REGISTER  |  SIGN IN
United States Patent5987132
RowneyNovember 16, 1999
Title
System, method and article of manufacture for conditionally accepting a payment method utilizing an extensible, flexible architecture
Abstract
An architecture that provides a server that communicates bidirectionally with a gateway over a first communication link, over which service requests flow to the server for one or more merchants and/or consumers is disclosed. Service requests are associated with a particular merchant based on storefront visited by a consumer or credentials presented by a merchant. Service requests result in merchant specific transactions that are transmitted to the gateway for further processing on existing host applications. By presenting the appropriate credentials, the merchant could utilize any other computer attached to the Internet utilizing a SSL or SET protocol to query the vPOS system remotely and obtain capture information, payment administration information, inventory control information, audit information and process customer satisfaction information.
Inventors:Rowney; Kevin T. B. (San Francisco, CA)
Assignee:VeriFone, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA)
Appl. No.:664835
Filed:June 17, 1996
Current U.S. Class:705/77 705/79 705/26 705/35 705/39 705/40 705/44 705/76 
Field of Search:380/9,23,24,25,28,48,49,50,59 705/26,27,35,38,39,40,44
U.S. Patent Documents
3651511March 1972Andrews et al.
3956615May 1976Anderson et al.
4277837July 1981Stuckert
4303904December 1981Chasek
4454414June 1984Benton
4614961September 1986Pavlov et al.
4630201December 1986White
4689478August 1987Hale et al.
4766293August 1988Boston
4799156January 1989Shavit et al.
4859837August 1989Halpern
4877950October 1989Halpern
4906828March 1990Halpern
4935962June 1990Austin
4968873November 1990Dethloff et al.
4992646February 1991Collin
5016274May 1991Micali et al.
5030806July 1991Collin
5175416December 1992Mansvelt et al.
5221838June 1993Gutman et al.
5283819February 1994Glick et al.
5297030March 1994Vassigh
5420405May 1995Chasek
5440634August 1995Jones et al.
5442791August 1995Wrabetz et al.
5448045September 1995Clark
5452352September 1995Talton
5453601September 1995Rosen
5455407October 1995Rosen
5459304October 1995Eisenmann
5465291November 1995Barrus et al.
5475826December 1995Fischer
5476259December 1995Weingardt
5478993December 1995Derksen
5485510January 1996Colbert
5506832April 1996Arshi
5557518September 1996Rosen
5590038December 1996Pitroda
5590197December 1996Chen et al.
5671279September 1997Elgamal
5671280September 1997Aucsmith et al.
5677955October 1997Doggett et al.
5715314February 1998Payne et al.
5729594March 1998Klingman
5732400March 1998Mandler et al.
5742845April 1998Wagner
5757917May 1998Rose et al.
5781632July 1998Odom
5793966December 1998Amstein et al.
5802497September 1998Manasse
5809144September 1998Sirbu et al.
Foreign Patent Documents
0 172 670 A2Feb., 1986EP
0 256 768 A2Feb., 1988EP
0 256 768 A3Feb., 1988EP
0 256 768 B1Mar., 1994EP
0 326 699Aug., 1989EP
0 363 122 A2Apr., 1990EP
0 363 122 A3Apr., 1990EP
0 363 122 B1Dec., 1994EP
0 416 482Mar., 1991EP
0 527 639Feb., 1993EP
0 658 862Jun., 1995EP
0 666 681Aug., 1995EP
0 668 579Aug., 1995EP
2 251 098Jun., 1992GB
WO 91/16691Oct., 1991WO
WO 93/08545Apr., 1993WO
Other References
Anderson, R.J., UEPS --A Second Generation Electronic Wallet, (1992) University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, pp. 411-418. .
Bank Systems Technology, SET Tool Kit for Secure Commerce, (May 1996) pp. 16. .
Bellare et al., iKP --A Family of Secure Electronic Payment Tools, USENIX Association, First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, (Jul. 11-12, 1995) pp. 89-106. .
Bryant, A., Am I Bid Six? Click to Bid Six!, The New York Times, (Mar. 13, 1996) pp. D1-D6. .
Camp et al., Token and National Money in Electronic Commerce, USENIX Association, First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, (Jul. 11-12, 1995), pp. 1-12. .
Cox et al., NetBill Security and Transaction Protocol, USENIX Association, First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, (Jul. 11-12, 1995) pp. 77-88. .
One-Click Software Distribution Via the Web, Cutting Edge, Datamation, (May 1, 1996), pp. 16. .
Software Taps Net for Supply Data Sharing, Purchasing, EBN, (Apr. 22, 1996), pp. 50. .
Flohr, U., Electronic Money, Byte, (Jun. 1996), pp. 74. .
Gifford, et al., Payment Switch for Open Networks, USENIX Association, First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, (Jul. 11-12, 1995), pp. 69-75. .
Gosling, et al., The Java Language Environment a White Paper, Sun Microsystems Computer Company, (May 1995). .
Jones, et al., Securing the World Wide Web, Smart Tokens and Their Implementation, World Wide Web Journal, O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., (Dec. 11-14, 1995), pp. 397-409. .
Kamens, J., Retrofitting Network Security to Third-Party Applications --The SecureBase Experience, USENIS Association, UNIX Security Symposium IV, (1993) pp. 41-57. .
Marshall, M., Banking on the Internet, Communications Week, (May 20, 1996) No. 611. .
Messmer, E., ActiveX Pioneer Pushes a Commerce, Network World, (May 6, 1996) pp. 33. .
Messmer, E., Edify Soft to Let Banks Open Doors Online, Network World, (May 20, 1996). .
Messmer, E., Start-Up Puts Security SOCKS on Window Apps, Network World, (May 20, 1996). .
Microsoft and VeriFone Announce Agreement to Deliver Commerce-enabled Internet Retailing Solutions, Microsoft PressRelease, (Aug. 5, 1996) pp. 1-3. .
Real Security, Nondex Magazine, (Summer 1996) pp. 5-6. .
What's Up Doc?, That's Infotainment, Mondex Magazine, (Summer 1996) pp. 8-10. .
Ready to Go. The Trillion Yen Business, Mondex Magazine, (Summer 1996) pp. 27-29. .
Morgan, L., Cashing In: The Rush is on to Make Net Commerce Happen, Internet World (Feb. 1995), pgs. 48-51. .
Nash, et al., Vendors Deliver IS-Specific Apps Over the 'Net, News, (May 6, 1996), pp. 16. .
Nee, E., Hatim Tyabji, Upside, (Sep. 1996) pp. 85-93. .
Neuman, et al., Requirements for Network Payment: The NetCheque.TM. Perspective, University of Southern California, (1995) pp. 32-36. .
Ozer, K.,. Online Software Stores, PC Magazine, (May 28, 1996), pp. 36. .
Rodriguez, K., Pushing the Envelope, Communications Week, (May 13, 1996) pp. 37-39. .
Rupley, S., Digital Bucks? Stop Here, PC Magazine, (May 28, 1996), pp. 54-60. .
Semilof, M., Boosting Web Business, Communications Week, (May 20, 1996) pp. 31-32. .
Sibert et al., The DigiBox: A Self-Protecting Container for Information Commerce, First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, (Jul. 11-12, 1995), pp. 171-183. .
Sirbu, et al., NetBill: An Internat Commerce System Optimized for Network Delivered Services, Carnegie Mellon University, (1995) pp. 20-25. .
Sliwa, et al., Netscape Unveils New 'Net Commerce Offerings, Network World, (May 13, 1996) p. 10. .
Singleton, A., Cash on the Wirehead, Byte, (Jun. 1995) pp. 71-78. .
Tang, et al., A Set of Protocols for Micropayments in Distributed Systems, First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, (Jul. 11-12, 1995) pp. 107-115. .
Thompson, et al., A Secure Public Network Access Mechanism, UNIX Security Symposium, (1992) pp. 227-238. .
Trommer, D., ECS Catalog Merges EDI/NET Platforms: Enables Online Ordering in EDI Format Over Net, EBN, (Apr. 22, 1996) pp. 54. .
Trommer, D., GE/Netscape Form Software Venture: Will Focus on Electronic Commerce Solutions, EBN, (Apr. 22, 1996) pp. 54. .
Vaughan-Nichols, Steven, XVision Turns a PC Into X Terminal for Unix, VMS Host, Government Computer News, Jul. 8, 1996, pp. 38, 42. .
Vincenzetti et al., STEL: Secure TELnet, 5th UNIX Security Symposium, Jun. 5-7, 1995. .
Wexler, Joanie, AT&T Sell Insurers on the Web, Network World, May 20, 1996, pp. 27. .
Wiggins, Richard, Business Browser: A Tool to Make Web Commerce Secure, Internet World, Feb. 1995, pp. 52, 54, 55. .
Yacobi, Yacov, Efficient Electronic Money, Official Gazette, Apr. 23, 1996, p. 2976. .
Yee et al., Secure Coprocessors in Electronic Commerce Applications, First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, Jul. 11-12, 1995, pp. 155-169. .
ABA Banking Journal, Will SET Kill Card Fraud On the Internet?, Apr. 1996, pp. 237-238. .
Advertising Age, Visa Turns To Redgate for Online, CD-Rom Work; Sample the Surf; Checkfree, Cybercash Interact; New on the 'Net; EDS Joins the Cyber-Rush, Jul. 17, 1995, pp. 249-250. .
AFX News, Microsoft, American Express Unit Sign Internet Payment System Agreement, Feb. 29, 1996, p. 427. .
Agence France Presse, Visa, Mastercard Announce Security Standard for Internet, Feb. 1, 1996, p. 85. .
The American Banker, Vendors Ready --and Waiting --for E-Commerce, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 47-50. .
The American Banker, News Analysis: Despite Accord, Hard Work Ahead On Security Standard for Internet, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 51-53. .
The American Banker, Microsoft Signs Visa as a Processor; Pact Gives Banks Alternative to Intuit, Feb. 14, 1996, pp. 528-529. .
The American Banker, Two New On-Line Alliances Pair Niche Leaders, Feb. 21, 1996, pp. 493-494. .
The American Banker, News Analysis: Beware of Deals Like Verifone-Oracle, Banks Told, Feb. 27, 1996, pp. 443-445. .
The American Banker, Amex Accepts SET Protocol For Payments On Internet, Mar. 1, 1996, pp. 382-383. .
The American Banker, Encryption Software Firm Adopts On-Line Protocol Mar. 14, 1996, pp. 352. .
The American Banker, Frontiers, Mar. 18, 1996, pp. 317-319. .
The American Banker, Card Briefs: Novus Supporting SET Payment Protocol, Apr. 2, 1996, p. 235. .
The American Banker, If It Has To Do With Data Security, Changes Are This `Little` Company Is in Involved, Apr. 15, 1996, pp. 156-160. .
The American Banker, On the Question Of Internet Security, A Three-Sided Debate, Apr. 15, 1996, pp. 161-165. .
The American Banker, Web Security Firm To Add MC-Visa Protocol, Apr. 23, 1996, pp. 130-131. .
The American Banker, Card Briefs: ICverify Internet Tools To Get SET Protocol, May 3, 1996, p. 53. .
The American Banker, Mastercard Official Resigns To Lead Internet Security Firm, May 3, 1996, pp. 54-55. .
American Marketplace, Visa-Mastercard Security Agreement: A Green Light For Online Commerce, Feb. 8, 1996, pp. 5-6. .
Amusement Business, More `Digital Homeless` Find Place in Cyberspace; Professionals Not Subscribing To An Online Computer Service, Feb. 12, 1996, pp. 536-537. .
AP Online, Cable TV's Sci-Fi Channel, Jun. 9, 1995, pp. 259-261. .
AP Online, Purchases On Net Studied, Jan. 31, 1996, pp. 171-172. .
AP Online, AP Top News At 5 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 86-88. .
AP Online, AP Top News at 6 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 89-91. .
AP Online, AP Top News At 7 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 92-94. .
AP Online, AP Top News At 8 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1. 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 95-97. .
AP Online, AP Top News At 9 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 115-117. .
AP Online, AP Financial News At 9:10 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 118-122. .
AP Online, AP Top News At 10 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 125-127. .
AP Online, Standard Found For Web Credit, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 123-124. .
AP Online, AP financial News At 11:10 a.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 107-110. .
AP Online, AP Financial News At 3:10 p.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 98-102. .
AP Online, AP Financial News At 5:10 p.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 103-106. .
AP Online, AP Financial News At 5:20 p.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 1, 1996, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 111-114. .
