a solicitor in the process will generally be minimal, if any. Secondly, in some cases the petitioner may not be aware of the potential value of the claim and hence present settlement requirements significantly lower than it would have to pay through the normal legal path or in the normal resolution of the dispute. Finally, if the petitioner can enter the system directly rather than through a solicitor, the benefit of quick settlement increases as delays due to delays or inattention of solicitors to smaller claims in favor of larger ones are ruled out.

Proposers can be attracted to the system using conventional print, radio and television media, orally, links on websites, partnering with portals or web-based companies and / or favoritism programs.

For example, insurance companies may offer incentives in the form of discounts on insurance products to proposers who apply the system directly. Alternatively, a company may offer incentives such as a higher investment share in the annual repayment or reduced product charges if the petitioner applies the system directly and settlement is achieved and returns are invested through the company. Alternatively, benefit programs with entities such as airlines or credit card companies may be arranged so that upon settlement, the claimant receives a frequent flyer mileage or credit card per settlement amount. Other suitable partnership and preferential arrangements may be created, for example with entities in travel, investment, banking, automotive, publishing, housing construction, and the like. Depending on the circumstances, payment

13341

-5400 • · · • 0 # 0

000 0000 between the dispute resolution system provider and the concession partner may be included.

Another option provides an additional incentive for the litigation initiating party for an automated solution. In this variant, if the initial input of the dispute is the result of direct contact, the party submitting the dispute is identified as the initiator. The system writes this fact for further use when settlement is reached. The wheels continue depending on the implementation. However, if settlement is achieved in a particular round, instead of calculating the settlement amount according to the normal formula, a dispute resolution using a different formula is used that favors the initiator or alternatively makes an unexpected surcharge to the normal amount of payment that would normally be used if it were not. An example of a case without an initiator is when a claim is first presented by a solicitor who has my account with the system.

Depending on implementation, if the respondent may be a direct petitioner, it may be desirable to ask the respondent to enter into a contingent contract so that, if settlement is achieved, the risk of default on post-settlement obligations is reduced. One way this can be done for small cases is to charge the credit card for the specified guarantee amount. Another way is to ask a person to transfer cash from their account to a discovery account held specifically for this purpose.

For a reasonable assessment of the amount necessary for hedging, the system may use the case information provided to identify similar cases that have been settled and use this information to calculate an estimate of the required hedging amount sufficient to settle the settlement, if any. The system is also preferably set up to credit the respondent to his credit card or account any excess amount if the settlement amount achieved is less than the security amount.

13341

-55 ·· ♦ ···· * · ♦ ···

By way of example, the petitioner with a claim currently arising from a car accident will see an article on automated dispute resolution on a customer-oriented website. This causes the petitioner to go to the identified website that acts as an internet interface with an automated dispute resolution system. The petitioner submits a claim to the system and is charged a $ 75 participation fee. Since the petitioner has directly contacted the system and the respondent's insurer has not previously submitted its respective claim to the system, the petitioner is designated as an initiator in the system. Some time after that the insurer also agrees to use the system for this claim. The parties agree on the number of rounds and settlement criteria, submit their corresponding values and the case is settled as a result of the analysis in the second round. The system is set up so that the normal payment amount would be the median of the amounts submitted by the opposing parties. However, as part of the calculation function, the system identifies that the initiator designation is set for the proposer. As a result, the payment is calculated differently so as to give the claimant an unexpected advantage. For example, the proposer may receive the amount offered, the amount determined by the new formula, any percentage in addition to the median amount, the fixed bonus amount or the median value may be used instead of the lesser amount of the offer or request receive normally.

Similarly, if both parties to the dispute are individuals and the respondent is the initiator, the benefit will be in the form of a reduced payment amount relative to the normal payment amount.

In other implementations, the advantage can only be invoked if there is an initiator and the request and the offer crosses or misses each other, ie in one round the offer is lower than the request and in the next round the offer is higher than the request. In such a situation, the advantage is most easily achieved by setting up a settlement payment for the petitioner, who is the initiator to the full amount offered rather to the calculated normal payment amount. Conversely, the simplest benefit for the initiator is to set a payment equal to the Request Amount.

Obviously, the appropriate benefit setting will depend on the particular implementation used. Accordingly, it is an important aspect that the system maintains information as to whether a particular party is an initiator and there is some advantage that may be attributed to the initiator when settlement is achieved.

Another advantage, partly due to the nature of the online system, is the ability to automatically provide an immediate payment to the claimant or to initiate an immediate transfer of a settlement payment or amount when settlement is reached. The system of Fig. 7 is a simplified variant of the system that includes an interface 72 to effect payment to the claimant automatically. For example, the interface may be for a payment card account system, so that if settlement is achieved and the proposer is a registered payment card holder, his card is automatically credited with the settlement amount. Similarly, if the petitioner has a smart card, a stored amount card, an online credit electronic wallet or module, or other online accessible path for automatically (and preferably direct) receiving the transferred amount, the system may be configured for automatic settlement amount crediting. Given that there are a number of ways to transfer or receive amounts online and the rapid increase in new ways to do this, it is clear that the basic principle is to automatically grant or transfer amounts, not a particular certificate, protocol or device used for this purpose.

Alternatively, the system proposer may provide an account number to which an automatic transfer of amounts can be made.

In some cases, the interface is only a preconfigured means of communication with the official authority to inform it that the transfer is to be performed. In this way, they can be carried out.

13341

-57 • 99 • 999 • 9 • 9 • 9

9 99 «appropriate arrangements so that the system can convert the settlement into a non-monetary payment or transfer. For example, through an agreement with an airline program to favor regular airline users or another point-offering program, settlement can be converted to an appropriate mileage or point. Alternatively, the settlement may include a non-monetary settlement amount that may automatically trigger the transfer of shares, bonds, goods, precious metals, gems, etc. deposited with the agent. In such cases, the amount provided by the respondent must be at least equal to the highest bid he provides. In the case of settlement, the relevant amount is calculated as the settlement amount and automatically transferred to the petitioner. For example, in the case of shares, the shares will be automatically registered in the name of the petitioner. In the case of precious metals, an account will automatically be opened in the petitioner's name and the corresponding amount will be automatically credited to that account. Obviously, as described herein, automated dispute resolution could be extended to other in-kind payment situations in a direct way.

It may also be desirable to implement the system so that, in response to the settlement, a transfer of claim or ownership interest in something is automatically initiated, for example in a case where the dispute is a divorce and payment may be made by transferring the claim to eviction. In such a case, the corresponding documents authorizing the transfer but not filed shall be in force. If a settlement is reached, the system will automatically notify the relevant entities and provide the necessary documents to carry out the transfer with minimum involvement of the petitioner.

In addition, variants may trigger the issuance of an insurance product, such as annual annuities or fully paid policies in the settlement amount.

One possible disadvantage of a system that allows the petitioner to enter directly is the potential fear of the petitioner that even if settlement is reached, involvement may be required.

13341 “58 ··· · ♦ ·· * ·· ··· attorney to complete the settlement. Advantageously, the system can be optimally built to address this interest. In particular, the system may be built to automatically generate settlement documents when settlement is achieved. As described above, when the parties enter the system, one or more of the parties provide case-specific information. The system includes a number of templates that can be used to generate settlement documents corresponding to the case. For example, the Settlement Agreement and / or Confirmation may be generated by extracting relevant information provided in case and including it in the template. Similarly, if sufficient information is provided for a dispute pending before a court, the system may use an appropriate template to generate an agreement and / or a refusal order with prejudice in accordance with the requirements of a particular jurisdiction. Once generated, the document is accessible in a printable and immediate execution form or in a text format that allows additional amendments and / or adjustments to be made to comply with local rules or customs. In the broadest sense, the characteristics of an online document may be linked to the possession of an automated official who goes to the local stationery for a suitable legal form and fills in the relevant information. Alternatively, certain jurisdictions may limit the form and type of documents provided. As a result, the system is preferably constructed to take into account any such restrictions in such jurisdiction and to provide all appropriate waivers in that regard.

Optional options for multilateral aggregations

Many multilateral negotiations can be directly negotiated as a group of bilateral negotiations as explained above. In some cases, particularly when a claim involves a single entity against a group of entities, aggregation of individual offers or group requests may facilitate processing.

• 9

13341

-599

999 • * 9 · 9 ♦ 9 9 9

9 9 9 9 ··· <· «

9

9

Depending on the system, the aggregation may be fully or partially blind to some or all sides. For example, if the petitioner has claims against three separate parties (collectively a group), the group may be combined so that the system will still accept individual offers from each party. The individual offers received from each member of the group will be added together with the corresponding offers of the others in the group to create one or more sets of aggregated values. The system is fully blind because individual members of the group are not informed that aggregation is being performed. The aggregate value is used in the system as if it were an offer or request submitted by one entity. In this system, an AggregateValues module can be created that adds individual values from different entities sharing a common adversary for the claim. The system compares the aggregate value with the counter-offer or demand as described above. In other words, after the aggregation of the bargaining can continue as if it were bilateral bargaining, because from a system perspective this is the case.

