Insider Patenting: How Fannie Mae Chief Got the Patent for Cap and Trade in 2006(Corruption)

biggovernment.com ^ | May 28, 2010 | John Bambenek

[Liz]

Raines cooked the FM books creating losses of $9B (that we know of) to create bonuses for himself .......The SEC said Raines broke accounting rules by playing with risky derivatives.

Yet the crooked Raines walked away w/ $90 million dollars, a $26 million parachute PLUS a MONTHLY pension of $116,300 for life.

Raines owns options giving him $5.8 million in net profit after redeeming them, plus another $8.7 million in deferred compensation for his six years at the helm. Raines has already collected $4.87 million in special performance shares this year.

He keeps $5 million of paid-up life insurance. He and his spouse get free medical and dental benefits for life, worth over $1 million.

Raines earned $20 million in salary, bonuses and stock awards (that we know of) in one year.

After he was fired, Raines told the F/M board that he's entitled to get paychecks until next June 22 giving him another $600,000, which triggers a $2,000 monthly raise in his lifetime pension. He also says he's entitled to disputed options with a gross value of about $5.6 million.

To keep Raines happy within philanthropic circles, Fannie Mae will match Raines' charitable contributions by $10,000 a year.

Franklin Raines looted and pillaged Fannie Mae as Clinton's appointee.

Raines' looting career continues. Now he's a charter member of the Ohaha criminal enterprise......Climate Change, Inc. I guess this means the Clintons get a cut of the CCX scam. (/snix)

[1010RD]

This is why the BP leak will take forever to be capped. The entire economy is now politically based.

When government can reach out without limit (thanks SCOTUS - ICC abuse) against any area of the economy that’s the end. It doesn’t matter what you know, but who. Merit is down the drain and manipulation reigns supreme.

[kara2008]

bookmark

[A Strict Constructionist]

“Chief Executive of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines”

A quasi government entity. Why don’t we own the patent. My University owns my patents.

[Liz]

So true-——the meritocracy went out the window long ago.

Our culture is rife with both the PC and the diversity atrocities.

The election of Obama epitomizes this corruption.

[Carry_Okie]

There is a person who holds a patent that could precede the cap and trade business method patent by about 18 months (if one counts from the provisional application; if you go by the actual application date, it is six months).

That person would be me. I filed it as a preventetive measure, to preclude evil people from monopolizing control of the economy via an environmental offset trading scheme. Anybody interested in helping with the legal analysis please freepmail me.

[Carry_Okie]

See #26 above.

[marsh2]

You ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until they roll out "Payment for Ecosystem Services" in all it's glory. Everyone could be levied impact fees based on their consumption. The NGO middle men will rake in the dough. No wonder they are pushing National Monuments, Wilderness, Travel Management Plans and Regulations to impose mitigation conditions that will force farmers and ranchers to sell development rights in conservation easements to the NGOS. They want control over natural resources so they can profit off mitigation banking.

Ecosystem Marketplace http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/#close

Introduction to Ecosystem Markets http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/web.page.php?page_name=e_markets_intro&section=about_us#close

Payments for Ecosystem Services - Getting Started http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/publications/GettingStarted.pdf

Negotiating for Nature's Services http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/publications/NegotiatingforNature.pdf"

Conservation Economy Backgrounder http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/publications/ConservationEconomyBackgrounder.pdf

Integrated Solutions - Water, Biodiversity and the Clean Development Mechanism href="http://moderncms.ecosystemmarketplace.com/repository/moderncms_documents/Integrated%2520Solutions%2520-%2520English%2520FINAL%2520WEB%252009-0923.1.1.1.1.pdf

Biodiversity Markets Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf

Conservation and Biodiversity Banking- A Guide to Setting up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=5494&section=our_publications&eod=1#close

Banking on Conservation: Species and Wetland Mitigation Banking http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/resources.library.page.php?page_id=6945&section=our_publications&eod=1#close

Ecosystem Service Market Development: The Role and Opportunity for Finance http://moderncms.ecosystemmarketplace.com/repository/moderncms_documents/2010_bullitt_phase1.pdf

[Carry_Okie]

You ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until they roll out "Payment for Ecosystem Services" in all it's glory.