AP Online, Amer. Express Backs Rival Ides, Feb. 29, 1996, pp. 428-429. .
AP Worldstream, Financial Pages Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 128-129. .
AP Worldstream, Financial Pages, Feb. 29, 1996, pp. 430-432. .
AP Worldstream, A Summary of News From the U.S. Virgin Islands, May 25, 1995, pp. 265-268. .
Asia, Inc., Internet Security, May 1996, pp. 64-66, 67-69. .
Asian Banker, Shopping On the Internet, Mar. 1996, pp. 384-388. .
Asian Wall Street Journal, Fraud, Nosy Web Pages Torment Internet Users, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 320. .
Asiaweek, Protocols, Cyber Security; How To Head Off the Hackers, Feb. 23, 1996, pp. 489-490. .
Associated Press, Cable's Sci-Fi Channel Creates World Wide Web `Home page`, Jun. 9, 1995, pp. 262-264. .
Associated Press, Visa, and Mastercard Lead Group to Make Credit Purchases Safe On the Net, Jan. 31, 1996, pp. 173-174. .
Associated Press, Visa, MasterCard Resolve Technical Differences For On-Line Credit Transactions, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 130-131. .
Associated Press, American Express Endorses Rivals' Ideal for Secure Online Credit, Feb. 29, 1996, pp. 433-434. .
Associated Press, American-Express Endorses Rivals' Idea For Secure Online Credit, Mar. 1, 1996, pp. 389-390. .
Austin American-Statesman, Standard Proposed For Electronic Verification, Jul. 3, 1995, pp. 251-252. .
Austin American-Statesman, Credit Cards To GFet Internet Security; Visa, MasterCard Have Agreed On a Way To Scramble Card Numbers, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 45-46. .
Baltimore Sun, Sun Names former Reporter to lead Move Into Internet; Service Will Offer News and Advertising, Jan. 31, 1996, pp. 175-176. .
Banker, Banks Take Charge, Mar. 1996, pp. 396-399. .
Banker, Product, Mar. 1996, pp. 400-403. .
Banker, Technology, Banks Take Charge, Mar. 1996, pp. 391-394. .
Banker, Visa, and MasterCard Join Forces to Develop Standards, Mar. 1996, p. 395. .
Banker, Credit Card Standards, Apr. 1996, p. 239. .
Banking Policy Report, Visa, and MasterCard Move to Safeguard Card Transactions on Internet, Mar. 4-18, 1996, pp. 370-371. .
Bank Systems & Technology, First Union, Open Market Hit the Internet, May 1995, pp. 269-270. .
Black Sun Interactive, 3D PointWorld, Downloading, PointWorld, Apr. 16, 1996, pp. 1. .
Business Journal-Portland, Taking the Plunge Into On-Line Sales, Feb. 9, 1996, pg. 2-4. .
Business Times, SNS Online Service Confident of Success, Nov. 27, 1995, pp. 184-186. .
Business Times, Opening Windows to Net Security, Mar. 6, 1996, pp. 362-363. .
Business Times, Card, IT Leaders Make Shopping On the Net Safer, Apr. 2, 1996, pp. 236. .
Business Wire, MasterCard International Goes Live On the Internet; New MasterCard World Wide Web Site Home Page Combines Utility and Imagination, Mar. 27, 1995, pp. 294-296. .
Business Wire, Adobe and Netscape to Bring Commercial Publishing to the Internet, Mar. 28, 1995, pp. 291-293. .
Business Wire, Emerging U.S. Debit Market Attracts International Player Jul. 27, 1995, pp. 244-245. .
Business Wire, VeriSign Inc. to Provide Digital IDs for Open Market's Secure WebServer; Key Technology for Verifying the Identities of Parties in Electronic Commerce, Aug. 14, 1995, pp. 241-243. .
Business Wire, ComNet '96 Explores Electronic Commerce; Business On the Internet the Focus of Many Conference Sessions, Jan 4, 1996, pp. 181-183. .
Business Wire, "Computer Within a Floppy Disk" Puts Secure Electronic Commerce In the Palm of Your Hand, Jan. 17, 1996, pp. 179-180. .
Business Wire, RSA Data Security, Inc. Establishes Japanese Subsidiary Company to Market RSA Encryption Technology to Developers In Japan, Feb. 8, 1996, pp. 7-8. .
Business Wire, VeriSign to Provide Digital ID Services for FTP Software's Esplanade (TM) Web Server for Windows NT; Alliance Will Ensure Secure Electronic Transactions for Users of New Web Servers, Feb. 12, 1996, pp. 538-540. .
Business Wire, First Data and Netscape Offering Internet Payment Processing Service; New Service Available Now, Feb. 20, 1996, pp. 500-501. .
Business Wire, RSA Announces Support for SET Payment Standard Across Entire Product Line; World's Most Popular Encryption Solution Provider Now Supports VISA/MasterCard Standard for Secure Payments Over the Internet, Mar. 4, 1996, pp. 372-373. .
Business Wire, Certicom --Special Task Group to Review Secure Electronic Transaction Protocol Developed by Visa and MasterCard --Sherry E. Shannon Appointed Chair of the New Task Group, Mar. 15, 1996, pp. 340-341. .
Business Wire, Panel of Electronic Commerce Experts to Reveal "What Gates and McNealy Won't Tell You About Electronic Commerce"--ICat Corp. Convenes Panel of Pioneers to Discuss the Hype and Reality at New York Trade Show, Mar. 26, 1996, pp. 289-290. .
Business Wire, Major Flaws Seen in Visa/MasterCard Security Plan for Internet Commerce; Network Secuity Expert Says RSA Encryption and Authentication Standard Leaves Consumers Vulnerable to Hackers, Apr. 16, 1996, pp. 154-155. .
Business Wire, ICVERIFY to Incorporated SET Specification in its Software Solutions; SET Specifications Provides Long Awaited Internet Security for Both Customers and Merchants, Apr. 26, 1996, pp. 125-126. .
Business Wire, John Gould Joins Terisa Systems As Chief Executive Officer, Apr. 29, 1996, pp. 102-103. .
Business Wire, IBM Leads Industry With Comprehensive Strategy, Technologies for Electronic Commerce; Electronic Shopping, Secure Transactions, May 1, 1996, pp. 70-75. .
Business Wire, L.L. Bean Signs Up With IBM; IBM Announces New Products, Service that Make Internet Real for Business, May 1, 1996, pp. 76-80. .
Business Wire, Electronic Commerce Just Got Real; NETCOM, Federal Express, Open Market and CheckFree Join iCat to Discuss Breakthrough Electronic Commerce Solution, May 2, 1996, pp. 59-61. .
Calgary Herald, Visa and MasterCard Agree On Standard, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 54-55. .
Calgary Herald, 'Net Security Hinders Commerce, Apr. 4, 1996, pp. 228-229. .
Canada Newswire, Attention Business/Technology Editors: Special Task Group to Review Secure Electronics Transaction Protocol Developed by Visa and MasterCard, Mar. 15, 1996, pp. 342-343. .
CardFax, A Joint Technical Standard for Security Credit Card Transactions Over the Internet, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 56. .
Card News, Security Advances May Improve, Not Perfect, On-Line Transactions, Feb. 5, 1996, pp. 28-30. .
Card News, Amex, First Data Initiate On-Line Purchase Efforts, Mar. 4, 1996, pp. 374-375. .
Card News, Card News Briefs: Discovery Joins Security Rush, Apr. 1, 1996, pp. 240. .
Card News, Cards on the Web Addressed, Apr. 29, 1996, pp. 104-105. .
Cards International, VeriSign Secures Net Deals, Jul. 20, 1995, pp. 246-247. .
Cards International, International: MC and Visa Co-Operate On Internet Specs, Feb. 14, 1996, 530-531. .
Cards International, Ames Set to Support Security Specs, Mar. 12, 1996, pp. 356-357. .
Charleston Gazette, Secure Internet Credit Code Unveiled, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 57-59. .
U.P.I., Checkfree Partnering With Cybercash, Jul. 19, 1995, p. 248. .
Chicago Sun-Times, Visa, MasterCard Agree On Online Security, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 60-61. .
Christian Science Monitor, Visa, MasterCard Tackle Internet Security, Feb. 2, 1996, p. 80. .
Columbus Dispatch, Roving Bandits Make Buying Risky Business, Nov. 6, 1994 pp. 312-313. .
COMLINE Daily News from Korea, MasterCard, Visa Agree to a Single Security Standard, Feb. 7, 1996, p. 11. .
Communications News, Business Banks Its Future On Electronic Commerce; Strategies Being Pursued for Secure Financial Transactions on the Internet; Netcomm Update; Industry Trend or EventCom, Apr. 1996, pp. 241-243. .
CommunicationsWeek, MCI Offers Secure Transactions Service, Oct. 2, 1995, pp. 229-230. .
CommunicationsWeek, In Brief; Charge It On the 'Net, Feb. 5, 1996, p. 31. .
CommunicationsWeek, On-Line Payment Scheme Arrives, Feb. 26, 1996, pp. 456-458. .
CommunicationsWeek, In Brief; Amex `Set` For Internet, Mar. 4, 1996, p. 376. .
CommunicationsWeek, Safety On the 'Net --Can Encryption Offer Peace of Mind to Nervous Network Managers, Mar. 25, 1996, pp. 299-303. .
CommunicationsWeek, Tandem, VLSI Partner to Develop Security Chips for Commercial Use, Apr. 15, 1996, pp. 166-167. .
CommunicationsWeek, Shop Till You Drop With the JEPI Standard, Apr. 22, 1996, pp. 134-135. .
CommunicationsWeek, Terisa, to Add SET to Web Software, Apr. 29, 1996, pp. 106-107. .
CommunicationsWeek, Internet Security--A Moving Target, May 13, 1996, pp. 12-15. .
Computer Conference Analysis Newsletter, Uniforum; Conference On Unix and Open Systems With Focus On the Internet; Industry Trend or Event, Feb. 26, 1996, pp. 459-479. .
Computer Connection, Telecomm Decency Act Draws Cheers, Jeers, and Fears, Feb. 10, 1996, pp. 549-557. .
Computer Connection, Internet Security Standards Agreement, Feb. 10, 1996, pp. 558-559. .
Computergram International, Microsoft Confounded: Visa-MasterCard Spec Free, Feb. 2, 1996, p. 62. .
Computergram International, First Data, Netscape Jointly Deliver First Real-Time On-Line Credit, Apr. 11, 1996, p. 223. .
Computer Reseller News, Terisa Systems Enters Channel With Security Products, Apr. 22, 1996, pp. 136-137. .
Computer Shopper, AT&T Offers-Low-Tech Protection for Internet: No-Deductible Insurance for Online Buyers, May, 1996, pp. 81-82. .
Computer Technology Review, Digital Signatures Keep Cyberstreets Safe for Shoppers, Feb. 196, pp. 132-134. .
Computer Weekly, Web Takes the Credit; Visa, MasterCard Join Forces to Develop Secure Payment Systems for Electronic Commerce; Company Business and Marketing, Feb. 8, 1996, pp. 9-10. .
Computerworld, New Shorts, Feb. 5, 1996, pp. 32-33. .
Computerworld, Microsoft Provides Rapid Net Deployment Ability, Mar. 18, 1996, pp. 321-323. .
Computerworld, Briefs, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 324. .
Computerworld, Predictions, Apr. 29, 1996, pp. 108-110. .
Computerworld, Credit-Card Authorization Set For Net, May 13, 1996, pp. 16-17. .
Corporate EFT Report, MasterCard, Visa to Combine Internet Security Standards, Feb. 7, 1996, pp. 12-13. .
Corporate EFT Report, Products Could Spur On-Line Transactions, Mar. 6, 1996, pp. 364-365. .
Corporate EFT Report, Amex Eyes Internet Security, Mar. 6, 1996, pp. 366. .
Corporate EFT Report, Corporate EFT Reports News Briefs Apr. 3, 1996, pp. 230-231. .
Credit Card Management, Internet Commerce Gets A Boost, Mar. 1996, pp. 404-405. .
Credit Card News, Electronic Commerce Gets a Boost, Feb. 15, 1996, pp. 526-527. .
Daily Mail, Now Spending Cuts Are On the Cards; Money Mail, Feb. 7, 1996, pp. 14-15. .
Daily Telegraph, Card Guard Makes It Safer to Cybershop, Feb. 2, 1996, p. 63. .
Daily Telegraph, Innovations: Codes to Beat the Criminal Internet, Feb. 13, 1996, pp. 534-535. .
Datamation, Microsoft Plays Internet Catch-U. Microsoft & the Enterprise: I-Nets; Company Business and Marketing; Cover Story, Mar. 15, 1996, pp. 344-348. .
Des Moines Register, Safe Shopping On-Line; Card Association Agree On Internet Security, Feb. 17, 1996, pp. 520-522. .
Digital Media, Turning the Page; MCI Switches From News Corp to the Microsoft Network; Letter; Company Business Marketing Column, Mar. 12, 1996, pp. 358-360. .
Discount Merchandiser, Secure Electronic Transactions, Mar. 1996, pgs. 406-407. .
DM News, Open Market Offers Internet Security; Clients Can Get On the World Wide Web For Less than $1,000, Apr. 3, 1995, pp. 281-282. .
DM News, Mainstream Alternative For Advertisers; Business Wants to be Visible; Cybercitizens Want to Buy, Feb. 12, 1996, pp. 543-545. .