It is important to note that, as with bilateral bargaining, the values presented by all group members are not revealed to their adversary. Similarly, the system does not reveal the opponent's administration to any member of the group. Depending on a particular configuration of the filing system, individual members of the group cannot be revealed to any member of the group.

In the case of a fully blind aggregation arrangement, individual submissions are not disclosed to anyone other than the party that made the submission.

An example of fully blind argumentation is shown in Table 3

TABLE 3

Settle if request.

(aggregated) bid is at least 75% • · • 4 · ♦ · ··· «

13341

-60 • ·

Fully blind (ie pages 1, 2 & 3 and bidder do not know the offers that are combined)

EXAMPLE 1:

KOLO 1

Opponents

Claimant Page 1 Offers $ 10,000 Page 2 Offers $ 15,000 Page 3 Offers $ 35,000 Sum of $ 60,000 Request = $ 65,000 Case Settlement $ 62,500 Party 1 Contributes $ 10,416.67 (10,000 / 62,500 x $ 62,500) Party 2 Contributes $ 15,625.00 (15,000 / 62,500 x $ 62,500)

Page 3 will contribute $ 36,458.33 (35,000 / 62,500 x $ 62,500)

EXAMPLE 2:

KOLO 1

Opponent

Claimants page 1 demands $ 25,000 page 2 requests $ 18,000 page 3 requests $ 35,000 bid = $ 70,000 sum $ 78,000 case settles $ 74,000 that this · · to <

to · * · «·« ·· ·

13341 -61page 1 gets $ 23,718 page 2 gets $ 17,077 page 3 gets $ 33,205

The partially blind arrangement allows the group access to each other's administrations. To avoid escalation in one-person submissions based on others in the group, it is desirable to give individuals access to others in the group only after all individual values have been submitted and the values are closed against revocation or change.

An example of this type of partially blind bargaining is shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Settle if demand and offer differ by less than $ 2,500.

Partially blind (ie pages 1, 2 & 3 know each other's bids after entering all of them).

KOLO 1

Opponents Proposer page 1 offers $ 5,000 page 2 offers $ 12,000 page 3 offers $ 9,000 page 4 offers $ 11,500 sum $ 37,500 requirement = $ 50,000 no settlement

13341

-62 · «62 62 62 62

KOLO 2

Opponents Draftsman side 1 offers $ 10,000 side 2 offers $ 15,000 side 3 offers $ 10,000 side 4 offers $ 13,500 sum $ 48,500 request = $ 45,000 case settles $ 45,000 side 1 will contribute $ 9,278.35 side 2 will contribute $ 13,917.53 side 3 will contribute $ 9,278.35 side 4 will contribute $ 12,525.77

Another partially blind arrangement allows the group to fully cooperate on collective administration. In this case, the adversary is informed that the offer or request is made in favor of party 1, party 2, etc. The adversary is then to accept or reject the choice. If the adversary accepts, and the settlement is reached, the claim will be settled for all parties in the group and their adversary.

An example of this type of multilateral bargaining is shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Settled if the (aggregate) bid is at least 75% of the request.

·· 4 4 · 44

4 ··

13341

-634

44 «

Partially blind (ie parties A, B & D collectively bid as one value and the bidder is informed You have claims against entities A, B, C & D. Bidding was submitted by entity A on behalf of entities A, B & D. Entity C is refuses to participate, if settlement is reached, you may be able to independently continue the claim against entity C.

Round Aggregated Offer Claimant's Result Request

1 $ 100,000 $ 295,000 outstanding 2 $ 110,000 $ 230,000 outstanding 3 $ 120,000 $ 160,000 settled at $ 140,000 4 $ 128,000 $ 140,000

Entities A, B and D may then draw up a distribution between them, determine the distribution by calculating the amount for each amount due, or divide the amount into equal parts among the parties involved.

In yet another variation, after translating the list of parties forming the group, the adversary has the option of refusing to negotiate with the group, but to identify some of the group members with whom to negotiate as a group. In this way, the petitioner gains the ability to opt out of one or more specific petitioners as an attempt to maintain a claim against them and the respondent gets the option to opt out of one or more specific petitioners to prevent one or more individuals, such as Other receivables.

Aggregations may also be carried out independently of both sides of the claim. Thus, the group may submit bids for comparison with the requirements of the other group. Depending on a particular implementation, the aggregation arrangement on one side of the claim need not be the same as the aggregation performed on the other side of the claim. In other words, tenders may be submitted in part.

13341

-64 blind to compare with requirements aggregated in a completely blind configuration.

In any case, if settlement is achieved, if the group whose presentation has been aggregated will pay the claim, the payment will preferably be settled pro rata. Alternatively, in some implementations, group members may determine the distribution of payment in a manner other than on a pro-rata basis.

If a group is composed of individual parties that receive a payment, depending on a particular system, each party receives its respective requirement rather than some mean value. Alternatively, add-on modules can be created to perform a more complex distribution or allocation of payments to promoters.

Additional offers

Because the Internet is a globally accessible medium, certain embodiments may include the ConvertEquateLocalCurrency module designed to allow opposing parties to submit proposals or requests in their local currencies even when tenders are submitted in one currency and requests in another. In this way, each party can act in a currency in which they feel more comfortable, thus conducting bargaining in an environment closer to the user. When non-comparable currencies are used, the bid and demand analysis system converts all reported currencies for comparison into a common currency, which may or may not be the same as the bid and demand currency. For example, if bids have been submitted in Japanese Yen and requirements in Italian Lira, the system may use Jen, Lira or some third currency, eg, US Dollars, Euro or even Thai Bhata depending on a certain implementation.

In a similar way, a currency exchange arrangement may be performed so that, if settlement is achieved, the petitioner may be paid in the currency of choice, regardless of the currency in which

13341

-65 Respondent submitted bids. For example, a Greek national submitting tenders or requests in US Dollars may designate automatic payment by crediting his Drachm bank account.

Other selection features include the StructurePayment module, which calculates the structured payment of the settlement amount in accordance with the specific instructions presented. In this way, prodigal claimants can protect themselves by stating that the payment will not be made as a total amount, but rather incrementally over time. Associated with one of the aforementioned payment options, the settlement may advantageously consist of monthly transfers to a stored value module, credit card, bank or intermediary account, quarterly insurance payments, or such other arrangements as the system provider may negotiate.

Additional selection features include the use of different types of communication links (eg fiber optic or wireless connections), distributed databases, combinations of secure and unsecured servers, distributed processing or implementation of certain selection measures, eg indicators or special features in hardware versus software and vice versa. Similarly, principles employing various types of deposition, eg, tape, solid phase, optical, magneto-optical, etc., or to those described, may be implemented.

It is to be understood that the above description is merely representative of illustrative embodiments. For the convenience of the reader, the above description has focused on a representative sample of all possible embodiments, a sample that explains the principles of the invention. The description is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible variants or even combinations of the described variants. The fact that alternative embodiments have not been presented for a specific part of the invention or the alternate embodiments described below may be available for a part cannot be considered as a waiver of the right to protect these alternative embodiments. The expert • this · this this »this tot ··· · * ·· · *«

It will be appreciated that many of these described embodiments involve differences in technology, rather than differences in the application of the principle of the invention. It will be appreciated that most of the principles of the invention based on the disclosure herein are transferable to other specific techniques for use. This is particularly the case where technical differences include different specific hardware and / or software. Accordingly, it is not intended to limit the invention to a narrower range than that set forth in the scope of the following claims and their equivalents.