If you truly represented the landowners in your County, you would be out front of that issue. You see, it takes WORK to keep those services functioning and landowners can provide those services cheaper, more effectively, and with better accountability than government.

Remember this list that I presented in Klamath City???

Who is going to do it?
How is it going to be paid for?
How can we be sure they know what they are doing?
How do we pay for it if something goes wrong?

BTW, my patent allowed last year, oh and not only do I now have standing in front of the government per its own environmental laws, but it is a year and a half in front of Franklin Raines' procurement but I have another nine months to file new claims. What I lack is legal and administrative help amid the demands of my land and my G-d. I need help.

[marsh2]

I am adamantly opposed to this. I have seen how our local timber owners have tried to play the Cap N Trade game and how the big dogs simply changed the rules on where baseline should be established in order to calculate “new growth” that would be eligible. Make no mistake, it is an evil shell game that will destroy the legal concept of private property and end up moving control of all the marbles into the big dog’s hands.

Just look at area of origin issues. The USFS is already talking about how north state watersheds provide “ecosystem services” to the populated areas. The Forest Service now says they are responsible for producing clean water of quantity to the Central Valley and coast for their fisheries. So our local use and access to natural resources is being cut off in various ways (including regulation) so we can supply them with what they need. To hell with us.

I have watched for twenty years as our economy has plummeted and the regulators have shut down one natural resource industry after another. I have watched as the big companies survived because they could comply with impossible regulations and the little guys died who could no longer compete. I’ll be damned if I will buy into it. It will sell us all into a feudal system where we are the serfs. This is evil to the max.

(With our current spate of regulatory actions, we are being encircled by the NGOs just itching to sell conservation easements to farmers and ranchers so that they will remain what amounts to a serf on their own heritage ranches handed down from their pioneer ancestors. No wonder ecosystem services is currently in place in socialist or facist south American countries where land is collectively or government controlled.)

Just look at the costs and benefits outlined in their own Payments for Ecosystem Services: Getting Started A Primer. You can bet we will end up being left holding an empty bag in this deal:

Potential Benefits of PES (Payments for Ecosystem Services) for the Rural Poor In the short-term:

• Increased cash income for consumption or investment purposes (such as increased caloric intake for children, expanded access to education and health care, new products for sale, improved enterprise productivity, etc.)

• Expanded experience with external business activities through PES-related economic transactions and interactions with PES-relevant intermediaries

• Increased knowledge of sustainable resource use practices through training and technical assistance associated with PES deal implementation

In the long-term:
• Improved resilience of local ecosystems and flow of ecosystem services

• Potential for higher productivity land due to
ecosystem service investments

“Potential Risks of PES (Payments for Ecosystems) for “Sellers”
of Ecosystem Services”

“A range of potential risks exist for the rural poor in
entering into PES deals. Therefore, careful consideration
should be taken of the following:

Inadequate understanding of what is being bought
and sold, and long-term implications for local
livelihoods and resource rights. The use of PES
implies a market-based focus on relatively abstract
ecosystem services, which may contrast with cultural
conceptions and economic models operating within
traditional communities. It is important to identify and
consider these potential issues and “friction” points
prior to actively exploring a PES deal.

• Loss of rights to harvest products, or environmental services. Prior to agreeing to a PES deal, it is essential to lay out a resource plan that accounts for sellers’ access to forest resources — for food, fuel, non-timber forest products, medicines, and other items. This component is key to ensuring that the PES deal does not result in loss of rights to critical, non-negotiable activities for prospective sellers and/or local communities. Consultations with all resource users on the land in question are essential in this process.

• Other opportunity costs. The possible loss of non-PES opportunities should be weighed against revenues from a PES deal. For example, if a community enters into a PES contract, donors and aid organizations may decide the
community is less in need of their support. It is worth assessing whether any such potential opportunity costs are associated with a PES deal.

• Loss of employment. If a PES deal includes reduced land management activities, then it could reduce jobs.

• Unfair outcomes. There is a potential for unfair sharing of net revenues when rural communities form partnerships with business entities to supply ecosystem services, especially when there is asymmetric information on the demand market.

• Increased competition for land, or loss of rights to land. Success with PES could attract speculative investors, which could in turn squeeze out indigenous landowners, especially where low levels of tenure security exist.