DM News, Canadian Big Guns Set Sights On Skittish Cybershoppers; St. Remy Multimedia, Cogco Cable in Quadruple Play Feb. 19, 1996, pp. 506-508. .
DM News, IBM's Commercial Online Service Will Build DBs, Track Spending, Feb. 19, 1996, pp. 509-510. .
Denver Post, On-Line Car Dealer Rings Up 57 Sales In Four Months, Feb. 10, 1995, pp. 299-300. .
dot.Com, Internet Data's Payment Service, Mar. 1, 1996, p. 408. .
Edge: Work-Group Computing Report, Digital ID: Verisign Inc. To Provide Digital IDS For Open Market's Secure Webserver; Key Technology For Verifying the Identifies of Parties In Electronic Commerce, Aug. 21, 1995, pp. 236-237. .
Edge: Work-Group Computing Report, E-Commerce: IBM Leads Industry With Comprehensive Strategy, Technologies for Electronic Commerce; Electronic Shopping, Secure Transactions, May 6, 1996, pgs. 48-52. .
EDI News, MasterCard, Visa To Combine Internet Security Standards, Feb. 19, 1996, pp. 511-512. .
EDP Weekly, Visa, MasterCard Announce Single Technical Standard To Safeguard Payment Card Purchases on Internet, Feb. 12, 1996, p. 543. .
EDP Weekly, American Express To License Microsoft Software To Help Secure Transactions Via Internet, Mar. 11, 1996, p. 361. .
EDP Weekly, ANSI Committee Creates Special Task Group To Review Secure Electronic Transaction Protocol, Mar. 25, 1996, p. 304. .
EDP Weekly, Network Security Expert Notes Major Flaws in Visa/MasterCard Security Plan, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 140. .
EFT Report, Service Variety Seen Key to Home Banking's Future, Mar. 29, 1995, pp. 288-290. .
EFT Report, MasterCard, Visa To Combine Internet Security Standards, Feb. 14, 1996, pp. 532-533. .
Electronics Buyers' News, EC Providers Take On Security --Visa, MC Announce Transaction Standard; GE Intros B--to --B Solution, Feb. 12, 1996, pp. 547-548. .
Electronic Buyers' News, SET Controversy Flares Up --Insiders Debate Integrity Of Proposed Standard, Apr. 29, 1996, pp. 113-115. .
Electronic Engineering Times, Credit-Card Firms Agree On Security, Feb. 5, 1996, pg. 34. .
Electronic Engineering Times, E-Cash Coming? Bank On It, Feb. 19, 1996, pp. 513-516. .
Electronic Engineering Times, Secure Internet Transactions Seen, Feb. 26, 1996, pp. 480-481. .
Electronic Engineering Times, Copyright Protection Moves Into Digital Age, Mar. 18, 1996, pp. 325-327. .
Electronic Engineering Times, Form Factors Figures Into Security Debate, Apr. 29, 1996, pp. 111-112. .
Electronic Marketplace Report, Visa, MasterCard Announce Standard For Securing Internet Transactions, Feb. 6, 1996, pp. 17-18. .
Electronic Messaging News, Visa, MasterCard Combine Standards, Feb. 7, 1996, pg. 16. .
Electronic Messaging News, MasterCard, Visa In Internet Pact, Feb. 26, 1996, pg. 482. .
Electronic Payments International, Ingenico Buys Innovation Data Systems, Mar. 1996, pp. 409-410. .
Electronic Payments International, Getting All SET For On-Line Commerce, Mar. 1996, pp. 411-412. .
Electronic Payments International, The Growing Impact of the Internet, Mar. 1996, pp. 413-415. .
Electronic Payments International, Telefonica Makes the Right Calls Before SET, Apr. 1996, pp. 244-245. .
Electronic Payments International, Consortium Explores Internet Payments, Apr. 1996, pp. 246-247. .
Electronic Payments International, Telefonica Makes the Right Calls Before SET, Apr. 1996, pp. 248-249. .
Electronic Payments International, Consortium Explores Internet Payments, Apr. 1996, pp. 250-251. .
Exchange, Novell Expands Networked Application and Electronic Commerce Offerings, Mar. 22, 1996, pp. 315-316. .
Extel Examiner, Microsoft, American Express Unit Sign Internet Payment System, Feb. 29, 1996, p. 435. .
FDCH Political Transcripts, The National Consumers League Holds A News Conference on Combatting Fraud on the Internet; Washington, D.C., Feb. 27, 1996, pp. 446-455. .
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony, Testimony Oct. 17, 1995 Eugene Ludwig Comptroller Office of the Comptroller of the Currency House Banking Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Bank Consolidation and Interstate Mega-Mergers, Oct. 17, 1995, pp. 214-226. .
Federal News Service, Prepared Testimony of Eugene A .Ludwig Controller of the Currency Before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, Oct. 17, 1995, pp. 195-205. .
Federal News Service, Prepared Statements of Joel S. Lisker Senior Vice President, Security and Risk Management Mastercard International Incorporated Before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Apr. 15, 1996, pp. 168-172. .
Federal News Service, Hearing of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee, Apr. 15, 1996, pp. 173-216. .
Financial Post, Reaching Out on the Electronic Highway, Mar. 14, 1996, pp. 353-355. .
Financial Post, Race on to Come Up With Web Payment System, Apr. 27, 1996, pp. 122-124. .
Financial Times, Credit Card Groups to Co-Operate on Internet Security, Feb. 2, 1996, p. 64. .
Fresno Bee, Credit Firms Set Internet Security Code, Feb. 2, 1996, p. 65. .
Gazette (Montreal), Digital Sermon Packs 'EM In: 1,100 From Business World listen Raptly to Technoguru's Generalities, Apr. 18, 1996, pp. 149-151. .
Gazette (Montreal), Bell Global Has High Hopes for Business Network, Apr. 19, 1996. pp. 147-148. .
Houston Chronicle, Firms Back Cyberspace Verification System, Jun. 26, 1995, pp. 253-256. .
Houston Chronicle, Firms Back Cyberspace Verification System, Jun. 25, 1995, pp. 255-256. .
Independent, In Brief: Amex and Microsoft Sign Internet Deal, Mar. 1, 1996, p. 416. .
Industry Week, Move Over China, Caught In the Web, May 1, 1995, p. 271. .
Information & Interactive Services Report, Microsoft, Wal-Mart Pact Aims for Online Bargain-Hunters, Feb. 23, 1996, pp. 491-492. .
InformationWeek, Intranet Tools, E-Mail on the Net to Debut --Major Announcements Expected at Internet World, Electronic Messaging Association Conferences, Apr. 22, 1996, pp. 142-143. .
InformationWeek, Cisco Places $4 Billion Network Bet--StrataCom Buy Seen Extending ATM, Tying Switching and Routing, Apr. 29, 1996, pp. 116-117. .
InformationWeek, Netscape's Corporate Push Grows--CompuServe Tie-In Puts Groupware on Internet, May 13, 1996, p. 27. .
InformationWeek, In Short; Terisa Names CEO, May 13, 1996, pg. 29. .
InfoWorld, National Semiconductor's PersonaCard; Card Holds Key to On-Line Security, Nov. 14, 1994, pp. 310-311. .
InfoWorld, Standards; Adapt or Die: Internet Standards May Always Be In Flux, Nov. 6, 1995, pp. 187-192. .
InfoWorld, At Deadline, Feb. 5, 1996, pp. 35-36. .
InfoWorld, RSA Sale May Improve Security, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 144. .
InfoWorld, Pipeline, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 145. .
InfoWorld, Internet Servers; Netscape Antes Up for Commerce, May 13, 1996, pp. 30-31. .
InfoWorld, IBM, HP Preview 'Net products Aimed On-Line Commerce, May 13, 1996, p. 33. .
InfoWorld, Web Page Authoring Tool; Internet Creator Builds Sites One Paragrapgh at a Time; No Need to Master HTML; Tool Enables On-Line Commerce, May 13, 1996, pp. 35-37. .
InformationWeek, Europe, Oct. 2, 1995, pp. 231-234. .
Interactive Daily, 4. Cyberspace Security Bolstered by Pact, Feb. 2, 1996, pg. 68. .
Interactive Daily, 5. Microsoft Allies With American Express, Mar. 1, 1996, p. 417. .
Interactive Marketing News, Mastercard and Visa Reach Agreement on Security Protcols, Feb. 16, 1996, pp. 523-524. .
International Herald Tribune, A Giant Leap for Credit Cards? System to Protect Payments on Internet Is Unveiled, Feb. 2, 1996, pp. 66-67. .
Investor's Business Daily, The Electronic Wallet: Secure Payment Methods Sought for Internet, Dec. 8, 1994, pp. 305-307. .
Investor's Business Daily, CEO Briefing; A4, Mar. 28, 1996, pp. 285-286. .
Korea Economic Daily, Mastercard, Visa Agree to a Single Security Standard, Feb. 6, 1996, p. 19. .
Los Angeles Times, The Cutting Edge: Special Report/Hot Tips; What's Coming, When, and Whey It's a Big Deal; Next Year Could Bring Start Of On-Line Profits, Dec. 18, 1994, pp. 303-304. .
Los Angeles Times, Technology, Feb. 1, 1996, p. 139. .
M2 Presswire, Adobe and Netscape to bring Commercial Publishing to the Internet (C) 1994-95 M2 Communications LTD, Mar. 31, 1995, pp. 283-285. .
M2 Presswire, Verisign, Inc: VeriSign Inc to Provide Digital IDs for Open Market's Secure WebServer, Aug. 16, 1995, pp. 238-240. .
M2 Presswire, Rednet: EDI for the Apple Macintosh and Power PC, Oct. 24, 1995, pp. 193-194. .
M2 Presswire, Visa Intl: Security Specifications for Card Transactions on Internet Combined into One Standard, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 140-141. .
M2 Presswire, First Data: FD and Netscape Offering Internet Payment Processing Service New Service Available Now, Feb. 21, 1996, pp. 495-496. .
M2 Presswire, Visa: Visa and MasterCard Welcomes American Express to Their Internet Payment System, Mar. 1, 1996, pp. 420-421. .
M2 Presswire, Credit Card Research Group: Cards to Make a Clean Sweep of the Cybermarket, Mar. 1, 1996, pp. 418-419. .
M2 Presswire, Racal Airtech: Racal Supports the Visa/MasterCard Secure Electronics Transactions, (SET) Specification, May 2, 1996, pp. 62-63. .
Media Daily, Microsoft, Visa Announce Specification to Secure Payments, Sep. 27, 1995, p. 235. .
Media Daily, Mastercard and Visa Agree on Online Security Standard, Feb. 1, 1996, p. 136. .
Media Daily, Netscape Launches Payment System, May 13, 1996, p. 38. .
Report on Microsoft, News Briefs: Visa and Mastercard, Apr. 22, 1996, p. 146. .
Midrange Systems, GEIS Aims to Stimulate EDI Growth, Mar. 15, 1996, pp. 349-350. .
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, U.S. Postal Service to Enter Electronic Age, Mar. 4, 1996, pp. 379-380. .
Multimedia & Videodisc Monitor, Tools & Technology: Mastercard, Visa Agree on Encryption Technology, Mar. 1, 1996, p. 422. .
Multimedia Week, Industry Briefs: Encryption, Feb. 5, 1996, p. 39. .
Nation's Restaurant News, Amex, Microsoft Seal Security Agreement. American Express Travel Related Services Co. Signs Licensing Agreement with Microsoft Corp; Brief Article, Mar. 18, 1996, p. 328. .
Nave Research Group, Navagating and Acting in Virtual Environments, May 16, 1996, p. 1-9. .
Network Briefing, Visa & Mastercard Agree E-Payment Spec, Feb. 16, 1996, p. 525. .
Network Computing, More Than One Way to Skin a Coded Cat, Mar. 15, 1996, p. 351. .
Network World, Wells Fargo Hops Aboard 'Net Wagon, Feb. 6, 1995, pp. 301-302. .
Network World, An Insecure Feeling Haunts the 'Net, Feb. 12, 1996, pp. 541-542. .
Network World, Wal-Mart to Lure Electronic Shoppers With Web Retail Store, Feb. 19, 1996, pp. 504-505. .
Network World, News Briefs, Mar. 4, 1996, pp. 377-378. .
Network World, Security Specification Is Full of Holes, Critics Charge, Apr. 22, 1996, pp. 138-139. .
Network World, ActiveX Pioneer Commerce, May 6, 1996, pp. 46-47. .
Network World, Ready, SET, Go; American Express, MasterCard, and Visa Throw Their Combined Weight Behind the SET Payment Protocol for the Web; Merchants May Face a Learning Curve, May 13, 1996, pp. 18-23. .
Network World, Efforts Aims to Unite 'Net Payment Schemes, May 13, 1996, p. 24. .
Network World, Netscape Unveils New 'Net Commerce Offerings, May 13, 1996, pp. 25-26. .
News, Credit Card Fraud New Concern of Internet Business, Mar. 16, 1996, pp. 329-330. .
Newsbytes News Network, France--Bull Forms Smart Card Subsidiary Apr. 13, 1995, pp. 274-275. .
Newsbytes News Network, Open Market Intros "Secure" Web Storefront Oct. 17, 1995, pp. 206-207. .
Newsbytes News Network, Newsbytes Daily Summary Oct. 17, 1995, pp. 208-213. .
Newsbytes News Network, Commerce Direct Offers Secure Electronic Transactions Jan. 22, 1996, pp. 177-178. .
Newsbytes News Network ,
Primary Examiner: Gregory; Bernarr E.
Attorney, Agent or Firm:Warren, Jr.; Sanford E. Chalker; Daniel J. Gardere & Wynne, LLP
Claims

