Patents by Inventor Michael A. Morgia
Michael A. Morgia has filed for patents to protect the following inventions. This listing includes patent applications that are pending as well as patents that have already been granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
-
Publication number: 20240078614Abstract: Among other things, participants who belong to a group/crowd or group of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round. Voting can by synchronous, i.e. more or less simultaneously, or asynchronous, i.e. where voting occurs as groups of voters are reaching a critical mass (min number) to allow distribution of ideas groups.Type: ApplicationFiled: November 6, 2023Publication date: March 7, 2024Inventors: Michael A. MORGIA, John P. GAUS
-
Publication number: 20230281560Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas may be generated by a collection of participants, or may be provided to the collection of participants. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. Each participant chooses a favorite idea from the group, or selects a first and second choice, or a first, second and third choice. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. If desired, the voting may continue until a single idea is chosen as the consensus. In some rounds of voting, the groups are configured so that a participant does not vote on his/her own idea.Type: ApplicationFiled: April 26, 2023Publication date: September 7, 2023Inventors: Michael A. MORGIA, Pat A. FONTANA, Jr., Alex M. MORGIA, Pat A. FONTANA, Sr., Ralph E. ROLAND, Shawn M. DAVIS, Mark M. Piwowarski, John F. GAUS
-
Publication number: 20220036480Abstract: Among other things, participants who belong to a group/crowd or group of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round. Voting can by synchronous, i.e. more or less simultaneously, or asynchronous, i.e. where voting occurs as groups of voters are reaching a critical mass (min number) to allow distribution of ideas groups.Type: ApplicationFiled: October 19, 2021Publication date: February 3, 2022Inventors: Michael A. MORGIA, John P. GAUS
-
Publication number: 20220006875Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: September 16, 2021Publication date: January 6, 2022Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20190124171Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: December 20, 2018Publication date: April 25, 2019Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20190108596Abstract: Among other things, participants who belong to a group/crowd or group of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round. Voting can by synchronous, i.e. more or less simultaneously, or asynchronous, i.e. where voting occurs as groups of voters are reaching a critical mass (min number) to allow distribution of ideas groups.Type: ApplicationFiled: November 20, 2018Publication date: April 11, 2019Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, John P. P.
-
Publication number: 20180247267Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. In the first round of voting, the groups are configured so that no two ideas compete against each other more than once.Type: ApplicationFiled: April 30, 2018Publication date: August 30, 2018Applicant: Watertown Software, Inc.Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20170206611Abstract: Among other things, participants who belong to a group/crowd or group of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round. Voting can by synchronous, i.e. more or less simultaneously, or asynchronous, i.e. where voting occurs as groups of voters are reaching a critical mass (min number) to allow distribution of ideas groups.Type: ApplicationFiled: April 3, 2017Publication date: July 20, 2017Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20150310687Abstract: Among other things, participants who belong to a group/crowd or group of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round. Voting can by synchronous, i.e. more or less simultaneously, or asynchronous, i.e. where voting occurs as groups of voters are reaching a critical mass (min number) to allow distribution of ideas groups.Type: ApplicationFiled: June 11, 2015Publication date: October 29, 2015Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20150046538Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: October 28, 2014Publication date: February 12, 2015Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20140162241Abstract: Among other things, participants who belong to a crowd of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round.Type: ApplicationFiled: December 5, 2013Publication date: June 12, 2014Applicant: CrowdzSpeak Inc.Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20130302778Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: July 22, 2013Publication date: November 14, 2013Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Jr., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Sr., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Patent number: 8494436Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: GrantFiled: May 28, 2009Date of Patent: July 23, 2013Assignee: Watertown Software, Inc.Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Jr., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Sr., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20130060605Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. In the first round of voting, the groups are configured so that no two ideas compete against each other more than once.Type: ApplicationFiled: September 4, 2012Publication date: March 7, 2013Applicant: Watertown Software, Inc.Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20090239205Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: May 28, 2009Publication date: September 24, 2009Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20080254436Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas may be generated by a collection of participants, or may be provided to the collection of participants. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. Each participant chooses a favorite idea from the group, or selects a first and second choice, or a first, second and third choice. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. If desired, the voting may continue until a single idea is chosen as the consensus. In some rounds of voting, the groups are configured so that a participant does not vote on his/her own idea.Type: ApplicationFiled: November 5, 2007Publication date: October 16, 2008Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Patent number: 5232368Abstract: A martial arts training focus box comprising a resilient strike board with pile fabric material affixed to the side edges and a perimeter portion of the front surface thereof. Four wedge-shaped strike guide elements having hook fabric material affixed to the base portions thereof removably attach in a variety of positions to the pile fabric material on the strike board to define a strike zone area. The martial arts trainee practices his/her kicking and punching technique by impacting the strike zone. If the technique is poor, one or more of the guide elements will likely be struck and detach from the strike board giving immediate visual indication of the incorrect technique.Type: GrantFiled: October 26, 1992Date of Patent: August 3, 1993Inventor: Michael Morgia