Claims (219)

PATENT CLAIMS 1. A computer-enforceable method of dispute resolution, acting on a computer control and stored on a computer-readable medium, comprising in execution: (a) receiving requests from the first party to the claim; (b) receiving settlement offers from the other party to the claim dispute; (c) preventing disclosure of requests to the other party and preventing disclosure of settlement offers to the first party; (d) calculating the differences between rounds of requests and settlement offers, each difference being calculated in a round using one request and one settlement offer, with one request and one settlement offer having the same value; (e) determining whether any of the differences fall within predetermined criteria; (f) if any of the differences fall within predetermined criteria, forwarding the report to the first and second parties that the claim has been settled; and (g) if the differences do not fall within predetermined criteria, forwarding a report that the claim has not been settled. The method of claim 1, wherein one request is received prior to one settlement offer. The method of claim 1, wherein one request is received after one settlement offer. The method of claim 1, further comprising limiting the number of settlement offers that can be received to a maximum of three. The method of claim 1, further comprising allowing one side to determine the maximum number of wheels. The method of claim 1, wherein d), e), f) and g) are performed after receiving less than the maximum specified number of requests. The method of claim 1, wherein all settlement offers are received before any of the requests are received. 8. Automated dispute settlement between at least two parties using monetary requirements and settlement offers containing: acceptance of the request for participation from the first party and a commitment to respect the claim settlement issued by the automated dispute resolution system; acceptance of the notice of participation from the other party to participate in the automated claims settlement system; receiving a series of at least three monetary requirements from the first party; receiving a series of at least three settlement offers from the other party; maintaining inaccessibility of monetary requirements to the other party; maintaining inaccessibility of settlement offers for the first party; comparing the first requirement of the series of monetary requirements with the first settlement offer in the first round to determine if the first difference between the first monetary requirement and the first settlement offer is within a predetermined directive; 13341 If the first difference is within the range of a predetermined Directive, the first and second parties will be notified of the successful settlement of the dispute; if in the first round the first difference is not within the predetermined Directive, the comparison of the second requirement from the series of monetary requirements with the second settlement offer in the second round to determine if the second difference between the second monetary requirement and the second settlement offer is within the predetermined Directive; if, in the second round, the second difference is within the predetermined Directive, the transmission of the notice of successful dispute resolution to the first and second parties; if in the second round the second difference is not within the predetermined Directive, the comparison of the third requirement from the series of monetary requirements with the third settlement offer in the third round to determine whether the third difference between the third monetary requirement and the third settlement offer is within the predetermined Directive; and if, in the third round, the third difference is within the predetermined Directive, the transmission of the notice of successful dispute resolution to the first and second parties. 9. The method of claim 8, wherein if there is no first, second or third difference in the predetermined slope in all three rounds, the unsuccessful dispute resolution signal is transmitted to the first and second parties. The method of claim 8, wherein if any successful dispute resolution notification is given to any round, the method further comprises: generating a settlement value notification containing the settlement amount to be paid to the first party by the other party. • · · · · · · · · · · · · · 13341 -7011. The method of claim 10, further comprising: calculation of the settlement amount using at least one monetary request from the round in which the notice of successful settlement of the dispute is transmitted. The method of claim 11, wherein the calculation also uses a settlement offer. The method of claim 8, wherein if any successful dispute resolution notification is received in any of the first, second or third rounds, the method further comprises: the calculation of the payment value for the claim from the pair of values used in the round for which the notice of successful settlement of the dispute is transmitted; and storing the payment value in a database accessible to the participating party. The method of claim 8, wherein when the first difference is not within a predetermined slope, the method further comprises: disabling the first money request and the first settlement offer for use by the automated second-round dispute resolution system. The method of claim 14, wherein when the second difference is not within the predetermined slope of the second round, the method further comprises: disabling the second money request and the second settlement offer for use by the automated dispute resolution system for the third round. • · · _ _ _ _ _ _ _ · _ · · _ · 13341 -7116. The method of claim 15, wherein when the third difference is not within the range of a predetermined slope, the method further comprises: disabling the third monetary request and the third settlement offer for use by the automated system. The method of claim 10, wherein the settlement amount is a mean value between one request and one settlement offer. The method of claim 10, wherein the settlement amount is equal to the amount determined by one request. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined directive is that the individual settlement offer and the individual request differ from each other by less than a specified amount. 20. The method of claim 8, wherein said amount is $ 5,000. 21. The method of claim 8, wherein said amount is a calculated amount representing a percentage of one of the individual settlement offers or a single request. The method of claim 8, wherein the determined condition is that the individual settlement offer is within a predetermined percentage of the individual request. The method of claim 22, wherein the predetermined percentage is 70%. 24. The method of claim 22, wherein the predetermined percentage is 80%. • φ • Φ 13341 -72 «·· · · · φφ ·· * • φφ 25. The method of claim 8, wherein one of the series of three monetary requests is received before one of the series of three settlement offers. 26. The method of claim 8, wherein one of the series of three settlement offers is received before one of the series of three monetary requirements. 27. An automated method of settling a dispute between opposing parties concerning the monetary values submitted by the opposing parties, comprising: acceptance of a request for participation from the first entity and a commitment to respect the debt claim issued by the automated dispute resolution system; receiving a notice of participation from the second entity, the adversary of the first entity with respect to the claim, to participate in an automated claims dispute resolution system; encouraging at least one of the first entity or the second entity with a negotiator message; receiving a series of at least two monetary and forced wheel requests from the first entity; receiving a series of at least two settlement offers from the second entity; maintaining inaccessibility of monetary requirements for the second entity; maintaining inaccessibility of settlement offers for the first entity; comparing the first requirement of the series of monetary requirements with the first settlement offer in the first round to determine if the first difference between the first monetary requirement and the first settlement offer is within a predetermined directive; 13341 -73 If the first difference is within the predetermined Directive, the first entity and the second entity will be notified of the successful resolution of the dispute. entity; if in the first round the first difference is not within the predetermined Directive, the comparison of the second requirement from the series of monetary requirements with the second settlement offer in the second round to determine if the second difference between the second monetary requirement and the second settlement offer is within the predetermined Directive; if, in the second round, the second difference is within the predetermined Directive, the transmission of the notice of successful settlement to the first entity and the second entity; if, in the second round, the second difference is not within the predetermined directive, recalling the third round as a forced round by comparing the forced round request from a series of monetary requirements with one settlement offer from a series of at least two settlement offers to determine if the forced round difference between the forced round request and one settlement offer is within the predetermined enforced wheel directive; and if in the enforced wheel the difference of the enforced wheel is within a predetermined enforced wheel guideline, transmission of the successful dispute resolution notification to the first entity and the second entity. 28. The method of claim 27, wherein if any successful dispute resolution notification is given in any round, the method further comprises: generating a payment from the solution of the case to be paid to the first entity by the second entity, which comprises determining the favored value. 29. The method of claim 27, further comprising: • this • · 13341 -14 * to to encourage at least one of the first entity or the second entity to at least one of the first, second or third round to present a monetary value by using a statement that reveals no a request to the second entity or no offer to settle the first entity. 30. The method of claim 27, wherein when a successful dispute resolution notification is provided, the method further comprises: calculating a settlement of a specified value to be paid to the claimant to settle the case and automatically initiating a settlement payment to the claimant. 31. The method of claim 27, further comprising: automatic generation of case settlement documents containing specific dispute information for handing over to opposing parties. 32. A method of dispute resolution for the settlement of claims between counterparties, comprising: Testing unequal values in a round, one value submitted by one of the counterparties to the claim, other values presented by the opposite counterparty to the claim, and calculating a binding settlement of at least the lower of the pair of unequal values when the settlement algorithm used in testing complies with the pair of unequal values. 33. The method of claim 32, further comprising: limiting the settlement payment to the higher of unequal values. 34. The method of claim 32, further comprising: receiving at least one of the unequal values over the weekend. 35. The method of claim 32, further comprising: receiving at least one of the unequal values at a time other than between 9 am and 4 pm on weekdays. 36. The method of claim 32, further comprising: storing the amount in relation to specific case information in a database. 37. A method of settling claims comprising: testing unequal values submitted by counterparties for compliance claims; if the conditions are not met, test the unequal values of the enforced wheel, one from each of the receivables counterparties, to fulfill the conditions of the enforced wheel and calculate the binding settlement payment when the conditions of the enforced wheel are met for unequal values of the enforced wheel, . 38. A method of settling claims comprising: receiving the values presented by the counterparties for the claim, the presentation of at least one of the values being followed by an encouraging message regarding the claim passed from the intermediary of at least one of the counterparties; Testing unequal values to meet conditions; and · I · · ··· * ······ 13341 -76Calculating a binding settlement when the conditions are met with unequal values, to a value at least equal to the lower of the pair of unequal values. 