What is claimed is:
1. A method for initiating secure communication between a first and a second computer connected to a network for receiving and transmitting payment information, comprising the steps of:
(a) establishing a communication link between said first and said second computer via said network;
(b) identifying an encryption procedure and a decryption procedure utilized by said first and said second computer;
(c) transmitting encrypted payment information, including a payment instrument, from said first computer to said second computer using the communication link;
(d) receiving said encrypted payment information at said second computer using the communication link and decrypting the payment information utilizing the decryption procedure; and
(e) evaluating credit risk based on the payment information including a presence or absence of a certificate; and
(f) utilizing said payment information for further payment processing.

2. The method as recited in claim 1, including the step of utilizing the Internet for transmitting information between said first and said second computer systems.

3. The method as recited in claim 1, including the step of transmitting from the second computer system to a third computer system for authorizing or denying credit in the payment processing.

4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the encrypted payment information conforms to a Secure Electronic Transaction protocol.

5. A method for accepting or denying a payment method using a first and a second computer connected to a network, comprising the steps of:
(a) transferring client information including said payment method into said first computer;
(b) establishing a communication link between said first and said second computer via said network;
(c) encrypting said client information to substantially comply with a third party secure protocol;
(d) transmitting said encrypted client information to said second computer via said communication link;
(e) decrypting said encrypted client information;
(f) determining whether to accept or deny said payment method based on said decrypted client information; and
(g) transmitting a response to said first computer via said communication link wherein said response recommends acceptance or denial of said payment method.

6. The method as recited in claim 5, wherein said client information is obtained via a telephone, fax machine or electronic mail.

7. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein said client information is obtained via a secure general purpose protocol.

8. The method as recited in claim 5, wherein a digital signature is utilized to authenticate said encrypted client information.

9. The method as recited in claim 5, further comprising the step of reversing one or more previous payment transactions.

10. The method as recited in claim 5, wherein said step of determining whether to accept or deny said payment method based on said decrypted client information comprises the steps of:
(f1) establishing a second communication link between said second computer and a third computer;
(f2) repackaging said decrypted client information to comply with a protocol used by said third computer;
(f3) transmitting said repackaged client information to said third computer via said second communication link;
(f4) receiving a response from said third computer wherein said response recommends acceptance or a denial of said payment method;
(f5) repackaging said response for transmission to said first computer; and
(f6) transmitting said repackaged response to said first computer via said second communication link.

11. Apparatus for initiating payment in a computer under the control of software with an attached display and an input device coupled to a network for receiving and transmitting network information, comprising:
(a) means for establishing a communication link between said first and said second computer via said network;
(b) means for identifying an encryption procedure and a decryption procedure utilized by said first and said second computer;
(c) means coupled to the means for establishing a communication link for transmitting encrypted payment information, including a payment instrument, from said first computer to said second computer;
(d) means for receiving said encrypted payment information at said second computer and decrypting the payment information utilizing the decryption procedure;
(e) means for evaluating credit risk based on the payment information including a presence or absence of a certificate; and
(f) means for utilizing said payment information for further payment processing.

12. The apparatus as recited in claim 11, wherein the network is an Internet.

13. The apparatus as recited in claim 12, including means for transmitting from the second computer system to a third computer system for authorizing or denying credit in the payment processing.

14. An apparatus for accepting or denying a payment method using a first and a second computer connected to a network, the apparatus comprising:
(a) means for entering client information including said payment method;
(b) means for establishing a communication link between said first and said second computer via said network;
(c) means for encrvpting said client information to substantially comply with a third party secure protocol;
(d) means for transmitting said encrypted client information to said second computer via said communication link;
(e) means for decrypting said encrypted client information;
(f) means for determining whether to accept or deny said payment method based on said decrypted client information; and
(g) means for transmitting a response to said first computer via said communication link wherein said response recommends acceptance or denial of said payment method.

15. The apparatus as recited in claim 14, wherein said second computer under the control of software which determines whether to accept or deny said payment method based on said decrypted client information comprises:
(f1) means for establishing a second communication link between said second computer and a third computer;
(f2) means for repackaging said decrypted client information to comply with a protocol used by said third computer;
(f3) means for transmitting said repackaged client information to said third computer via said second communication link;
(f4) means for receiving a response from said third computer wherein said response recommends acceptance or a denial of said payment method;
(f5) means for repackaging said response for transmission to said first computer; and
(f6) means for transmitting said repackaged response to said first computer via said second communication link.

16. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium for initiating payment in a computer under the control of software with an attached display and an input device connected to a network for receiving and transmitting network information, comprising:
(a) a code segment for establishing a communication between said first and said second computer via said network;
(b) a code segment for identifying an encryption procedure and a decryption procedure utilized by said first and said second computer;
(c) a code segment for transmitting encrypted payment information, including payment instrument information, from said first computer to said second computer;
(d) a code segment for receiving said encrypted payment information at said second computer and decrypting the payment information utilizing the decryption procedure;
(e) a code segment for evaluating the payment information to determine the credit risk based on the payment instrument; and
(f) a code segment for conditionally granting credit based on said credit risk payment information and utilizing said payment information for further payment processing.

