More piquant commentary from Greg Aharonian, reposted with permission. I note first: the failure of individual companies to initiate re-exams is perhaps not surprising, since they generate positive externalities for their competitors as well as themselves. But perhaps the associations might undertake it?
Fortunately, there is dissent, as seen in a comment from one member from this community sarcastic about his colleagues' whine:
Greg,
If you look at the patent itself, you will see that while the
original application was broad, the patent itself is pretty weak,
with easy ways to get around it. Also, Fannie has publicly stated
the patent is for defensive purposes and they have no intent of
enforcing it. Why would it pursue that hands that feed it?
The enemy here is not Fannie. It's the financial services companies
who are members of the groups who wrote those letters who have many
many more patents than Fannie and have no disincentive to enforce
their patents like Fannie does!
THE PATENT
The patent is 7,089,503, titled "Mortgage loan customization system and process", with a provisional filed April 2001. Thus you are looking at any prior art being before April 2000. The patent cites no non-patent prior art, which means that a priori it is already potentially crappy, as well as that filthy rich Fannie Mae wasn't very serious in seeking patent protection if it couldn't afford a few measly bucks to do some prior art searching. WILL YOU FREAKIN RICH COMPANIES DO SOME PRIOR ART SEARCHING, STARTING WITH THE INFURIATING BREASTBEATING MONKEYS AT IBM!!
Claim 1 is long, again another sign of lack of strategic intent:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a borrower with a mortgage loan that is customized to meet the requirements of the borrower, comprising the steps of:
obtaining loan requirements from the borrower by soliciting responses from a user using a computer-implemented user interface comprising at least one input device and at least one output device,
[Greg note: online form for obtaining loans - NOT NOVEL]
determining at least one mortgage loan product having a plurality of loan features, the plurality of loan features including interestrate and loan term, and the plurality of loan features further including a customized combination of loan features, the customizedcombination of loan features being selected to meet the loan requirements from
the borrower,
[Greg note: NOT NOVEL]
wherein the customized combination of loan features includes a plurality of the loan features selectable from the following:
fewer than 12 months of payments,
graduated payments, portability,
payment coverage for missing a loan payment without adverse
credit history consequences,
a borrower-selected payment date selectable by the borrower
from any day through the end of each month, and
a borrower-selected payment frequency selectable by the
borrower from a plurality of possible payment
frequencies, including bi-weekly and monthly,
[Greg note: mostly NOT NOVEL, where not UTTERLY OBVIOUS]
applying the loan requirements from the borrower to a set of stored rules for combining loan features,
[Greg note: expert system for loan analysis - NOT NOVEL]
the set of stored rules being configured to assess compatibility of the customized combination of loan features with each other, [Greg note: automated product configuration - NOT NOVEL]
calculating at least one of a price and an interest rate for at least one customized mortgage loan product for presentation to the borrower together with the at least one customized loan product,
[Greg note: NOT NOVEL]
wherein calculating of the at least one of a price and an interest rate is executed by a data processor,
[Greg note: as opposed to being executed by a goat in Baghdad?]
and wherein the computer-implemented user interface solicits the response by providing a pre-fill form/questionnaire comprising
[Greg note: ooh, ooh - an online questionairre - NOT NOVEL]
a series of questions configured to solicit information concerning how the borrower ranks the importance of various available loan features that may subsequently be selected and included as part of the customized combination of loan features in the customized mortgage loan product.
[Greg note: ooh, ohh - customer customization of an online product.
NOT NOVEL, NOT INTERESTING, NOT INNOVATIVE.]
In short, this claim, its dependents (and the system claim equivalents),I wouldn't even print on soft paper and wipe my ass with. It is a mostly pathetic unnovel, obvious patent that will be blown away with tons of non-patent prior art. All this patent should scare is children and little animals. And I will repeat endlessly, law firms should walk awayfrom such clients who so abuse the patent prosecution system with such applications.
FIRST LETTER
The first group so scared comprises the American Bankers Association, America's Community Bankers, American Financial Services Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Consumer Mortgage Coalition, Housing
Policy Council and the Financial Services Roundtable, all of whom have done nothing over the years to help the PTO acquire and use non-patent prior art for their industry.