39. A dispute resolution procedure for the settlement of a claim between counterparties, comprising: testing the unequal values submitted by counterparties for the compliance claim and calculating the binding settlement when the conditions are met with unequal values, where the binding settlement includes an advantage when one of the parties is the initiator of the claim dispute, at least equal to the lower of unequal values adjusted o positive or negative favoring the differential amount. 40. A dispute resolution procedure for the settlement of a claim between counterparties, comprising: testing the unequal values submitted by counterparties for the compliance claim; calculating a binding settlement when the conditions are met with unequal values, to a value at least equal to the lower of the pair of unequal values, and to trigger an online cash transfer for a given amount of at least one of the counterparties. 41. A dispute resolution procedure for the settlement of a claim between two counterparties, comprising: testing the unequal values submitted by counterparties for the compliance claim; calculating a binding settlement when the conditions are unequal, to a value at least equal to the lower of the unequal; and 13341 -77 «·» ·· automatic generation of a settlement document containing case-specific information. 42. A method of automated online dispute resolution comprising: support for an Internet interface where the claimant can submit claims for and receive data from a dispute resolution system such that when the claimant submits requests through an interface to the dispute resolution system and the dispute resolution system matches the requirements with the one-on-one settlement claims , the comparison shall be made in accordance with the criteria and, if the criteria are not met, the enforced round of demand and bid round with the forced round criteria shall be performed and after the forced round the proposer shall receive either positive or negative indication. 43. An online dispute resolution system comprising: support for the Internet interface by which the claimant can submit a claim for the claim, following receiving the online encouragement from the automated intermediary and receiving a positive or negative claim information back so that when the claimant submits multiple requests through the interface, the system matches the requests with the settlement offers for the claim If the basis is one-to-one and compares in accordance with the criteria, the proposer shall receive via the interface whether the criteria are met or not. 44. A method of automated online dispute resolution comprising: support for an Internet interface where the claimant can submit claims for and receive data from a dispute resolution system such that when the claimant submits the requirements through an interface to the dispute resolution system and the dispute resolution system matches the requirements with the claims settlement offer for φ ·· * · · Ft · ft · ft · ftftft 13341 -78- ......... · ** ”one-on-one basis, the comparison will be made in accordance with the criteria and if the criteria are met and the petitioner is the initiator for the claim in the system, the petitioner receives via the interface both that the criteria are met and of a payment amount that reflects a higher amount relative to the normal payment amount, as the petitioner is the initiator. 45. A method of automated online dispute resolution comprising: support for an Internet interface where the claimant can submit claims for and receive data from a dispute resolution system such that when the claimant submits requests over the interface to the dispute resolution system and the dispute resolution system matches the requirements with the one-on-one settlement claims , the comparison shall be carried out in accordance with the criteria and, if the criteria are met, a positive indication shall be provided via the interface and an automatic initiation of the amount calculated by the claimant's dispute settlement system as settlement amount, analysis of the enforced request and bid round shall be performed; the proposer shall be provided via the interface with either a positive or negative indication of whether the enforced wheel criteria are met or not. 46. A method of operating a dispute resolution system comprising: receiving values from each of the first and second parties to the dispute, at least one of which has been received via an Internet connection; assigning, based on one to one, values from the first side and values from the other side to form pairs without revealing either the values of the first party to the second party or the values of the second party to the first party; 13341 Analyzing pairs according to a predetermined formula so that if the pen analysis meets the specified criteria, the system reports to the first and second parties, settlement is achieved. 47. The method of claim 46, further comprising: when the specified criteria are met the settlement value calculation using at least Part of the pair. 48. The method of claim 46, wherein the calculation comprises: determining the mean value for a pair. 49. The method of claim 46, further comprising: allowing the first party to select a predetermined formula. 50. The method of claim 46, further comprising: before receiving a request from one of the first or second party to make a selection of a predetermined formula and requesting the other from the first or second party to approve the selection. 51. The method of claim 46, further comprising: the receipt of a dispute guarantor identification number and a case describing the information. 52. The method of claim 46, further comprising: 13341 -80 ·· «* ··· Receipt of information representing the locally competent court for dispute. 53. The method of claim 46, further comprising: receipt of information representing the court for the dispute. 54. A method comprising: aggregating multiple values into a group value; evaluating a pair of values for a claim in a round, one of the pair values being a group value; determining that a pair of values meets the settlement criteria and communicating a settlement report when the settlement criteria are met. 55. The method of claim 54, further comprising: aggregating the monetary amounts presented by the group as one monetary presentation and using one monetary presentation as the other in a pair. 56. The method of claim 54, further comprising: identification of the entity decided not to participate in the negotiations. 57. The method of claim 54 wherein the values comprise at least one value presented by each member of the group, further comprising: identifying each group member for the claimant's counterparty. 58. A method comprising: 13341 -81ft ft I · ft ftft · first entity registration in an automated dispute resolution system with respect to a claim involving a claim; upon registration following receipt of the case identifier and at least two monetary submissions from the first entity; associating at least one proposed settlement amount filed by the other entity with respect to the claim to at least one of the at least two monetary submissions; processing the proposed settlement amount and one of the at least two cash submissions according to the specified result obtaining algorithm and notifying the first entity that the claim has been settled and the payment amount when the result meets the criteria agreed by the first entity without informing the first entity of at least one proposed settlement amount . 59. The method of claim 58, further comprising: permanently deleting at least one proposed settlement amount and one with at least two cash submissions when settlement has been achieved. 60. The method of claim 58, further comprising: storage of settlement and settlement information in an automated tabulation dispute resolution system. 61. A method of settling disputes comprising: receiving bids and requests with respect to the claim, each of the bids being received via a password-protected communications link having a serial number attached and each of the requests having a serial number attached; 13341 -82pairing a bid with requirements based on the corresponding serial numbers; testing of matched offers and requests by algorithm; generating a result in response to bid and request testing, and automatically reporting a result without detecting a bid and request. 62. The method of claim 61, wherein when the result is not a settlement, the method further comprises: deletion of offer and request. 63. The method of claim 61, wherein when the result is a settlement, the method further comprises: calculating the settlement amount according to a predetermined formula; reporting the settlement amount, 64. The method of claim 61, further comprising: obtaining consent from the petitioner to participate in indirect settlement negotiations using an online dispute settlement system and, when the result shows settlement, be legally bound to settle the claim by the amount determined by the online dispute settlement system. 65. The method of claim 61, further comprising: obtaining consent from the guarantor to participate in the indirect settlement negotiations; generating an exposure amount using a bid submitted by the guarantor and informing the guarantor of the exposure amount. 66. The method of claim 64, further comprising: generating a potential amount obtained from the settlement using the request and informing the petitioner of the amount obtained from the settlement. 67. A method comprising evaluating multiple matched values for a claim in a plurality of rounds; determining that none of the more matched values meets the settlement criteria; performing an evaluation of the enforced round values, one of the values being submitted by the first entity relative to the claim and the other of the values presented by the second entity opposing the first entity relative to the claim and communicating the settlement message if fulfilled. 68. The method of claim 67, further comprising: acceptance of consent from the party to conduct the evaluation of the enforced round. 69. The method of claim 67, further comprising: determining that the evaluation of the values in the forced wheel should occur based on the system parameter. • · ·· « 13341 -8470. The method of claim 69, wherein the determination comprises: identifying the first participating party. 71. The method of claim 67, wherein the determining comprises: determining that the evaluation of the forced wheel is to be performed by analyzing the difference in at least one pair of the paired values versus at least another of the paired values. 72. The method of claim 67, wherein the determining comprises: determining that the evaluation of the forced wheel is to be performed based on the relationship between at least one pair of matched values and the settlements achieved. 73. The method of claim 67, further comprising: acceptance of the party's consent to the payment of the normal payment amount for the evaluation of the enforced round. 74. The method of claim 67, wherein performing the forced wheel evaluation comprises: determining that two values meet the forced wheel criteria. 75. The method of claim 74, wherein the forced criteria settlement criteria are settlement criteria. 76. The method of claim 74, wherein the forced criteria settlement criteria are different from the settlement criteria. 77. The method of claim 67, wherein performing the forced wheel evaluation comprises: 13341 -85- ······ * ·· ··· Determine whether any of the matched values meet the forced-wheel settlement criteria, 78. The method of claim 67, further comprising: aggregating the administration into a group value and using the group value as one of the pair values. 79. The method of claim 77, wherein the forced wheel settlement criteria and the settlement criteria are different. 80. A method comprising: adoption first values from first entities considering to receivable in automated system solutions disputes; adoption second values from second entities considering to receivable in automated system solutions disputes; destination, in automated system solution disputes, that the comparison of the first and second values does not meet the settlement criteria for the claim; deleting at least one of the first and second values; inviting, using an intermediary, at least one of the first and second entities to present a new value using general statements that do not reveal either the first or second value and the acceptance of the new value into the automated dispute resolution system. 