17. The computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium as recited in claim 16, wherein said network is the Internet.

18. The computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium as recited in claim 16, including a code segment for obtaining an authorization or denial of credit at said second computer from a third computer.

19. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium for accepting or denying a payment method using a first and a second computer connected to a network comprising:
(a) a code segment for entering client information including said payment method into said first computer;
(b) a code segment for establishing a communication link between said first and said second computer via said network;
(c) a code segment for encrypting said client information to substantially comply with a third party secure protocol;
(d) a code segment for transmitting said encrypted client information to said second computer via said communication link;
(e) a code segment for decrypting said encrypted client information;
(f) a code segment for determining whether to accept or deny said payment method based on said decrypted client information; and
(g) a code segment for transmitting a response to said first computer via said communication link wherein said response recommends acceptance or denial of said payment method.

20. The computer program as recited in claim 19, wherein said code segment for determining whether to accept or deny said payment method based on said decrypted client information comprises:
(f1) a code segment for establishing a second communication link between said second computer and a third computer;
(f2) a code segment for repackaging said decrypted client information to comply with a protocol used by said third computer;
(f3) a code segment for transmitting said repackaged client information to said third computer via said second communication link;
(f4) a code segment for receiving a response from said third computer wherein said response recommends acceptance or a denial of said payment method;
(f5) a code segment for repackaging said response for transmission to said first computer; and
(f6) a code segment for transmitting said repackaged response to said first computer via said second communication link.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the secure, electronic payment in exchange for goods and services purchased over a communication network, and more specifically, to a system, method and article of manufacture for securely transmitting payment information from a customer to a merchant to a payment gateway and returning a certification, including a credit confidence factor to allow a merchant to determine whether to accept or reject payment information utilizing a flexible, extensible architecture.

The present invention relates to an electronic graphical representation of a monetary system for implementing electronic money payments as an alternative medium of economic exchange to cash, checks, credit and debit cards, and electronic funds transfer. The Electronic-Monetary System is a hybrid of currency, check, card payment systems, and electronic funds transfer systems, possessing many of the benefits of these systems with few of their limitations. The system utilizes electronic representations of money which are designed to be universally accepted and exchanged as economic value by subscribers of the monetary system.

Today, approximately 350 billion coin and currency transactions occur between individuals and institutions every year. The extensive use of coin and currency transactions has limited the automation of individual transactions such as purchases, fares, and bank account deposits and withdrawals. Individual cash transactions are burdened by the need to have the correct amount of cash or providing change therefor. Furthermore, the handling and managing of paper cash and coins is inconvenient, costly and time consuming for both individuals and financial institutions.

Although checks may be written for any specific amount up to the amount available in the account, checks have very limited transferability and must be supplied from a physical inventory. Paper-based checking systems do not offer sufficient relief from the limitations of cash transactions, sharing many of the inconveniences of handling currency while adding the inherent delays associated with processing checks. To this end, economic exchange has striven for greater convenience at a lower cost, while also seeking improved security.

Automation has achieved some of these qualities for large transactions through computerized electronic funds transfer ("EFT") systems. Electronic funds transfer is essentially a process of value exchange achieved through the banking system's centralized computer transactions. EFT services are a transfer of payments utilizing electronic "checks," which are used primarily by large commercial organizations.

The Clearing House (ACH) where a user can enter a pre-authorized code and download information with billing occurring later, and a Point Of Sale (POS) system where a transaction is processed by connecting with a central computer for authorization for the transaction granted or denied immediately are examples of EFT systems that are utilized by retail and commercial organizations. However, the payments made through these types of EFT systems are limited in that they cannot be performed without the banking system. Moreover, ACH transactions usually cannot be performed during off business hours.

Home Banking bill payment services are examples of an EFT system used by individuals to make payments from a home computer. Currently, home banking initiatives have found few customers. Of the banks that have offered services for payments, account transfers and information over the telephone lines using personal computers, less than one percent of the bank's customers are using the service. One reason that Home Banking has not been a successful product is because the customer cannot deposit and withdraw money as needed in this type of system.

Current EFT systems, credit cards, or debit cards, which are used in conjunction with an online system to transfer money between accounts, such as between the account of a merchant and that of a customer, cannot satisfy the need for an automated transaction system providing an ergonomic interface. Examples of EFT systems which provide non-ergonomic interfaces are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,476,259; 5,459,304; 5,452,352; 5,448,045; 5,478,993; 5,455,407; 5,453,601; 5,465,291; and 5,485,510.

To implement an automated, convenient transaction that can dispense some form of economic value, there has been a trend towards off-line payments. For example, numerous ideas have been proposed for some form of "electronic money" that can be used in cashless payment transactions as alternatives to the traditional currency and check types of payment systems. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,977,595, entitled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPLEMENTING ELECTRONIC CASH," and U.S. Pat. No. 4,305,059, entitled "MODULAR FUNDS TRANSFER SYSTEM."

The more well known techniques include magnetic stripe cards purchased for a given amount and from which a prepaid value can be deducted for specific purposes. Upon exhaustion of the economic value, the cards are thrown away. Other examples include memory cards or so called smart cards which are capable of repetitively storing information representing value that is likewise deducted for specific purposes.

It is desirable for a computer operated under the control of a merchant to obtain information offered by a customer and transmitted by a computer operating under the control of the customer over a publicly accessible packet-switched network (e.g., the Internet) to the computer operating under the control of the merchant, without risking the exposure of the information to interception by third parties that have access to the network, and to assure that the information is from an authentic source. It is further desirable for the merchant to transmit information, including a subset of the information provided by the customer, over such a network to a payment gateway computer system that is designated, by a bank or other financial institution that has the responsibility of providing payment on behalf of the customer, to authorize a commercial transaction on behalf of such a financial institution, without the risk of exposing that information to interception by third parties. Such institutions include, for example, financial institutions offering credit or debit card services.

One such attempt to provide such a secure transmission channel is a secure payment technology such as Secure Electronic Transaction (hereinafter "SET"), jointly developed by the Visa and MasterCard card associations, and described in Visa and MasterCard's Secure Electronic Transaction (SET) Specification, Feb. 23, 1996, hereby incorporated by reference.

Other such secure payment technologies include Secure Transaction Technology ("STT"), Secure Electronic Payments Protocol ("SEPP"), Internet Keyed Payments ("iKP"), Net Trust, and Cybercash Credit Payment Protocol. One of ordinary skill in the art readily comprehends that any of the secure payment technologies can be substituted for the SET protocol without undue experimentation. Such secure payment technologies require the customer to operate software that is compliant with the secure payment technology, interacting with third-party certification authorities, thereby allowing the customer to transmit encoded information to a merchant, some of which may be decoded by the merchant, and some which can be decoded only by a payment gateway specified by the customer.

Another such attempt to provide such a secure transmission channel is a general-purpose secure communication protocol such as Netscape, Inc.'s Secure Sockets Layer (hereinafter "SSL"), as described in Freier, Karlton & Kocher (hereinafter "Freier"), The SSL Protocol Version 3.0, March 1996, and hereby incorporated by reference. SSL provides a means for secure transmission between two computers. SSL has the advantage that it does not require special-purpose software to be installed on the customer's computer because it is already incorporated into widely available software that many people utilize as their standard Internet access medium, and does not require that the customer interact with any third-party certification authority. Instead, the support for SSL may be incorporated into software already in use by the customer, e.g., the Netscape Navigator World Wide Web browsing tool. However, although a computer on an SSL connection may initiate a second SSL connection to another computer, a drawback to the SSL approach is each SSL connection supports only a two-computer connection. Therefore, SSL does not provide a mechanism for transmitting encoded information to a merchant for retransmission to a payment gateway such that a subset of the information is readable to the payment gateway but not to the merchant. Although SSL allows for robustly secure two-party data transmission, it does not meet the ultimate need of the electronic commerce market for robustly secure three-party data transmission. Other examples of general-purpose secure communication protocols include Private Communications Technology ("PCT") from Microsoft, Inc., Secure Hyper-Text Transport Protocol ("SHTTP") from Terisa Systems, Shen, Kerberos, Photuris, Pretty Good Privacy ("PGP") which meets the IPSEC criteria. One of ordinary skill in the art readily comprehends that any of the general-purpose secure communication protocols can be substituted for the SSL transmission protocol without undue experimentation.

Banks desire an Internet payment solution that emulates existing Point of Sale (POS) applications that are currently installed on their host computers, and require minimal changes to their host systems. This is a critical requirement since any downtime for a banks host computer system represents an enormous expense. Currently, VeriFone supports over fourteen hundred different payment-related applications. The large number of applications is necessary to accommodate a wide variety of host message formats, diverse methods for communicating to a variety of hosts with different dial-up and direct-connect schemes, and different certification around the world. In addition, there are a wide variety of business processes that dictate how a Point of Sale (POS) terminal queries a user for data and subsequently displays the data. Also, various vertical market segments, such as hotels, car rental agencies, restaurants, retail sales, mail sales/telephone sales require interfaces for different types of data to be entered, and provide different discount rates to merchants for complying with various data types. Moreover, a plethora of report generation mechanisms and formats are utilized by merchants that banking organizations work with.

Banks are unwilling to converge on "standards" since convergence would facilitate switching from one acquiring bank to another by merchants. In general, banks desire to increase the cost that a merchant incurs in switching from one acquiring bank to another acquiring bank. This is accomplished by supplying a merchant with a terminal that only communicates utilizing the bank's proprietary protocol, and by providing other value-added services that a merchant may not be able to obtain at another bank.

Internet-based payment solutions require additional security measures that are not found in conventional POS terminals. This additional requirement is necessitated because Internet communication is done over publicly-accessible, unsecured communication line in stark contrast to the private, secure, dedicated phone or leased line service utilized between a traditional merchant and an acquiring bank. Thus, it is critical that any solution utilizing the Internet for a communication backbone, employ some form of cryptography.

