Slashdot Mirror
Dept. of Homeland Security Enforces Expired Patent
Fouquet writes "Apparently the Department of Homeland Security does not have enough to do in keeping the US safe, and now is enforcing copyright law as well. The AP reports that a toy store owner in Oregon was requested by Homeland Security officials to remove a potentially copyright-infringing Rubik's cube-like toy from her shelves. The patent for Rubik's cube was issued in 1980, and so it is expired."
In normal cases, people will just consult a lawyer (the shop owner did call her supplier, later), or at least ask for supporting documents before they complied to requests from officials. For example, you tend to ask for a search warranty if someone wants to search your house.
However with all the terrorism and patriotism nowdays, peasants can't afford to not cooperate, "just in case" you got blamed for being terrorist or unpatriotic.
Next thing we know, IRS burst into a kindergarten arresting several 5-year-old's for not calculating and paying proper tax while playing Monopoly, just to protect the integrity of the economy and nation's financial systems. "If they can't do tax at age of 5, will you trust them to pay tax 20 years later?!"
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Now this is one overlord I DO NOT welcome.....
ZZ
Trademark in the title, copyright in the summary, but a patent on the Rubik's cube. These are all different you know...
Ahh, America -- land of the moron. Where the nation's anti-terrorism forces bravely persecute toy-store owners for "violation" of expired patents.
wait up a second, are you telling me, that the homeland security agents have nothing better to do than take off a rubiks cube clone? surely there must be something.
"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications,"
a Rubiks Cube Clone??? Seriously, i could eat a bowl of alphabits and crap a better Bullshit argument.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Apparently the Department of Homeland Security does not have enough to do in keeping the US safe, and now is enforcing copyright law as well.
The patent for Rubik's cube was issued in 1980, and so it is expired."
So, are we talking about a copyright, a trademark, or a patent?
USA seem more and more like a police state. Once I wanted to visit USA but now I wouldn't dream of setting foot in the states. I'd probably be arrested if I said something wrong.
This sounds like really great news. What next? Every person who downloads MP3s is automatically branded a 'terrorist' because they might be threatening the integrity of the economy? Even if they own the CD in question (which is analogous here, because legally there's nothing wrong with the Majick Cube either now that the Rubik's patent has expired)?
--Ryvar
Customs is part of Homeland Security and customs has been enforcing these laws for as long as I can remember. These are imported goods.
"Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
Puzzles are an atempt to destroy our national security! If our children had puzzels they, they might become smart, and ask questions. We can't have children asking questions now can we? They'll never make good sheeple that way!
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Ok, who modded me troll?
/. I have to stand up for my right to make totally asinine posts completely devoid of any relevant subject matter related to the article which I haven't even read.
Come one now, this is
The American Federal government already has a law enforcement agency, that being the ever-venerated FBI. In addition, the Secret Service also acts in some cases as a law enforcement agency, providing protection for the President, government buildings like the U.S. mints, and, of course, as the chief investigator of counterfeiting schemes.
Now the DHS seems to see its role as more than a simple anti-terrorist investigative agency. They think of themselves as another arm of Federal law enforcement. To some extent, they are correct. The role they play is vital to American national security, and to reach the goals of the agency it is mandatory that they have the ability to use law enforcement tactics.
However, to stretch the fairly narrow initial charter of the DHS to include such things as "defending the national economy" is nothing short of stupid and dangerous. When the DHS was formed, their purview only included possible terrorist attacks. Now it is expanded to include just about any crime that someone deems undesirable.
The government should not have many overlapping law enforcement agencies. Indeed, this is what led to the massive intelligence failure on 9/11 with the lack of communication between the various government agencies. The DHS would be better absorbed into the FBI as a anti-terror division than to continue expanding its powers unabated.
...expiration violations aside, shouldn't the order be to stop manufacturing them, not to stop selling them? Also, isn't the owner of this (expired) patent responsible for enforcing it instead of Homeland Security just hunting them down?
"Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.
Terrorists? Do you think we'd be mucking around in Iraq if we knew where to find terrorists??
Now just put down the cubes and nobody gets hurt.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The Customs Service is now part of Homeland Security. Ergo, DHS agents were the ones who investigated this incident.
sulli
RTFJ.
Terrorist suppliers cannot be allowed to sell the tools of evil with just one click.
The terrorist must always click twice.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Trademarks don't expire. Trademark, copyright, and patent are entirely different things. Reading the summary you can't tell which of these areas of law was involved and you get the impression that the action was taken on expired IP.
The article states that the action was taken on the basis of a trademark. With a name like "Magic Cube" if the toy is anything at all like a Rubic's Cube then it almost certainly does infringe on the Rubic's Cube trademark.
And why all the fake wonderment about the department of Homeland Security handling the case? In case anyone missed the press release the department is not some niche organisation that deals specifically with terrorism. It's a big tarball of a whole bunch of departments and old law enforcement angencies that used to deal with all manner of federal law enforcement issues. They do lots of things besides deal with terrorism.
Oh man, I want one of those Magic Cubes so bad, which is funny, because I hated the Rubiks Cube (not because it was hard, it was just too popular).
So how about it ThinkGeek? I want "the toy the government doesn't want you to know about".
How cool would that be.