81. A method of settling disputes comprising: acceptance of the claim submitted by the initiator for dispute settlement proceedings; 13341 - 86 after receiving the claim, receiving a first value from the initiator and a first value from the second entity, the adversary of the initiator for the claim, wherein the first value from the initiator and the first value from the second entity differ from each other by the difference amount; comparing the difference amount with predetermined settlement criteria; a determination that the difference amount meets predetermined settlement criteria; calculating a settlement using the first values so that the initiator receives an advantage and informing the initiator and the second entity about the settlement. 82. The method of claim 81, wherein the calculation comprises: if the first value from the initiator is less than the first value from the second entity and the settlement payment will be paid by the second entity to the initiator, the provision of a payment higher than the normal payment amount. 83. Way according to claim 82, characterized by by that normal payment amount is in between first values. 84. Way according to claim 82, characterized by by that normal payment amount is the mean of the first values * 85. The method of claim 81, wherein the calculation comprises: if the first value from the initiator is greater than the first value from the second entity and the settlement payment will be paid by the initiator of the second entity, the provision of the payment to a lower amount than the normal payment amount. 13341 -87 * ·· ·· · 86. Way according to claim 85, characterized by by that normal payment amount is in between first values. 87. Way according to claim 85, characterized by by that normal payment amount is the mean of the first values. 88. The method of claim 81, characterized by: that calculation settlement amounts using the first values so that the initiator receives an advantage includes: settling the settlement payment with the first value from the second entity. 89. The method of claim 81, wherein the first value from the initiator is one of the plurality of first values from the initiator and the first value from the second entity is one of the plurality of first values from the second entity, and the method further comprises: inviting the initiator using a non-revealing encouraging statement from the intermediary. 90. A method comprising: settling the case by processing at least one request submitted by the proposer and at least one corresponding offer submitted by the second receivable entity according to predetermined criteria agreed by the proposer and the second entity that at least one request and at least one corresponding offer differ from each other; calculating a settlement of a specified value to be paid to the claimant to settle the case and automatically initiating a settlement payment to the claimant. 91. The method of claim 90, wherein the providing comprises: • »· * * * * * 13341 -88- ................ arranging the data to be received by the data storage means, which upon receipt causes the stored value to be increased by a specified amount. 92. The method of claim 90, wherein the providing comprises: crediting the specified amount to the payment card account registered with the petitioner. 93. The method of claim 92, wherein the credit card account is at least one of credit card, debit card, charge card, and amusement card accounts. 94. The method of claim 90, wherein the providing comprises: initiating a wire transfer of the specified amount to the petitioner's account. 95. The method of claim 90, wherein the providing comprises: electronically initiating an irrevocable transfer of property rated for a specified amount to the plaintiff. 96. The method of claim 90, wherein the providing comprises: crediting the related program account registered to the proposer according to a specified amount. 97. The method of claim 90, wherein the providing comprises: electronic initiation of an irrevocable transfer of ownership interest in a specified amount to the petitioner. 98. The method of claim 90, wherein the providing comprises: 13341 -89 electronic initiation of the release of the insurance product to the settlement amount. 99. A method of completing online dispute resolution negotiations comprising: determining that the two unequal values submitted by the counterparties in the dispute meet the eligibility criteria in the round by making a payment by one of the counterparties to the other of the counterparties and automatically generating settlement documents in the dispute to the counterparties. 100. The method of claim 99, wherein the generating further comprises: the establishment of a settlement agreement identifying counterparties. 101. The method of claim 99, wherein the generating further comprises: the establishment of a Convention of Rejection. 102. The method of claim 101, further comprising creating an initial case header for inserting a denial convention. 103. The method of claim 99, wherein the generating further comprises: creating a waiver. 104. A method comprising: acceptance of the criteria which, when applied to the Value-Settlement System and its fulfillment, will result in the settlement of the claim against the party by the payment amount determined • 9 9 9 13341 -908 «9 ·« «· • 9 9 « 9 »a dispute settlement system, the payment amount being derived from at least one of the values; submitting the monetary values of the dispute resolution system via a secure online interface that will be analyzed by the dispute resolution system using the criteria without disclosing any amount of money to the party; receiving an indication that the criteria are met by an undetected value from the party and at least one of the monetary values; and receiving a payment amount notification for the claim. 105. The method of claim 104, wherein, prior to receiving the indication, the method comprises: receiving a report that the criteria were not met by the undetected value for the party and one monetary value. 106. The method of claim 104, wherein the payment amount is at least one of the monetary values. 107. The method of claim 104, wherein the payment amount is greater than at least one of the monetary values. 108. The method of claim 104, further comprising: logging into the dispute resolution system via the Internet. 109. The method of claim 104, further comprising: providing specific identification information of the claim. 110. The method of claim 104, further comprising: providing contact information of the attorney for the claim. 13341 -911 ·· ··· »·· ··· 111. The method of claim 57, further comprising: tabulating specific receivable identification information. 112. The method of claim 104, further comprising: access to the dispute resolution system using a web browser. 113. The method of claim 104, further comprising: the submission of multiple cases of a dispute settlement system, the claim relating to one of the cases referred to. 114. The method of claim 104, further comprising: payment of the payment amount. 115. The method of claim 104, further comprising: receipt of payment amount from the party. 116. A method comprising the steps stored in an automated dispute resolution system comprising a processor and memory, the method for dispute resolution comprising: the step of executing a first program module written in a language for structuring documents for receiving values submitted by a party via the Internet, the values representing a series of proposed amounts to be settled by the claim; step of executing a program object, written in an object-oriented programming language, for successively comparing individual suggested amounts from a series 4 4 13341 The proposed amounts with each of the proposed counterparts in a series of proposed counterparts, all of the proposed counterparts unavailable to the party, to determine if the difference between some of the successively compared individual suggested amounts and counterparts is within the specified range and to generate a settlement indication the difference is within the specified range and the step of executing the second program module to inform the party that the claim is settled by payment of the calculated amount. 117. The method of claim 116, further comprising: the step of calculating a settlement amount according to a designated formula using a single proposed amount as an input for a specified formula to determine the payment to be made in settling a claim. 118. The method of claim 116, further comprising: a step of calculating a settlement amount according to a designated formula using a single proposed counterpart as an input for a specified formula to determine the payment to be made in settling a claim. 119. The method of claim 116, further comprising: a step of calculating a settlement amount according to a designated formula using both a single proposed amount and a single proposed counterpart as an input for a specified formula to determine the payment to be made in settling a claim. 120. The method of claim 116, further comprising: step to join the party. 13341 -93φφφ · · φ φ φ · · φφφφφφφ ·· φφφ «φ 121. The method of claim 116, further comprising: a step for collecting and processing settlement data using a processor. 122. The method of claim 116, further comprising: a step for checking the administrative authorization to allow the administrator to add a guarantor to the automated dispute resolution system. 123. A method comprising the steps of multi-round dispute resolution comprising: a first step of analyzing the value pairs in the normal rounds according to the first criterion, each value pair comprising one value provided by the first party and another value provided by the other party against the first party relative to the claim, wherein the values in each value pair differ in size; a second step of determining whether the first criterion is met in the round; a third step, if the first criterion is not met, to determine whether a forced wheel analysis is necessary; a fourth step, if a forced-wheel analysis is necessary, analyzing the pair of values according to the forced-wheel criterion, and a fifth step, if either the first criterion is met or the first criterion is not met but the forced-wheel criterion is met, generating a payment to be made on the claim. 124. The method of claim 123, further comprising: 13341 -94 · * · ·· «» * · * the sixth step of creating a specific receivable report for communicating at least one of the parties that does not disclose the value provided by the first party to the other party and vice versa. 125. The method of claim 123, further comprising: a step of adjusting the payment to provide a benefit to either the first party when the first party is the claim initiator or the second party when the second party is the claim initiator. 126. The method of claim 123, further comprising: a step for initiating an online cash transfer equal to a payment from either party that is the second entity for the claim of either party that is the claimant for the claim. 127. The method of claim 123, further comprising: a step for online generation of documents containing the identification of the claim by either party that is the claimant for the claim and payment. 128. A method comprising: acceptance of the case by the guarantor; acceptance of the criteria that, if met, will result in a binding settlement of the case; generating a report for transmission to the representative of the petitioner involved in the case, who invited the representative to participate in the automated dispute settlement procedure for the case; accepting the appropriate consent from the representative to participate and his / her commitment to respect the automated dispute settlement procedure if the criteria are met by the requirements submitted by the representative and the corresponding offers submitted by the guarantor; 13341 -95the acceptance of the request submitted by the agent and of the offer submitted by the guarantor within a specified limited period of time; comparing the request and bid to determine whether the criteria are met and, if the criteria are met, generating an indication that the case is settled by the payment amount. 129. The method of claim 128, further comprising: requesting the entry of a dispute identification number before a request or offer is received. 130. The method of claim 128, further comprising: storing the payment amount for future search. 131. The method of claim 128, further comprising: calculation of the payment amount as the average of the request and offer. 132. The method of claim 128, further comprising: calculation of the payment amount as the value between the request and the offer. 