Their letter to Fannie Mae's CEO, Daniel Mudd:
The above-named trade associations are writing to express our
concern with respect to the U.S. Patent No. 7,089,503 (the "Patent")
that Fannie Mae recently received. We request that Fannie Mae
immediately take the necessary steps to renounce any rights to
enforce the Patent and place it into the public domain, thereby
enhancing the competitive nature of the mortgage markets, as
well as other loan markets.
[Greg note: one way markets remain competitive is through patent protected
innovation. If Fannie Mae did innovate here, they are entitled to their patent and to sue the crap out of anyone in the marketplace too lazy to so innovate. If Fannie Mae didn't innovate, well part of being an American
corporation is having to deal with crappy patents. The business sector, asleep at the wheel since State Street due to lousy advice from the outside lawyers, is starting to realize this. Grow up.]
Fannie Mae executives and its counsel have advised the industry that the company does not intend to apply the Patent at this time.
[Greg note: hopefully because its counsel has informed Fannie Mae that in
light of the non-patent prior art they didn't seek out in the first place,
this patent is probably crap.]
Given the current state of patent infringement litigation, however, Fannie Mae's mere possession of this Patent could chill innovation in the marketplace.
[Greg note: Oh, please!! Anyone scared about this patent is getting lousy
counsel. If mere possession of a crappy patent chilled innovation, there
would be no innovation in any industry. And frankly, given the large
amounts of foreclosure litigation instituted by members of these
associations, anyone really sympathetic to their fear of litigation?]
Few firms would be willing to risk a future patent infringement
claim whether by Fannie Mae or by another firm to which Fannie Mae
might transfer the Patent.
[Greg note: And if these associations had competent counsel, they would learn that there are immediate steps they can take to minimize such risks, by spending a few bucks, doing a prior art search, and filing a reexam.
I happen to know a very good prior art searcher, and some extremely competent patent litigation firms killers with reexams.]
The problem stated above is compounded because the Patent is broad in its scope. It replicates prior art for processes, systems and methods that were in place in the financial services industry even before the Patent was applied for in 2001.
[Greg note: Exactly. So collect this prior art, prepare a well analyzed reexamination request, and file it with the PTO. Not only does this put Fannie Mae on the defensive, but also is pretty much immediate grounds
for a stay in any infringement lawsuit filed by Fannie Mae.]
We believe that the Patent, in the hands of a GSE that is chartered to support the mortgage market, could stifle innovation.
[Greg note: Grow up - this patent stifles nothing amongst adults.]
To avoid this type of anti-competitive disruption in the marketplace, immediate action is needed. By placing the Patent in the public domain, Fannie Mae could afford all participants in the marketplace the opportunity to build additional innovations on the basis of the Patent's broad scope, and enable the industry to continue to improve their lending processes without fear of litigation.
[Greg note: which ignores the fundamental issue here - should lending industry innovation be protected with patents, or are these assocations going to write similar letters to everyone getting such patents?]
Finally, given the charter act issues that this Patent raises, we urge you, to move quickly to place this Patent into the public domain.
[Greg note: heck, if I was Fannie Mae, and I got this letter, I would file a lawsuit just for irritating me by making me read this letter.
SECOND LETTER
The second letter is from the Mortgage Bankers Association, which was so lazy in cutting and pasting from the first letter, it forgot that it was the only association writing the letter:
The above-named trade associations are writing to express our
concern with respect to the U.S. Patent No. 7,089,503 (the "Patent")
that Fannie Mae recently received. We request that Fannie Mae
immediately take the necessary steps to renounce any rights to
enforce the Patent .... blah, blah, blah
The rest of the letter is that same as the first letter.
Look folks, combine Baker v. Selden, State Street, ATT/Excel and Ex
parte Lundgren, and every non-technological business method is patentable. Which affects every industry, including the banking industry, the entertainment industry, etc. Don't bore us with these whiney letters
- it is time to learn the patent game - file your own patents, file reexamination requests to attack your opponents, and maybe for the first time in the history of America, one industry will band together to create a prior art archive and tools to donate to the Patent Office to help them issue better quality, INNOVATIVE, business method patents.