• Loss of critically important ecosystem services. In designing a project, the needs of the entire ecosystem must be taken into account. Poorly-designed carbon sequestration projects, for example, could negatively impact both the
watershed and biodiversity if they lead to large-scale monoculture plantations. Likewise, watershed service projects that measure success in terms of water
flow may create incentives to divert water from the irrigation of local crops to downstream water delivery in a drought year, jeopardizing subsistence farmers.

• Confusion over resource and ecosystem service rights. PES schemes compensate people for taking action to maintain or enhance ecosystem services, but do not necessarily transfer resource rights. This distinction (and accompanying confusion) is particularly pronounced in hydrological / waterrelated services payments, which do not entail transfer of water rights, per se. In the same way, biodiversity offsets payments would not necessarily imply
accompanying control over biological or genetic resources. It is essential that agreements are clear on these distinctions.

• Loss of control and flexibility over local development options and directions. Poorly-designed easements or long-term contracts can limit land management activities to a narrow range of alternatives, which could cost community residents their rights to exercise certain options for managing their land. The limitations should be carefully scrutinized in light of potential future options that sellers of ecosystem services wish to keep open.

• Performance risk and need for insurance. Where payments are dependent upon delivery of specific ecosystem service outcomes, factors outside producers’ control may result in failure to achieve contractual obligations and, subsequently, non-payment. For example, wildfires, insect infestations, or changes in rainfall could all affect forestry-based implementation activities. Therefore, it is ideal that all participants in PES schemes employ some type of insurance strategy, such as formal insurance or making sure that management activities cover a larger enough number of hectares to ensure the total number called for in the deal can be successfully included. Unfortunately, formal
insurance policies are rarely used in tropical forestry, but new insurance products are being developed for large-scale companies (Cottle and Crosthwaite-Eyre 2002). The key of course will be the cost of these insurance policies and who bears the cost. If a buyer is willing to pay for insurance, that is — from a seller’s stance — ideal. However, if that approach is not of interest to a
buyer, then at least it is ideal to have risk sharing — between sellers and buyers — included in agreements so that not all risk is borne by sellers.

• Incompatibility of PES with cultural values. In some communities, PES is viewed as a commoditization of services that should not have a price tag attached. Critics are also concerned that communities who are the custodians of those services or other poor “downstream” beneficiaries could themselves be made to pay for services as well.

[heiss]

Today, Supreme Court basically concluded that these sort of crappy vague business method patents are ok (in “Bilski”, the patent was invalidated but the arguments indicate that there is nothing wrong with these kind of patents).

Interestingly, Justice Stevens was opposed to this idea (ie wanted to restrict this sort of patents)

[Liz]

Thanks for the headsup. Your excellent post deserves a repeat.

FReeper HEISS posted: Patenting: How Fannie Mae Chief Got the Patent for Cap and Trade in 2006: This is typical “business method” patent and subject to scrutiny and controversy. Basically, patents should be granted for technical inventions only, e.g. improved chemical process or hinge for iphone, not tax optimization or cap-and-trade scams. Supreme Court is now debating “Bilski”. It is plausible that Supreme Court will strike down these kind of patents (ie they became obsolete). The decision will come no later than June 28.

This is the CCX “invention.” 1. A computer-implemented method for providing a residential emissions trading program, comprising the steps of: identifying an energy savings opportunity in a residential property; quantifying an emissions reduction produced by the energy savings opportunity, wherein quantifying the emissions reduction further comprises measuring an energy savings resulting from the energy savings opportunity and calculating an emissions reduction resulting from the energy savings, and wherein calculating the emissions reduction further comprises qualifying a technical confidence factor for the energy savings opportunity; and aggregating the emissions reductions into a tradable commodity.

Interesting aspect here is that patents filed by Gov employees are owned by US Gov. Fannie Mae was not officially a Gov agency, just indirectly.

PATENTS Government and Employee Rights and Responsibilities Under Executive Order 10096 the Government has the right to obtain the entire right, title and interest in and to all inventions made by any Government employee (1) during working hours, or (2) with a contribution by the Government of facilities, equipment, materials, funds, or information, or of time or services of other Government employees on official duty, or (3) which bear a direct relation to or are made in consequence of the official duties of the inventor. See also 37 C.F.R. §501.6 and Kaplan v. Corcoran, et al.