133. A method comprising: receiving first signals comprising data representing a series of monetary amounts for a claim from the first entity; preparing the first signals for automated algorithm testing by a dispute resolution system in conjunction with information from 13341 -96 · · · · «and a second entity that is an opponent of the first entity relative to the claim; receiving a response signal indicating that the test of one of the series of monetary amounts has caused a settlement condition in the dispute resolution system; forwarding a message containing data representing the settlement amount in response to the settlement condition for final delivery to the first entity. 134. The method of claim 133, further comprising: receiving second signals containing information from the second entity with data representing at least one proposed settlement amount for the claim. 135. The method of claim 133, wherein the first entity is either the petitioner or the petitioner's representative or the petitioner's legal representative. 136. The method of claim 135, wherein the second entity is either an insurer, a claims adjuster, an insurer's attorney, a guarantor, a guarantor, a system administrator, or a self-insurance organization agent. 137. The method of claim 133, wherein the first entity is either an insurer, a receivable liquidator, an insurer's attorney, a guarantor, a guarantor, a system administrator or a self-insurance agent. 138. The method of claim 133, further comprising: delivering cookie data sent by the dispute resolution system for storage on the hard disk associated with the first or second entity usable by the dispute resolution system to track usage by the first or second entity. 13341 -9799 99 9 9 9 999 • 9 9 139. The method of claim 133, further comprising: receiving third signals from the dispute resolution system to hand over the computer associated with the first or second entity, which upon receipt causes the computer to receive 2 cookie data from the hard disk and send it to the dispute resolution system. 140. A method comprising: (a) receiving the first signals via a communication link from the insurer, the signals including data transmitted for temporary storage, which represent two values usable as a settlement offer, one of which is greater than the other of the two values; (b) sending a request to the plaintiff to submit requirements representing different amounts of money that would be settled by the plaintiff without revealing any offer to the plaintiff; c) receiving second signals representing a response from the proposer, signals comprising a monetary request; (d) comparison of the monetary requirement with the first of the tenders and, if the comparison is within the limits of the designated directives, informing the claimant by means of the posted information viewable on a web browser that the claim will be settled by a specified amount, new request. 141. The method of claim 140, further comprising: if the comparison is within the specified directives, inform the insurer by post that the claim will be settled by the specified amount. φφφ φ φ 13341 -98φ Φ · * ·· ♦ φ φ · φφφ • φ · φφ φφφ 142. The method of claim 140, further comprising: before receiving the first signals of giving access to tabulated information on the number of settled cases. 143. The method of claim 140, further comprising: tabulating specific information from the number of settled cases for which the specified amounts have been calculated so that specific case information is accessible by category. 144. The method of claim 143, wherein the categories include at least one of: court, venue, attorney, settlement and guarantor. 145. A method of automated online dispute resolution comprising: support for an Internet interface where the claimant can submit claims for and receive data from a dispute resolution system such that when the claimant submits requests through an interface to the dispute resolution system and the dispute resolution system matches the requirements with the one-on-one settlement claims , the comparison shall be made in accordance with the criteria and the proposer shall receive via the interface either a positive or negative indication of whether the pair criteria are met. 146. The method of claim 145, further comprising: transmitting the received information via the interface to the petitioner's display including the settlement value transmitted by the dispute resolution system, calculated when the criteria are met. 13341 -99 ··· ······· 147. The method of claim 145, further comprising: Host dispute resolution system. 148. The method of claim 145, further comprising: imposing a processor executable program that performs a comparison when executing and provides the claimant with either a positive or negative indication for the claim. 149. A system comprising: the first value submitted by the online first entity; a second value presented by the online second entity, the first and second entities being opponents to the claim, the first value being inaccessible to the second entity and the second value being inaccessible to the first entity, the first value and the second value being different in size from each other; an assignee comprising an input, an output, and a computer executable program, which in execution is structured to receive a pair of values from opposing input entities and return an indication to a representative based on a mathematical comparison of the pair of values, the program further structured to provide payment value for at least one claim from opposing entities through the output when the result indicator indicates that the predetermined criteria are met. 150. The system of claim 149, further comprising a processor-accessible memory configured to temporarily store the first and second values to be retrieved by the principal via the input. 151. The system of claim 149, wherein the computer executable program comprises modules, one of which is 13341 -100 • this this • programmed in object-oriented programming language and the other one is programmed in the document breakdown language. 152. The system of claim 151, wherein the object-oriented programming language includes JAVAScript. 153. The system of claim 151, wherein the document breakdown language is ColdFusion Markup Language. 154. The system of claim 151, wherein the document breakdown language is Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML). 155. The system of claim 149, wherein, when executing the program, if the result indicator indicates that predetermined criteria are not met, the agent deletes a pair of values. 156. The system of claim 149, wherein, when executing the program, if the result indicator indicates that predetermined criteria are met, the agent calculates a payment value from a pair of values and then deletes the pair of values. 157. The system of claim 149, wherein the first value is a bid made by the guarantor and the second value is a request made by the claimant. 158. The system of claim 149, further comprising an entity accessible protocol comprising correlating payment values and receivable-specific information. 159. The system of claim 158, wherein the claim-specific information includes geographic region data. 160. The system of claim 158, further comprising an attorney accessible memory in which the attorney can store the payment value and the data representing the receivable-specific information when the result indicator indicates compliance with predetermined criteria. 13341 -101444 4444 • 44 • 4 • 4 161. The system of claim 149, wherein the pair of values comprises the first and second values, the predetermined criteria are met, and the payment value is the mean value of the first and second values. 162. The system of claim 149, wherein the pair of values is a first and a second value, the predetermined criteria are met and the payment value is the higher of the first and second values. 163. The system of claim 149, wherein the predetermined criteria are that the pair of values must be within a fixed percentage relative to each other. 164. The system of claim 163, further comprising a predetermined amount that will be compared to the difference between the pair of values if the result indicator indicates that the predetermined criteria are not met and if the difference is less than the predetermined amount causes the agent provides a payment value for a claim of at least one of the counterpart entities even if the predetermined criteria have not been met. 165. The system of claim 163, wherein the pair of values comprises the first and second values, the predetermined criteria are met, and the payment value is the mean value of the first and second values. 166. The system of claim 163, wherein the pair of values is a first and a second value, the predetermined criteria are met, and the payment value is the higher of the first and second values. 167. The system of claim 163, wherein the pair of values comprises the first and second values, the predetermined criteria are met, and the payment value is a function of the first and second values. 13341 -102 ·· · ··· 168. The system of claim 149, wherein the predetermined criterion is a fixed range of values. 169. The system of claim 149, wherein the amount of the payment value lies between one of the values in the value pair and the other of the values in the value pair. 170. The system of claim 150, further comprising a time indicator which, when exceeded, causes the agent to perform a predetermined action relative to at least one of the first or second values. 171. The system of claim 170, wherein the predetermined action is deleting at least one of the first or second value. 172. The system of claim 170, wherein the first and second values are revocable and the predetermined action prevents the revocation of one of the first or second values. 173. The system of claim 150 comprising an entity-accessible detailed protocol comprising a correlation of payment values and receivable-specific information. 174. The system of claim 173, wherein the entity accessible detailed protocol is written in a document breakdown language. 175. The system of claim 149, further comprising an exposure calculator. 176. The system of claim 175, wherein the exposure calculator is written in an object-oriented programming language. 177. The system of claim 176, wherein the object-oriented programming language includes JAVAScript. • 9 13341 -103’i '9 9 9 9 9 9 9 999 9900 99 99 «9« 178. The system of claim 149, wherein the first value is one of the sequentially presented first values and the second value is one of the sequentially presented second values, wherein all the sequentially presented values are inaccessible to the entity that has not submitted them and the program is further structured for using another of the successive first values determined by the first entity in place of the first value and another of the successively presented second values determined by the second entity in place of the second value when the result indicator indicates that predetermined criteria are not met for the first and second values. 179. The system of claim 178, wherein each of the first values is presented by the first entity according to a specified order. 180. The system of claim 149, further comprising a program execution limit. 181. The system of claim 180, wherein the program execution limit is three. 182. The system of claim 169, wherein the number of first values submitted is two. 183. The system of claim 149, further comprising a payment calculator that calculates a monetary amount to be paid by one entity to settle a claim according to a formula, according to predetermined criteria. 184. The system of claim 183, wherein the formula is a formula for the mean of a pair of values that meet predetermined criteria. 185. The system of claim 183, wherein the formula is a formula for the higher of a pair of values that meet predetermined criteria. »· I · 13341 -104186. The system of claim 178, characterized in that it comprises an entity search database comprising settled claims. ftft · · · · ftft · ftft ftft · * ftft ftftft ftft is by further data related 187. The system of claim 186, wherein the data comprises geographic information for each settled claim. 188. The system of claim 186, wherein the data comprises a monetary amount for each settled claim. 189. The system of claim 186, further comprising a communication link through which the entity can access the search engine of the entity database before submitting an offer or request. 190. The system of claim 178, wherein the first plurality of values are requests from the proposer. 