Search

Michael Anthony Morgia

from Watertown, NY
Age ~58

Michael Morgia Phones & Addresses

  • 325 Flower Ave W, Watertown, NY 13601 (315) 782-4552
  • Hounsfield, NY
  • Jefferson, NY

Resumes

Resumes

Michael Morgia Photo 1

Michael Morgia

View page
Location:
United States
Michael Morgia Photo 2

Michael Morgia

View page

Business Records

Name / Title
Company / Classification
Phones & Addresses
Michael A. Morgia
WATERTOWN SOFTWARE, INC
Computer Systems Design
180 Breen Ave, Watertown, NY 13601
325 Flower Ave, Watertown, NY 13601

Publications

Us Patents

System And Method For Algorithmic Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas

View page
US Patent:
8494436, Jul 23, 2013
Filed:
May 28, 2009
Appl. No.:
12/473598
Inventors:
Michael A. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Alex M. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Ralph E. Roland - Ellicott City MD, US
Shawn M. Davis - Clarksville MD, US
Mark M. Piwowarski - Ellicott City MD, US
John P. Gaus - Watertown NY, US
Assignee:
Watertown Software, Inc. - Watertown NY
International Classification:
G09B 3/00
US Classification:
434350, 434322, 434323
Abstract:
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.

Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas

View page
US Patent:
20080254436, Oct 16, 2008
Filed:
Nov 5, 2007
Appl. No.:
11/934990
Inventors:
Michael A. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Pat A. Fontana - Watertown NY, US
Alex M. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Ralph E. Roland - Silver Spring MD, US
Shawn M. Davis - Clarksville MD, US
Mark M. Piwowarski - Ellicott City MD, US
John P. Gaus - Watertown NY, US
International Classification:
G06F 19/00
US Classification:
434362
Abstract:
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. In the first round of voting, the groups are configured so that no two ideas compete against each other more than once. A formulaic template is provided for generation of the groups, based on the number of ideas, the number of participants, and the number of ideas per group. In some embodiments, the template and number of ideas per group may be formulated using the sequence of integers known as the Mian-Chowla sequence.

Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas

View page
US Patent:
20130060605, Mar 7, 2013
Filed:
Sep 4, 2012
Appl. No.:
13/602978
Inventors:
Michael A. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Alex M. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Ralph E. Roland - Silver Spring MD, US
Shawn M. Davis - Clarksville MD, US
Mark M. Piwowarski - Ellicott City MD, US
John P. Gaus - Watertown NY, US
Assignee:
Watertown Software, Inc. - Watertown MN
International Classification:
G06Q 30/02
US Classification:
705 732
Abstract:
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.

System And Method For Algorithmic Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas

View page
US Patent:
20130302778, Nov 14, 2013
Filed:
Jul 22, 2013
Appl. No.:
13/947406
Inventors:
Michael A. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Alex M. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Ralph E. Roland - Silver Spring MD, US
Shawn M. Davis - Clarksville MD, US
Mark M. Piwowarski - Ellicott City MD, US
John P. Gaus - Watertown NY, US
International Classification:
G09B 7/00
US Classification:
434362
Abstract:
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.

Martial Arts Training Approach Box

View page
US Patent:
52323684, Aug 3, 1993
Filed:
Oct 26, 1992
Appl. No.:
7/966503
Inventors:
Michael Morgia - Watertown NY
International Classification:
A63B 6934
US Classification:
434247
Abstract:
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.

Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas

View page
US Patent:
20180247267, Aug 30, 2018
Filed:
Apr 30, 2018
Appl. No.:
15/966781
Inventors:
Michael A. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Alex M. Morgia - Watertown NY, US
Ralph E. Roland - Silver Spring MD, US
Shawn M. Davis - Clarksville MD, US
Mark M. Piwowarski - Ellicott City MD, US
John P. Gaus - Watertown NY, US
Assignee:
Watertown Software, Inc. - Watertown MN
International Classification:
G06Q 10/10
Abstract:
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.
Michael Anthony Morgia from Watertown, NY, age ~58 Get Report