As discussed above, the current state-of-the-art in Internet based payment processing is a protocol referred to as SET. Since the SET messages are uniform across all implementations, banks cannot differentiate themselves in any reasonable way. Also, since SET is not a proper superset of all protocols utilized today, there are bank protocols which cannot be mapped or translated into SET because they require data elements for which SET has no placeholder. Further, SET only handles the message types directly related to authorizing and capturing credit card transactions and adjustments to these authorizations or captures. In a typical POS terminal in the physical world, these messages comprise almost the entire volume of the total number of messages between the merchant and the authorizing bank, but only half of the total number of different message types. These message types, which are used infrequently, but which are critical to the operation of the POS terminal must be supported for proper transaction processing.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to a broad aspect of a preferred embodiment of the invention, secure transmission of data is provided between a plurality of computer systems over a public communication system, such as the Internet. Secure transmission of data is provided from a customer computer system to a merchant computer system, and for the further secure transmission of payment information regarding a payment instrument from the merchant computer system to a payment gateway computer system. The payment gateway system formats transaction information appropriately and transmits the transaction to the particular host legacy system. The host legacy system evaluates the payment information and returns a level of authorization of credit to the gateway which packages the information to form a secure transaction which is transmitted to the merchant which is in turn communicated to the customer by the merchant. The merchant can then determine whether to accept the payment instrument tendered or deny credit and require another payment instrument. An architecture that provides support for additional message types that are value-added extensions to the basic SET protocol, is provided by a preferred embodiment of the invention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The foregoing and other objects, aspects and advantages are better understood from the following detailed description of a preferred embodiment of the invention with reference to the drawings, in which:

FIG. 1A is a block diagram of a representative hardware environment in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 1B depicts an overview in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 1C is a block diagram of the system in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 2 depicts a more detailed view of a customer computer system in communication with merchant system under the Secure Sockets Layer protocol in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 3 depicts an overview of the method of securely supplying payment information to a payment gateway in order to obtain payment authorization in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 4 depicts the detailed steps of generating and transmitting a payment authorization request in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 5A through 5F depict views of the payment authorization request and its component parts in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 6A and 6B depict the detailed steps of processing a payment authorization request and generating and transmitting a payment authorization request response in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 7A through 7J depict views of the payment authorization response and its component parts in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 8 depicts the detailed steps of processing a payment authorization response in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 9 depicts an overview of the method of securely supplying payment capture information to a payment gateway in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 10 depicts the detailed steps of generating and transmitting a payment capture request in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 11A through 11F depict views of the payment capture request and its component parts in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 12A and 12B depict the detailed steps of processing a payment capture request and generating and transmitting a payment capture request response in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 13A through 13F depict views of the payment capture response and its component parts in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 14 depicts the detailed steps of processing a payment capture response in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 15A & 15B depicts transaction processing of merchant and consumer transactions in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 16 illustrates a transaction class hierarchy block diagram in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 17 shows a typical message flow between the merchant, vPOS terminal and the Gateway in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 18A-E are block diagrams of the extended SET architecture in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 19 is a flowchart of vPOS merchant pay customization in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 20A-20H are block diagrams and flowcharts setting forth the detailed logic of thread processing in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 21 is a detailed diagram of a multithreaded gateway engine in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 22 is a flow diagram in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 23 illustrates a Gateway's role in a network in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 24 is a block diagram of the Gateway in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 25 is a block diagram of the vPOS Terminal Architecture in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 26 is an architecture block diagram in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 27 is a block diagram of the payment manager architecture in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 28 is a Consumer Payment Message Sequence Diagram in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 29 is an illustration of a certificate issuance form in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 30 illustrates a certificate issuance response in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 31 illustrates a collection of payment instrument holders in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 32 illustrates the default payment instrument bitmap in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 33 illustrates a selected payment instrument with a fill in the blanks for the cardholder in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 34 illustrates a coffee purchase utilizing the newly defined VISA card in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 35 is a flowchart of conditional authorization of payment in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 36-48 are screen displays in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 49 shows how the vPOS authenticates an incoming response to a request in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 50 is a flowchart for the merchant interaction with the Test Gateway in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIGS. 51-61 are flowcharts depicting the detailed logic of the gateway in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 62 is the main administration display for the Gateway in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 63 is a configuration panel in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

FIG. 64 is a host communication display for facilitating communication between the gateway and the acquirer payment host in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

FIG. 65 is a Services display in accordance with a preferred embodiment; and

FIG. 66 is a graphical representation of the gateway transaction database in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

A preferred embodiment of a system in accordance with the present invention is preferably practiced in the context of a personal computer such as the IBM PS/2, Apple Macintosh computer or UNIX based workstation. A representative hardware environment is depicted in FIG. 1A, which illustrates a typical hardware configuration of a workstation in accordance with a preferred embodiment having a central processing unit 10, such as a microprocessor, and a number of other units interconnected via a system bus 12. The workstation shown in FIG. 1A includes a Random Access Memory (RAM) 14, Read Only Memory (ROM) 16, an I/O adapter 18 for connecting peripheral devices such as disk storage units 20 to the bus 12, a user interface adapter 22 for connecting a keyboard 24, a mouse 26, a speaker 28, a microphone 32, and/or other user interface devices such as a touch screen (not shown) to the bus 12, communication adapter 34 for connecting the workstation to a communication network (e.g., a data processing network) and a display adapter 36 for connecting the bus 12 to a display device 38. The workstation typically has resident thereon an operating system such as the Microsoft Windows NT or Windows/95 Operating System (OS), the IBM OS/2
operating system, the MAC OS, or UNIX operating system. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention may also be implemented on platforms and operating systems other than those mentioned.

A preferred embodiment is written using JAVA, C, and the C++ language and utilizes object oriented programming methodology. Object oriented programming (OOP) has become increasingly used to develop complex applications. As OOP moves toward the mainstream of software design and development, various software solutions require adaptation to make use of the benefits of OOP. A need exists for these principles of OOP to be applied to a messaging interface of an electronic messaging system such that a set of OOP classes and objects for the messaging interface can be provided.

OOP is a process of developing computer software using objects, including the steps of analyzing the problem, designing the system, and constructing the program. An object is a software package that contains both data and a collection of related structures and procedures. Since it contains both data and a collection of structures and procedures, it can be visualized as a self-sufficient component that does not require other additional structures, procedures or data to perform its specific task. OOP, therefore, views a computer program as a collection of largely autonomous components, called objects, each of which is responsible for a specific task. This concept of packaging data, structures, and procedures together in one component or module is called encapsulation.

In general, OOP components are reusable software modules which present an interface that conforms to an object model and which are accessed at run-time through a component integration architecture. A component integration architecture is a set of architecture mechanisms which allow software modules in different process spaces to utilize each others capabilities or functions. This is generally done by assuming a common component object model on which to build the architecture.

It is worthwhile to differentiate between an object and a class of objects at this point. An object is a single instance of the class of objects, which is often just called a class. A class of objects can be viewed as a blueprint, from which many objects can be formed.

OOP allows the programmer to create an object that is a part of another object. For example, the object representing a piston engine is said to have a composition-relationship with the object representing a piston. In reality, a piston engine comprises a piston, valves and many other components; the fact that a piston is an element of a piston engine can be logically and semantically represented in OOP by two objects.

OOP also allows creation of an object that "depends from" another object. If there are two objects, one representing a piston engine and the other representing a piston engine wherein the piston is made of ceramic, then the relationship between the two objects is not that of composition. A ceramic piston engine does not make up a piston engine. Rather it is merely one kind of piston engine that has one more limitation than the piston engine; its piston is made of ceramic. In this case, the object representing the ceramic piston engine is called a derived object, and it inherits all of the aspects of the object representing the piston engine and adds further limitation or detail to it. The object representing the ceramic piston engine "depends from" the object representing the piston engine. The relationship between these objects is called inheritance.

When the object or class representing the ceramic piston engine inherits all of the aspects of the objects representing the piston engine, it inherits the thermal characteristics of a standard piston defined in the piston engine class. However, the ceramic piston engine object overrides these ceramic specific thermal characteristics, which are typically different from those associated with a metal piston. It skips over the original and uses new functions related to ceramic pistons. Different kinds of piston engines have different characteristics, but may have the same underlying functions associated with it (e.g., how many pistons in the engine, ignition sequences, lubrication, etc.). To access each of these functions in any piston engine object, a programmer would call the same functions with the same names, but each type of piston engine may have different/overriding implementations of functions behind the same name. This ability to hide different implementations of a function behind the same name is called polymorphism and it greatly simplifies communication among objects.

With the concepts of composition-relationship, encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism, an object can represent just about anything in the real world. In fact, our logical perception of the reality is the only limit on determining the kinds of things that can become objects in object-oriented software. Some typical categories are as follows:

Objects can represent physical objects, such as automobiles in a traffic-flow simulation, electrical components in a circuit-design program, countries in an economics model, or aircraft in an air-traffic-control system.

Objects can represent elements of the computer-user environment such as windows, menus or graphics objects.

An object can represent an inventory, such as a personnel file or a table of the latitudes and longitudes of cities.

An object can represent user-defined data types such as time, angles, and complex numbers, or points on the plane.

With this enormous capability of an object to represent just about any logically separable matters, OOP allows the software developer to design and implement a computer program that is a model of some aspects of reality, whether that reality is a physical entity, a process, a system, or a composition of matter. Since the object can represent anything, the software developer can create an object which can be used as a component in a larger software project in the future. If 90% of a new OOP software program consists of proven, existing components made from preexisting reusable objects, then only the remaining 10% of the new software project has to be written and tested from scratch. Since 90% already came from an inventory of extensively tested reusable objects, the potential domain from which an error could originate is 10% of the program. As a result, OOP enables software developers to build objects out of other, previously built, objects.

This process closely resembles complex machinery being built out of assemblies and sub-assemblies. OOP technology, therefore, makes software engineering more like hardware engineering in that software is built from existing components, which are available to the developer as objects. All this adds up to an improved quality of the software as well as an increased speed of its development.

Programming languages are beginning to fully support the OOP principles, such as encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism, and composition-relationship. With the advent of the C++ language, many commercial software developers have embraced OOP. C++ is an OOP language that offers a fast, machine-executable code. Furthermore, C++ is suitable for both commercial-application and systems-programming projects. For now, C++ appears to be the most popular choice among many OOP programmers, but there is a host of other OOP languages, such as Smalltalk, common lisp object system (CLOS), and Eiffel. Additionally, OOP capabilities are being added to more traditional popular computer programming languages such as Pascal.

The benefits of object classes can be summarized, as follows:

Objects and their corresponding classes break down complex programming problems into many smaller, simpler problems.

Encapsulation enforces data abstraction through the organization of data into small, independent objects that can communicate with each other. Encapsulation protects the data in an object from accidental damage, but allows other objects to interact with that data by calling the object's member functions and structures.

Subclassing and inheritance make it possible to extend and modify objects through deriving new kinds of objects from the standard classes available in the system. Thus, new capabilities are created without having to start from scratch.

Polymorphism and multiple inheritance make it possible for different programmers to mix and match characteristics of many different classes and create specialized objects that can still work with related objects in predictable ways.

Class hierarchies and containment hierarchies provide a flexible mechanism for modeling real-world objects and the relationships among them.

Libraries of reusable classes are useful in many situations, but they also have some limitations. For example:

Complexity. In a complex system, the class hierarchies for related classes can become extremely confusing, with many dozens or even hundreds of classes.

Flow of control. A program written with the aid of class libraries is still responsible for the flow of control (i.e., it must control the interactions among all the objects created from a particular library). The programmer has to decide which functions to call at what times for which kinds of objects.

Duplication of effort. Although class libraries allow programmers to use and reuse many small pieces of code, each programmer puts those pieces together in a different way.

Two different programmers can use the same set of class libraries to write two programs that do exactly the same thing but whose internal structure (i.e., design) may be quite different, depending on hundreds of small decisions each programmer makes along the way. Inevitably, similar pieces of code end up doing similar things in slightly different ways and do not work as well together as they should.