[Carry_Okie]

Well, the provisional application for the crappy business method patent I own was 18 months in front of theirs. Their filing never confronted mine because of the seven year delay in processing it. So, now what? Unless somebody starts making noise about this, I could be one dead duck.

The only reason I filed was for it to stand as prior art against what I saw as the corporate thugs of the world and to create standing in the court for free-market environmental management as a competitor to government. That way, private landowners could begin to market contracts for currently intangible uses of their property priced upon an objective basis.

Of course, marsh2 can't see that as an opportunity to own an honest market, and in her resistance to it by association with the "nature's services" idiots in universities, will end up allowing the corporate fascist left to own that market.

[heiss]

If you wanted merely to create prior art, ie preventing somebody patenting something in the future, all you need to do is to publish it (FR post is enough, or get a free blog website and publish the idea there). No need to file a patent (which is expensive).

Patent examiners search all other pending patent applications when examining new applications, there is no such thing as 7 year delay in processing.

Claim examination, ie whether all the claim elements can be found in earlier publication (such as patent, patent application or say, blog post) is difficult art.

If your older patent includes teachings and suggestions relevant to Fannie Mae patent, then Fannie Mae patent can be invalidated (or at the minimum, by advertising it making it more or less impossible for Fannie Mae thugs to enforce it).

The claim 1 in your patent is very long (longest claim I have ever seen, I think) so successfully enforcing it (or say, selling the patent itself) is extremely unlikely.

Not a legal advise.

[CutePuppy]

Thanks, Liz, heiss and Carry_Okie.

“Bilski” decision was a bit of a disappointment in breadth, but still it’s a big step in limiting a number of these vague, “business method” patents. It’s their first decision on this type of issue in many years, and it’s possible that they wanted send a warning to the “patent industry” for abuse of these patents while not killing the marketplace for potential reasonable use of such. All it means that patent lawyers can keep collecting fees for filing likely useless “business methods” patent applications...

Re Franklin Raines’ CCX patent, it’s largely unenforceable, and cap-and-trade doesn’t have to rely on it, so I don’t think it was meant to stop anyone else from utilizing the method. Raines could attempt to benefit by “selling” it to the government, to “enable” the government mandate, but it would violate several laws (including the “only way” to do something is not patentable) is n and would be too public for it to happen.

Carry_Okie, that likely means that your patent is not going to be profitable, but that you can make life difficult for Raines or someone else if they attempt to “sell” or somehow enforce this or similar patent... which is what your initial goal was, anyway.

[Carry_Okie]

Patent examiners search all other pending patent applications when examining new applications, there is no such thing as 7 year delay in processing.

I have the paperwork to prove it. When I fired my lawyer and went pro se, it sailed right through.

If your older patent includes teachings and suggestions relevant to Fannie Mae patent, then Fannie Mae patent can be invalidated (or at the minimum, by advertising it making it more or less impossible for Fannie Mae thugs to enforce it).

That's the plan.

The claim 1 in your patent is very long (longest claim I have ever seen, I think) so successfully enforcing it (or say, selling the patent itself) is extremely unlikely.

That's not the plan. Nearly every single environmental law cites the source of agency authority as "market failure." This is a matter of creating standing around a business plan with which to go after the legitimacy of regulatory agencies in environmental cases, thus creating a nascent market.

[Carry_Okie]

Carry_Okie, that likely means that your patent is not going to be profitable, but that you can make life difficult for Raines or someone else if they attempt to “sell” or somehow enforce this or similar patent... which is what your initial goal was, anyway.

Correct, one of two. See #37 above.

[CutePuppy]

Leading by example, taking the initiative and matters in your own hands, in more ways than one.

Nicely done and... thank you!

[Carry_Okie]

Nicely done and... thank you!

Thanks. The patent came out of my first book:

Natural Process (2001) (the link is to reviews)
Articles at Wildergarten Press Articles on the unconstitutional origins of regulatory racketeering
Shemitta: For the Land Is Mine (2009) An amazing discovery concerning the Sabbath for the Land
And soon to come: The Responsible Party (2010) A free online book about caring for land and the damage done to native plant habitat by the myth of "Nature"

Enjoy!