191. The system of claim 178, wherein the first plurality of values comprises offers from an insurer. 192. The system of claim 149, wherein the first value is one of the sequentially presented first values and the second value is one of the sequentially presented second values wherein all the sequentially presented values are inaccessible to the entity that has not submitted them and the program accepts the pair of values together with return the result indicator to form a round. 193. A system comprising: the first value submitted by the online first entity; a second value presented by the online second entity, the first and second entities being opponents to the claim, the first value being inaccessible to the second entity and the second value being inaccessible to the first entity, the first value and the second value being different in size from each other; 13341 -1050000 «0 000 0 t 00 0 input connectable to the online interface to receive values from it; exit; a memory connected to the input and configured to receive a temporarily stored value received from the input; a memory-connected processor and a computer-executable program structured to receive a pair of values from opposing entities when executed by the computer and return a specified result indicator based on applying a predetermined criterion to mathematically compare a pair of values in a normal round; not fulfilled in a normal round, the program is further structured to perform a forced wheel analysis of a pair of forced wheel values using a predetermined forced wheel criterion for a forced wheel value and when the forced wheel result indicator indicates that the predetermined forced wheel criterion is fulfilled, provided at the exit the payment value of the enforced wheel for the claim of at least one of the opposing entities. 194. The system of claim 193, wherein one of the value pairs for the forced wheel is the same as one value pair, 195. The system of claim 193, wherein the predetermined criterion and the predetermined forced wheel criterion are different. 196. The system of claim 193 wherein the predetermined criterion and the predetermined forced wheel criterion are the same. 197. A system comprising: 13341 -10699 • 9 9 9 1 9 9 99 9 9 999 99 • 9 • 99 negotiator including a number of undiscovered challenges for entities; the first value submitted by the online first entity; a second value presented by an online second entity, the first and second entities being opponents to the claim, the first value being inaccessible to the second entity and the second value being inaccessible to the first entity, the first value and the second value being different in size from each other, presenting at least one of the first the value and the second value following the negotiation of the entity prompt from the negotiator to either the first entity or the second entity of the plurality of entity prompts, the entity challenge is furthermore a non-revealing challenge to the entity and agent containing the input, output and computer executable program a pair of values from opposing entities through the input and returned a result indicator for the proxy based on the application of a predetermined criterion to mathematically compare the pair of values, the program is further structured to provide a payment value for the claim and at least one of the opposing entities over the output when the result indicator indicates that the predetermined criteria are met. 198. A system comprising: an initiator indicator, adjustable when the entity first inserts the dispute for resolution into the entity identification system as the initiator which causes the benefit calculation to be performed when the dispute is resolved; the first value submitted by the online first entity; a second value presented by an online second entity, the first and second entities facing each other relative to the claim, the first value being inaccessible to the second entity and the second 13341 The value is inaccessible to the first entity, the first value and the second value are different in magnitude from each other and the agent including input and output and a computer-executable program that is structured to the execution has received a pair of values from opposing entities through the input and returned the result indicator based on the use of a predetermined criterion for mathematical comparison of the pair of values, the program being further structured so that when the result indicator indicates that at least one of The output sides provided either: (i) the normal amount of payment for a claim when the initiator indicator is not set to either the first entity or the second entity; or (ii) the amount of interest-adjusted claim payment when the initiator indicator is set to one of the first entity or the second entity. 199. The system of claim 198, wherein the payment amount adjusted for the benefit for the pair of values is greater than the payment amount for the pair of values. 200. The system of claim 198, wherein the payment amount adjusted for the benefit for the pair of values is less than the payment amount for the pair of values. 201. A claim settlement system comprising: at least one request submitted by the claimant for the claim and at least one corresponding offer submitted by the other claim entity; pre-selected criteria, agreed by the petitioner and the other entity, that will be used during the analysis of at least one request and at least one corresponding bid to determine whether a debt settlement has occurred; Φ φ · ««.. 13341 -108 Dispute Settlement Program ο Receivable created to execute a number-by-criterion analysis when executed by a programmed processor and calculate claims settlement when the criteria are met and a programmed-to-claim processor processor to analyze at least one request and at least one matching offer based on pre-selected criteria, and when the pre-selected criteria are met, calculating a settlement of a specified amount to be paid, the claimant to settle the claim, and setting a settlement initiation indicator that automatically initiates payment to the claimant. 202. A dispute resolution application stored on a computer-accessible storage medium for execution by a processor comprising: The number of modules that the processor executes: receive and compare paired monetary values presented by two opposing entities with respect to the claim, delete paired monetary values that differ from each other by more than a specified range, calculate the settlement amount to be paid by one entity to another entity if the pair of monetary values they differ less than the specified range based on the pair and then delete the pair and provide a settlement amount for delivery to both entities. 203. A method of automated dispute resolution in a system with at least one base unit comprising: (a) the introduction of information corresponding to a series of rounds of satisfaction claims received from the first party to the dispute by 13341 - 109— · base units without disclosing the requirements of any party opposing the first party; (b) introducing information corresponding to a series of bidding rounds to satisfy a claim received from the counterparty counterparty into the base unit without disclosing the claims of either counterparty counterparty; (c) steps (a) and (b) occurring in any order; (d) comparing the information corresponding to the series of requests and the series of offers after the rounds according to predetermined conditions; (e) determining, using the base unit, whether the settlement of the dispute is due to the requirement and offer in the round by meeting predetermined conditions; (f) if the request and offer in the round causes settlement, the calculation of the settlement payment shall be equal to: (i) a first value calculated according to the first predetermined formula if the bid in the round is less than the requirement and within a predetermined percentage to the requirement in the same round; or (ii) the requirement if the bid in the round is equal or greater than the requirement; (iii) a second value, calculated according to the second predetermined formula, if the tender is not within a predetermined percentage of the requirement in all rounds but the difference between the tender and the corresponding requirement is less than the predetermined amount; (g) the permanent deletion of a series of requests and a series of offers if either none of the series of requests and series of offers meets pre-established conditions or a settlement payment has been calculated; and 13341 (H) reporting either a settlement failure report when none of the series of requests and the series of tenders meets the predetermined conditions and all differences between the unsuccessful tenders and the corresponding request are greater than the predetermined amount, or the settlement report, including the settlement payment, when the predetermined conditions are met or the bid is not within a predetermined percentage to the requirement in all rounds, but the difference between the particular bid and the corresponding request is less than the predetermined amount. 204. Automated dispute resolution system, comprising: processor for processing requests and offers; means for introducing information identifying the dispute, a series of claims satisfaction claims made by or on behalf of the person involved in the dispute, and a series of claims settlement entities by the entity facing the claimant dispute to the processor via a communication link; memory means, accessible by the processor, for storing information identifying the dispute, and for temporarily storing a series of claims claims and a series of claims to settle claims, for use by the processor in a series of rounds without revealing a series of requests to the recipient or series of offers to a person; comparative means in communication with the processor for receiving and comparing one of the series of requests and one of the series of offers in successive rounds, according to predetermined conditions until either all of the series of requests and series of offers are exhausted or settlement for request and offer is indicated in the round so that if settlement is indicated in the round, the claim is settled: (a) the amount in accordance with the first predetermined formula if the bid in the round in which the predetermined condition is met is less than the requirement and within a predetermined percentage of the requirement in the round, (b) the requirement if the bid in any round is equal to or greater than the requirement, and (c) an amount according to the second predetermined formula, if the offer is not within a predetermined condition in any round but the difference between the offer and the corresponding request is less than the predetermined amount, means for permanently preventing reuse of unsuccessful the request or failed bid by the comparative means in the next round and the means for communicating the result of the comparison to the person and entity. 205. The system of claim 204, further comprising means for accessing current settlements from other disputes. 206. The system of claim 204, wherein the communication link is an Internet connection. 207. The system of claim 204, wherein the communication link is a voice link. 208. The system of claim 204, wherein the series of settlement offers comprises three settlement offers. 209. The system of claim 204, further comprising: means for generating voice messages over the telephone connection to guide the user in use of the system. 210. The system of claim 204, further comprising: security means to prevent access to the system unless at least one of the following is provided to the system: 13341 -112 • ··········· · · · (a) the case identification number identifying the dispute; (b) the security code corresponding to the dispute; or (c) the manager code for the person or entity. 211. The system of claim 204, further comprising: timing means for associating input time with at least the first of a series of claims to satisfy the claim and with at least the first of a series of offers to settle the claim. 212. The system of claim 204, wherein all of the series of requests and the series of offers are received by the system at different times. 