Class libraries are very flexible. As programs grow more complex, more programmers are forced to reinvent basic solutions to basic problems over and over again. A relatively new extension of the class library concept is to have a framework of class libraries. This framework is more complex and consists of significant collections of collaborating classes that capture both the small scale patterns and major mechanisms that implement the common requirements and design in a specific application domain. They were first developed to free application programmers from the chores involved in displaying menus, windows, dialog boxes, and other standard user interface elements for personal computers.

Frameworks also represent a change in the way programmers think about the interaction between the code they write and code written by others. In the early days of procedural programming, the programmer called libraries provided by the operating system to perform certain tasks, but basically the program executed down the page from start to finish, and the programmer was solely responsible for the flow of control. This was appropriate for printing out paychecks, calculating a mathematical table, or solving other problems with a program that executed in just one way.

The development of graphical user interfaces began to turn this procedural programming arrangement inside out. These interfaces allow the user, rather than program logic, to drive the program and decide when certain actions should be performed. Today, most personal computer software accomplishes this by means of an event loop which monitors the mouse, keyboard, and other sources of external events and calls the appropriate parts of the programmer's code according to actions that the user performs. The programmer no longer determines the order in which events occur. Instead, a program is divided into separate pieces that are called at unpredictable times and in an unpredictable order. By relinquishing control in this way to users, the developer creates a program that is much easier to use. Nevertheless, individual pieces of the program written by the developer still call libraries provided by the operating system to accomplish certain tasks, and the programmer must still determine the flow of control within each piece after it's called by the event loop. Application code still "sits on top of" the system.

Even event loop programs require programmers to write a lot of code that should not need to be written separately for every application. The concept of an application framework carries the event loop concept further. Instead of dealing with all the nuts and bolts of constructing basic menus, windows, and dialog boxes and then making these things all work together, programmers using application frameworks start with working application code and basic user interface elements in place. Subsequently, they build from there by replacing some of the generic capabilities of the framework with the specific capabilities of the intended application.

Application frameworks reduce the total amount of code that a programmer has to write from scratch. However, because the framework is really a generic application that displays windows, supports copy and paste, and so on, the programmer can also relinquish control to a greater degree than event loop programs permit. The framework code takes care of almost all event handling and flow of control, and the programmer's code is called only when the framework needs it (e.g., to create or manipulate a proprietary data structure).

A programmer writing a framework program not only relinquishes control to the user (as is also true for event loop programs), but also relinquishes the detailed flow of control within the program to the framework. This approach allows the creation of more complex systems that work together in interesting ways, as opposed to isolated programs, having custom code, being created over and over again for similar problems.

Thus, as is explained above, a framework basically is a collection of cooperating classes that make up a reusable design solution for a given problem domain. It typically includes objects that provide default behavior (e.g., for menus and windows), and programmers use it by inheriting some of that default behavior and overriding other behavior so that the framework calls application code at the appropriate times. There are three main differences between frameworks and class libraries:

Behavior versus protocol. Class libraries are essentially collections of behaviors that you can call when you want those individual behaviors in your program. A framework, on the other hand, provides not only behavior but also the protocol or set of rules that govern the ways in which behaviors can be combined, including rules for what a programmer is supposed to provide versus what the framework provides.

Call versus override. With a class library, the code the programmer instantiates objects and calls their member functions. It's possible to instantiate and call objects in the same way with a framework (i.e., to treat the framework as a class library), but to take full advantage of a framework's reusable design, a programmer typically writes code that overrides and is called by the framework. The framework manages the flow of control among its objects. Writing a program involves dividing responsibilities among the various pieces of software that are called by the framework rather than specifying how the different pieces should work together.

Implementation versus design. With class libraries, programmers reuse only implementations, whereas with frameworks, they reuse design. A framework embodies the way a family of related programs or pieces of software work. It represents a generic design solution that can be adapted to a variety of specific problems in a given domain. For example, a single framework can embody the way a user interface works, even though two different user interfaces created with the same framework might solve quite different interface problems.

Thus, through the development of frameworks for solutions to various problems and programming tasks, significant reductions in the design and development effort for software can be achieved. A preferred embodiment of the invention utilizes HyperText Markup Language (HTML) to implement documents on the Internet together with a general-purpose secure communication protocol for a transport medium between the client and the merchant. HTTP or other protocols could be readily substituted for HTML without undue experimentation. Information on these products is available in T. Berners-Lee, D. Connoly, "RFC 1866: Hypertext Markup Language--2.0" (November 1995); and R. Fielding, H, Frystyk, T. Berners Lee, J. Gettys and J. C. Mogul, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol--HTTP/1.1: HTTP Working Group Internet Draft" (May 2, 1996). HTML is a simple data format used to create hypertext documents that are portable from one platform to another. HTML documents are SGML documents with generic semantics that are appropriate for representing information from a wide range of domains. HTML has been in use by the World-Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. HTML is an application of ISO Standard 8879:1986 Information Processing Text and Office Systems; Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML).

To date, Web development tools have been limited in their ability to create dynamic Web applications which span from client to server and interoperate with existing computing resources. Until recently, HTML has been the dominant technology used in development of Web-based solutions. However, HTML has proven to be inadequate in the following areas:

Poor performance;

Restricted user interface capabilities;

Can only produce static Web pages;

Lack of interoperability with existing applications and data; and

Inability to scale.

Sun Microsystem's Java language solves many of the client-side problems by:

Improving performance on the client side;

Enabling the creation of dynamic, real-time Web applications; and

Providing the ability to create a wide variety of user interface components.

With Java, developers can create robust User Interface (UI) components. Custom "widgets" (e.g. real-time stock tickers, animated icons, etc.) can be created, and client-side performance is improved. Unlike HTML, Java supports the notion of client-side validation, offloading appropriate processing onto the client for improved performance. Dynamic, real-time Web pages can be created. Using the above-mentioned custom UI components, dynamic Web pages can also be created.

Sun's Java language has emerged as an industry-recognized language for "programming the Internet." Sun defines Java as: "a simple, object-oriented, distributed, interpreted, robust, secure, architecture-neutral, portable, high-performance, multithreaded, dynamic, buzzword-compliant, general-purpose programming language. Java supports programming for the Internet in the form of platform-independent Java applets." Java applets are small, specialized applications that comply with Sun's Java Application Programming Interface (API) allowing developers to add "interactive content" to Web documents (e.g. simple animations, page adornments, basic games, etc.). Applets execute within a Java-compatible browser (e.g. Netscape Navigator) by copying code from the server to client. From a language standpoint, Java's core feature set is based on C++. Sun's Java literature states that Java is basically "C++, with extensions from Objective C for more dynamic method resolution".

Another technology that provides similar function to JAVA is provided by Microsoft and ActiveX Technologies, to give developers and Web designers wherewithal to build dynamic content for the Internet and personal computers. ActiveX includes tools for developing animation, 3-D virtual reality, video and other multimedia content. The tools use Internet standards, work on multiple platforms, and are being supported by over 100 companies. The group's building blocks are called ActiveX Controls, small, fast components that enable developers to embed parts of software in hypertext markup language (HTML) pages. ActiveX Controls work with a variety of programming languages including Microsoft Visual C++, Borland Delphi, Microsoft Visual Basic programming system and, in the future, Microsoft's development tool for Java, code named "Jakarta." ActiveX Technologies also includes ActiveX Server Framework, allowing developers to create server applications. One of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes that ActiveX could be substituted for JAVA without undue experimentation to practice the invention.

FIG. 1B depicts an overview of the present invention. Customer computer system is in communication with merchant computer system. The customer-merchant session 150 operates under a general-purpose secure communication protocol such as the SSL protocol. Merchant computer system 130 is additionally in communication with payment gateway computer system 140. A payment gateway is a system that provides electronic commerce services in support of a bank or other financial institution, and that interfaces to the financial institution to support the authorization and capture of transactions. The customer-institution session 170 operates under a variant of a secure payment technology such as the SET protocol, as described herein, referred to as Merchant-Originated Secure Electronic Transactions ("MOSET"), as is more fully described herein.

Customer-to-Merchant Communication

FIG. 2 depicts a more detailed view of customer computer system 120 in communication with merchant system 130 using customer-merchant session 150 operating under the SSL protocol as documented in Freier and incorporated by reference.

Customer computer system 120 initiates communication with merchant computer system 130 using any well-known access protocol, e.g., Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol ("TCP/IP"). A description of TCP/IP is provided in Information Sciences Institute, "Transmission Control Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification (RFC 793)" (September, 1981), and Information Sciences Institute, "Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification (RFC 791)" (September,
1981). In this implementation, customer computer system 120 acts as a client and merchant computer system 130 acts as a server.

Customer computer system 120 initiates communication by sending "client hello" message 210 to the merchant computer system 130. When a client first connects to a server it is required to send the client hello message 210 as its first message. The client can also send a client hello message 210 in response to a hello request on its own initiative in order to renegotiate the security parameters in an existing connection. The client hello message includes a random structure, which is used later in the protocol. Specifically, the random structure includes the current time and date in standard UNIX 32-bit format according to the sender's internal clock and twenty-eight bytes of data generated by a secure random number generator. The client hello message 210 further includes a variable length session identifier. If not empty, the session identifier value identifies a session between the same client and server whose security parameters the client wishes to reuse. The session identifier may be from an earlier connection, the current connection, or another currently active connection. It is useful to specify the current connection if the client only wishes to update the random structures and derived values of a connection. It is useful to specify another currently active connection if the client wishes to establish several simultaneous independent secure connections to the same server without repeating the full handshake protocol. Client hello message 210 further includes an indicator of the cryptographic algorithms supported by the client in order of the client's preference, ordered according to client preference.

In response to client hello message 210, if merchant computer system 130 wishes to correspond with customer computer system 120, it responds with server hello message 215. If merchant computer system 130 does not wish to communicate with customer computer system 120, it responds with a message, not shown, indicating refusal to communicate.

Server hello message 215 includes a random structure, which is used later in the protocol. The random structure in server hello message 215 is in the same format as, but has contents independent of, the random structure in client hello message
210. Specifically, the random structure includes the current time and date in standard UNIX 32-bit format according to the sender's internal clock and twenty-eight bytes of data generated by a secure random number generator. Server hello message 215
further includes a variable length session identifier. The session identifier value identifies a new or existing session between the same client and server. Server hello message 215 further includes an indicator of the cryptographic algorithms selected from among the algorithms specified by client hello message 210, which is utilized in further encrypted communications.

Optionally, Merchant computer system 130 transmits a server certificate 220. If transmitted, server certificate 130 enables customer computer system 120 to authenticate the identity of merchant computer system 130.

If merchant computer system 130 does not transmit a server certificate 220, or if server certificate 220 is suitable only for authentication, it may optionally transmit a server key exchange message 225. Server key exchange message 225
identifies a key that may be used by customer computer system 120 to decrypt further messages sent by merchant computer system 130.

After transmitting server hello message 215, and optionally transmitting server certificate 220 or server key exchange message 225, merchant computer system 130 transmits a server hello done message 230 and waits for a further response from customer computer system 120.

Customer computer system 120 optionally transmits client certificate 240 to merchant computer system 130. If transmitted, client certificate 240 enables merchant computer system 130 to authenticate the identity of customer computer system 120. Alternatively, customer computer system 120 may transmit a no-client-certificate alert 245, to indicate that the customer has not registered with any certification authority.

If customer computer system 130 does not transmit a client certificate 240, or if client certificate 240 is suitable only for authentication, customer computer system 130 may optionally transmit a client key exchange message 250. Client key exchange message 250 identifies a key that may be used by merchant computer system 130 to decrypt further messages sent by customer computer system 120.

After optionally transmitting client certificate 240, no-client-certificate alert 245, and/or client key exchange message 250, customer computer system 120 transmits a finished message 260.

At this point, customer computer system 120 and merchant computer system 130 have:

1) negotiated an encryption scheme that may be commonly employed in further communications, and

2) have communicated to each other a set of encryption keys that may be used to decrypt further communications between the two computer systems.

Customer computer system 120 and merchant computer system 130 may thereafter engage in secure communications 270 with less risk of interception by third parties.

Among the messages communicated by customer computer system 120 to merchant computer system 130 may be messages that specify goods or services to be ordered and payment information, such as a credit card number and related information, collectively referred to as "payment information," that may be used to pay for the goods and/or services ordered. In order to obtain payment, the merchant must supply this information to the bank or other payment gateway responsible for the proffered payment method. This enables the merchant to perform payment authorization and payment capture. Payment authorization is the process by which permission is granted by a payment gateway operating on behalf of a financial institution to authorize payment on behalf of the financial institution. This is a process that assesses transaction risk, confirms that a given transaction does not raise the account holder's debt above the account's credit limit, and reserves the specified amount of credit. Payment capture is the process that triggers the movement of funds from the financial institution to the merchant's account after settlement of the account.

Payment Authorization

Merchants utilize point-of-sale products for credit and debit transactions on a daily basis. An embodiment in accordance with the subject invention allows an acquirer processor to accept transactions from Internet storefronts without altering a current host environment. The system easily converts payment protocol messages and simultaneously manages transactions from a number of Internet merchant servers. As the number of transactions grows, the payment gateway can be scaled to handle the increased business, and it can be configured to work with specific business processes used by the acquirer/processor. Thus, the payment gateway supports Internet processing utilizing payment processing operations.

The payment gateway provides support for configuring and installing the Internet payment capability utilizing existing host point-of-sale technology. The payment gateway also provides an intuitive Graphical User Interface (GUI) with support built in to accommodate future payment instruments such as debit cards, electronic checks, electronic cash and micropayments. The payment gateway implements secure transactions using RSA public-key cryptography and the MasterCard/Visa Secure Electronic Transaction (SET) protocol. The gateway also provides full functionality for merchant payment processing including authorization, capture, settlement and reconciliation while providing monitor activity with reporting and tracking of transactions sent over the Internet. Finally, the payment gateway also implements Internet payment procedures that match current processor business models to ensure consistency for merchants. Handling Internet transactions is destined to become a necessary function for every payment procrocessing system. Today, merchants often transmit data received over the Internet inefficiently. Some fax the information or waste time keying data into a non-Internet system.

FIG. 3 depicts an overview of the method of securely supplying payment information to a payment gateway in order to obtain payment authorization. In function block 310, merchant computer system 130 generates a payment authorization request 315
and transmits it to payment gateway computer system 140. In function block 330, payment gateway system 140 processes the payment authorization request, generates a payment authorization response 325 and transmits it to merchant computer system 130. In function block 320, merchant computer system 130 processes payment authorization response 325 and determines whether payment for the goods or services sought to be obtained by the customer has been authorized.

Payment Authorization Request Generation

FIG. 4 depicts the detailed steps of generating and transmitting a payment authorization request. FIGS. 5A through 5F depict views of the payment authorization request and its component parts. In function block 410, merchant computer system 130
creates a basic authorization request 510. The basic authorization request is a data area that includes all the information for determining whether a request should be granted or denied. Specifically, it includes such information as the party who is being charged, the amount to be charged, the account number of the account to be charged, and any additional data, such as passwords, needed to validate the charge. This information is either calculated based upon prior customer merchandise selection, or provided by the customer over the secure link 270 established in the customer-merchant general-purpose secure communication protocol session. FIG. 5A depicts a basic authorization request 510.

In function block 420, merchant computer system 130 combines basic authorization request 510, a copy of its encryption public key certificate 515 and a copy of its signature public key certificate 520. Merchant computer system 130 calculates a digital signature 525 for the combined contents of the combined block 530 comprising basic authorization request 510, the encryption public key certificate 515 and the signature public key certificate 520, and appends it to the combination of the combined basic authorization request 510, the encryption public key certificate 515 and the signature public key certificate 520. The merchant computer system calculates digital signature 525 by first calculating a "message digest" based upon the contents of the combined basic authorization request 510, the encryption public key certificate 515 and the signature public key certificate 520. A message digest is the fixed-length result that is generated when a variable length message is fed into a one-way hashing function. Message digests help verify that a message has not been altered because altering the message would change the digest. The message digest is then encrypted using the merchant computer system's 130 digital signature private key, thus forming a digital signature.

FIG. 5B depicts the combined block 530 formed by function block 420 and containing basic authorization request 510, the encryption public key certificate 515, the signature public key certificate 520, and digital signature 525.

In function block 430, merchant computer system 130 generates a random encryption key RK-0 540, denoted as RK-0. Random encryption key RK-0 540 is a symmetric encryption key. A symmetric encryption key is a key characterized by the property that a message encrypted with a symmetric key can be decrypted with that same key. This is contrasted with an asymmetric key pair, such as a public-key/private-key key pair, where a message encrypted with one key of the key pair may only be decrypted with the other key of the same key pair. FIG. 5C depicts random encryption key RK-0 540.

In function block 440, merchant computer system 130 encrypts combined block 530 using random encryption key RK-0 540 to form encrypted combined block 550. FIG. 5D depicts encrypted combined block 550. The encryption state of encrypted combined block 550 is graphically shown by random key lock 555, which indicates that encrypted combined block 550 is encrypted using random key RK-0 540.

In function block 450, merchant computer system 130 encrypts random encryption key RK-0 540 using the public key of payment gateway system 140 to form encrypted random key 560. FIG. 5E depicts encrypted random key 560. The encryption state of encrypted random key 560 is graphically shown by payment gateway public key lock 565, which indicates that encrypted random key 560 is encrypted using the payment gateway public key.

In function block 460, merchant computer system 130 concatenates encrypted combined block 550 and encrypted random key 560 to form merchant authorization request 315. FIG. 5F depicts merchant authorization request 315 comprising encrypted combined block 550 and encrypted random key 560. In function block 470, merchant computer system 130 transmits merchant authorization request 315 to payment gateway system 140.

Payment Authorization Request Processing

FIG. 6 depicts the detailed steps of processing a payment authorization request and generating and transmitting a payment authorization request response. Function blocks 610 through 630 depict the steps of processing a payment authorization request, while function blocks 635 through 685 depict the steps of generating and transmitting a payment authorization request response.

In function block 610, payment gateway computer system 140 applies its private key to encrypted random key 560 contained within received merchant authorization request 315, thereby decrypting it and obtaining a cleartext version of random key RK-0 540. In function block 615, payment gateway computer system 140 applies random key RK-0 540 to encrypted combined block 550, thereby decrypting it and obtaining a cleartext version of combined block 530. Combined block 530 comprises basic authorization request 510, a copy of merchant computer system's 130 encryption public key certificate 515 and a copy of merchant computer system's 130 signature public key certificate 520, as well as merchant digital signature 525.

In function block 620, payment gateway computer system 140 verifies merchant computer system's 130 encryption public key certificate 515 and merchant computer system's 130 signature public key certificate 520. Payment gateway computer system 140
performs this verification by making a call to the certification authorities associated with each certificate. If verification of either certificate fails, payment gateway computer system 140 rejects the authorization request.

In function block 625, payment gateway computer system 140 validates merchant digital signature 525. Payment gateway computer system 140 performs this validation by calculating a message digest over the contents of the combined basic authorization request 510, the encryption public key certificate 515 and the signature public key certificate 520. Payment gateway computer system 140 then decrypts digital signature 525 to obtain a copy of the equivalent message digest calculated by merchant computer system 130 in function block 420.

If the two message digests are equal, the digital signature 525 is validated. If validation fails, payment gateway computer system 140 rejects the authorization request.

In function block 630, payment gateway computer system 140 determines the financial institution for which authorization is required by inspection of basic authorization request 510. Payment gateway computer system 140 contacts the appropriate financial institution using a secure means, e.g, a direct-dial modem-to-modem connection, or a proprietary internal network that is not accessible to third parties, and using prior art means, obtains a response indicating whether the requested payment is authorized.

Payment Authorization Response Generation

Function blocks 635 through 685 depict the steps of generating and transmitting a payment authorization request response. FIGS. 7A through 7J depict views of the payment authorization response and its component parts.

In function block 635, payment gateway computer system 140 creates a basic authorization response 710. The basic authorization request is a data area that includes all the information to determine whether a request was granted or denied. FIG.
7A depicts basic authorization response 710.

In function block 640, payment gateway computer system 140 combines basic authorization response 710, and a copy of its signature public key certificate 720. Payment computer system 140 calculates a digital signature 725 for the combined contents of the combined block 730 comprising basic authorization response 710 and the signature public key certificate 720, and appends the signature to the combination of the combined basic authorization response 710 and the signature public key certificate 720. The payment gateway computer system calculates digital signature 725 by first calculating a message digest based on the contents of the combined basic authorization response 710 and signature public key certificate 720. The message digest is then encrypted using the merchant computer system's 140 digital signature private key, thus forming a digital signature.

FIG. 7B depicts the combined block 730 formed in function block 640 and containing basic authorization response 710, the signature public key certificate 720, and digital signature 725.

In function block 645, payment gateway computer system 150 generates a first symmetric random encryption key 740, denoted as RK-1. FIG. 7C depicts first random encryption key RK-1 740.

In function block 650, payment gateway computer system 140 encrypts combined block 730 using random encryption key RK-1 740 to form encrypted combined block 750. FIG. 7D depicts encrypted combined block 750. The encryption state of encrypted combined block 750 is graphically shown by random key lock 755, which indicates that encrypted combined block 750 is encrypted using random key RK-1 740.

In function block 655, payment gateway computer system 140 encrypts random encryption key RK1 740 using the public key of merchant computer system 130 to form encrypted random key RK 760. FIG. 7E depicts encrypted random key RK1 760. The encryption state of encrypted random key 760 is graphically shown by merchant public key lock 765, which indicates that encrypted random key 760 is encrypted using the merchant public key.

In function block 660, payment gateway computer system 140 generates a random capture token 770. Random capture token 770 is utilized in subsequent payment capture processing to associate the payment capture request with the payment authorization request being processed. FIG. 7F depicts capture token 775.

In function block 665, payment gateway computer system 140 generates a second symmetric random encryption key 775, denoted as RK2. FIG. 7G depicts second random encryption key RK2