213. Automated dispute resolution system comprising: processor means for processing requests and offers; means for introducing information identifying the dispute, a series of claims satisfaction claims made by or on behalf of the person involved in the dispute, and a series of claims settlement entities by the entity facing the claimant claim dispute to the processor means via a communication link; adjustable means for indicating whether or not to compare the forced wheel; memory means, accessible by processor means, for storing the information identifying the dispute and for temporarily storing a series of claims satisfaction claims and a series of claims settlement claims, for use by the processor means in a series of rounds without revealing a series of requests to the opposite or a series of offers to a person; settlement means for indicating when set up, settling disputes and calculating settlement values as a result such that when setting settlement means on a round, the settlement means calculates a settlement value equal to: (a) a first amount according to the first predetermined formula if the bid in the round is less than the requirement and within a predetermined percentage to the requirement in the round, (b) the requirement if the bid in any round is equal to or greater than the requirement; ) a second amount according to the second predetermined formula if the offer is not within a predetermined condition in any round, but the difference between a particular offer and the corresponding requirement is less than the predetermined amount; comparing means in the processor means for receiving and comparing requests and offers in successive rounds, according to predetermined conditions, and comparing in a forced wheel only when the adjustable means are set according to the conditions of the forced wheel, the comparing means adjusting the settling means when either predetermined or forced wheel conditions are met, the comparative means processing a series of requests and a series of offers until: (ii) not all of the series of requests and bid series have been exhausted and the adjustable means are set, with the comparative means performing a comparison of the forced wheel of the forced wheel request with the forced wheel offer according to predetermined conditions of the enforced wheel and sets the settlement means to indicate the settlement if the conditions of the enforced wheel are met or 13341 -114 ··· · ♦ · (iii) not all of the series of requests and bid series have been exhausted and the adjustable means are either not set or the conditions of the enforced round are not met, the comparative means adjusting the adjustable means to indicate that settlement has not been achieved; means for preventing re-use of the failed request or failed bid by the comparative means in any round that is not a forced wheel, and means for communicating the settlement result to the person and entity. 214. The system of claim 213, further comprising: negotiation means, bound by a plurality of rules, to prompt according to the rules at least one of the person or entity before introducing one of the series of requests or series of offers into the processor means. 215. The system of claim 213, further comprising: means for determining whether the person or entity is the initiator. 216. The system of claim 214, further comprising: means for adjusting the first amount of the request and the second amount by the preferential difference when the person or entity is an initiator. 217. The system of claim 213, further comprising: means for initiating an online settlement of the settlement value in accordance with the preference of said person or entity. 13341 -115 • 0 00 0000 ♦ 0 0 0 «0 ··» 0 00 0 218. The system of claim 213, further comprising: means for generating an online settlement document including at least some of the information identifying the dispute. 219. Automated dispute resolution system comprising: processor means for processing requests and offers; means for introducing information identifying the dispute, a series of claims satisfaction claims made by or on behalf of the person involved in the dispute, and a series of claims settlement entities by the entity facing the claimant claim dispute to the processor means via a communication link; memory means, accessible by processor means, for storing the information identifying the dispute and for temporarily storing a series of claims satisfaction claims and a series of claims settlement claims, for use by the processor means in a series of rounds without revealing a series of requests to the opposite or a series of offers to a person; settlement means for indicating when set, settling disputes and calculating settlement values as a result; negotiation means, bound by a plurality of rules, to prompt according to the rules at least one of the person or entity before introducing one of the series of requests or series of offers into the processor means using non-revealing messages; comparing means in the processor means for receiving and comparing requests and offers in successive rounds, according to predetermined conditions for adjusting the settlement means when the predetermined conditions are met; 13341 Means to prevent re-use of the unsuccessful request or unsuccessful offer by the comparative means in any non-enforced round and means to communicate the settlement result to the person and entity. 220. Automated dispute resolution system, comprising: processor means for processing requests and offers; means for introducing information identifying the dispute, a series of claims satisfaction claims made by or on behalf of the person involved in the dispute, and a series of claims settlement entities by the entity facing the claimant claim dispute to the processor means via a communication link; initiation means for indicating when set that a dispute initiator exists in the system and for identifying the initiator; memory means, accessible by processor means, for storing the information identifying the dispute and for temporarily storing a series of claims satisfaction claims and a series of claims settlement claims, for use by the processor means in a series of rounds without revealing a series of requests to the opposite or a series of offers to a person; settlement means for indicating, when set, dispute settlement; means for calculating the settlement value adjusted for advantage when both the settlement means and the initiation means are set, and for calculating normal payment values when the settlement means are set and the initiation means are not set; comparing means in the processor means for receiving and comparing requests and offers in successive rounds, according to predetermined conditions for adjusting the settlement means when the predetermined conditions are met; means for preventing re-use of the failed request or failed bid by the comparative means in any round that is not a forced wheel, and means for communicating the settlement result to the person and entity. 221. Automated dispute resolution system, comprising: processor means for processing requests and offers; means for introducing information identifying the dispute, a series of claims satisfaction claims made by or on behalf of the person involved in the dispute, and a series of claims settlement entities by the entity facing the claimant claim dispute to the processor means via a communication link; memory means, accessible by processor means, for storing information identifying the dispute and for temporarily storing a series of debt satisfaction requests and a series of debt settlement offers, for use by the processor means in a series of rounds without revealing a series of requests to a counterforce or series of offers to a person; settling means for indicating when set, dispute settlement and calculating settling value for dispute when set; comparison means in the processor means for receiving and comparing requests and offers in successive rounds, according to predetermined conditions for 13341 -118Setting the settlement means when the conditions are met; Predetermined means for automatic online settlement values from the entity to the person indicated by the entity or entity; initiating the transfer according to the preference means to prevent re-use of the failed request or failed offer by the comparative means in any round and means for communicating the settlement result to the person and entity. 222. The system of claim 221, further comprising: means for generating an online settlement document containing at least some of the information identifying the dispute. 223. A method for communicating and processing a series of claims to a claim made by or on behalf of a person involved in a dispute with at least one other person and a series of claims settlement claims using a computerized dispute resolution system with at least one base unit including operating system management software a base unit, with means for introducing information corresponding to the dispute identification and the persons involved in the dispute into the base unit, and memory means for storing the information corresponding to the identification of the dispute and the persons involved in the dispute, characterized in that the method comprises the steps of: (a) introducing information corresponding to a series of rounds of claims claims received from the party representing the plaintiff involved in the dispute into the base unit without disclosing the claims to other parties involved in the dispute; (b) introducing information corresponding to a series of rounds of offers to satisfy the claim received from the party representing the person 13341 -1199 9 9 9 · 9 · 9999 99 ··· • 9 99 99 · involved in the dispute, against which a claim is made to the base unit without disclosing offers to other parties to the dispute; (c) steps (a) and (b) occurring in any order; (d) comparing information corresponding to a series of requests and a series of rounds of bid according to predetermined conditions including, (i) that the claim is settled by the value according to the first predetermined formula if the bid on any round is less than the request and within a predetermined percentage to request in the same round; (ii) that the claim is settled by the value of the request if the bid in the round is equal to or greater than the request; (iii) that the claim is not settled if the offer is not within a predetermined percentage to the requirement in all rounds, unless the difference between the offer and the request is less than the predetermined amount, in which case the claim is settled according to the second predetermined formula; (e) permanently deleting a request and offer in each round that does not result in a settlement based on the predetermined conditions after comparing the request and offer in that round; and (f) communicating the results of the comparison to the claimant and the claimant or their representatives. 224. A dispute resolution process comprising: the provision of a first threshold below which the first dispute resolution criteria apply and above which the second dispute resolution criteria apply; analyzing the unequal values submitted by counterparties for the claim in the rounds so that in the round: 13341 -120 «·· (a) if all values fall below the first threshold, the first settlement occurs when the first decision criteria are met and the first payment amount is calculated; (b) if all values are above the first threshold, a second settlement occurs when the second decision criteria are met and the second payment amount is calculated; and (c) if at least one of the values is below the first threshold and at least one other value is above the first threshold and at least one of the first or second decision criteria is met, the case will be settled by a settlement amount not greater than the maximum the value of the round, even if the median of the values in the round is greater than the maximum exposure amount and the sending of a notice identifying the settlement amount of the dispute equal to one of the first payment amount, the second payment amount or the settlement amount. 225. The method of claim 224, further comprising: the provision of a second threshold below which the second resolution criteria applies and above which the third resolution criteria apply; 226. A method comprising: the establishment of a number of ranges, each with a single settlement criterion; analyzing the values submitted by the counterparties for the receivable in rounds to the extent to which each value falls; if the analysis in the round results in a settlement, calculating the settlement amount for the claim so that it is less than the maximum exposure amount; and 13341 -121 * ·· ·· · Generate Settlement Report for Receivable. 227. The method of claim 226, comprising: Allocation of settlement amount among multiple entities 228. The method of claim 226, comprising: aggregating multiple submissions from multiple entities into one that further that values further.