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
Perhaps all newer true Rubix cubes are embedded with some sort of micro chips/sensors, (perhaps even microphones and/or cameras!) which can detect if and how long it took a person to solve it, then these individuals are added to some sort of watch list, because they arent the typical dumb sheep the government wishes to rule. But I digress
That looks like a misleading article title to me. What happened is that DHS inherited Customs because Customs is responsible for controlling things that cross US - which is not unreasonable. But customs also apparently has some trademark enforcement duties - probably on things that are imported. Also not unreasonable - although it leads to trademark enforcement sitting under DHS which is a little weird. But the article should more rightfully have been about a shop owner who was visited by Customs agents.
Whether or not trademarks were actually being violated is a another matter.
You have a chance to do something about it next Tuesday. Go vote.
We're going to have to change our name to the country formerly known as the land of the free.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Tom Delay, (R-TX), is under indictment in Texas for abusing his power as leader of the majority in the House of Representatives (ie, a powerful man) to sic Homeland Security on a group of Democrats state assemblymembers as part of a bitter redistricting battle. Regardless of the merit of the Democrat strategy, Homeland Security was clearly not appropriate, though Delay was able to use them for his purposes, without any security component.
If we let these powermad tyrants have power, they will abuse it, and maybe apologize later, after the damage is done. We have to get rid of this unaccountable department immediately, and use our National Security system to protect us. Anyone know what is the difference is between "National" Security and "Homeland" Security? Or the Department of Defense, for that matter? We're turning into squalid East Germany, where every fifth German was a "security" henchman, controlling their neighbors through surveillence and intimidation.
--
make install -not war
I was watching a movie on the american poet Poe and he was impoverished most of his life becasue he was so vocal about copyright (pro copyright) that knowbody would hire him. We have come full circle.
I've figured it out. The Rubiks cube was actually invented by some commie, wasn't it? So the All-American Majick Cube would actually be HELPING our economy, by making sure part of the profits didn't go to those godless communists.
So, if the Dept of Homeland Security confiscated the American cubes.... they must be agents of the Soviet Government. Thats the only thing that makes sense.
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
The slashdot story confuses copyrights, trademarks and patents: at issue is trademark infringement (or so it seems). Copyrights have nothing to do with the story, and the patent on rubiks cubes was only mentioned by the copycat manufacturer to clarify that the patent had expired.
Specifically, the trademark probably hasn't expired (in principle trademarks don't while you defend them); A rubiks cube (or anything similar) can't infringe upon copyright (unless you're crazy enough to consider it a medium for information).
I don't like whining about bad slashdot stories; but this really is poorly presented...
--Eamon
I wouldn't say the Department of Homeland Security was unnecessary, in fact it in my opinion it was originally a step in the right direction. Create an agency which will be responsible for coordinating the security of the nation without all the interagency mess. It seemed like a good idea, until it was given exactly what the parent said a very large brush to paint the picture of terrorism.
Obviously this case is asinine, and I'd hate to think how many more instances similiar to this have occured. The real question is how do we fix the problem? Will Kerry if elected be able to do anything to dismantle or at least take some of the edge off the Patriot Act? If Bush is re-elected will the problem just get worse? Or is the problem just too large to fix?
-JM
OK, so US Customs is enforcing a trademark violation. Fine.
What is wrong is that Customs does not have jurisdiction inside the US only coming and going from it. Once in the US, it is a civil case that would need at least a hearing or court order to remove merchandise from the store. More than likely, an authorized local authority would then execute the court order(not actual agents).
It is disturbing that Homeland Security did think that Magic Cube and Rubik's Cube are similar in name or that they don't understand what a trademark is. Most disturbing is that Homeland Security obviously does not understand the laws they are trying to enforce or how to legally enforce them.
The only 'wrong' thing going on is that Rubik or whoever reported it is intentionally damaging and interfering with Magic Cubes and Pufferbelly Toys businesses. Homeland Security should immediately return the items to Pufferbelly Toys and apologize. I don't think there is much Pufferbelly Toys can do for restitution directly against Homeland Security. It would be nice to be able to sue the government for incompetence, but then there would be no government left.
That's right, "boys will be boys". OK if I call DHS on you, for that suspicious glow from your basement around Midnight every night? You can explain it all to the press properly when they get there to pick through the wreckage.
--
make install -not war
The article fails to mention that three of the six sides were arranged to spell out "WMD."
Vote Bush for a better, safer America. Vote Kerry for a wealthier Kerry.
Have you seen the price of oil recently?
deus does not exist but if he does
No, you most certainly do not speak for me.
Firstly, because you can't manage to spell "retarded" correctly, but mostly because you demonstrate a gross failure to understand the issue. For one thing, many federal agencies have been subsumed into the Department of Homeland Security, including the Customs Service (which as sulli pointed out is the agency that actually investigated this incident). For another thing, either Fouquet doesn't understand that there are very important differences between patent, copyright and trademark law, or he wants you to overlook that fact. Furthermore, you failed to recognize that fact and have perpetuated the myth that there's some vast conspiracy apparently with the purpose of keeping toys out of the hands of children which means either the entire post is stupid, or you are or both.
What's most probably really going on here, is that the Customs Service is following up on a complaint that Pufferbelly Toys is selling toys that are infringing on the *trademark* rights (which loyal fans know *must* be defended zealously or lost) of Seven Towns Limited and will hopefully eventually follow up to the manufacturer. I believe the very cube itself is covered by the trademark. This is just basic police work folks, not some conspiracy to revoke your rights to waste time playing with your Rubik's Cube.
But thanks for wasting my time anyway.
Ed Chauvin IV
Magic Cube(TM) is an active and fairly famous trademark. The Magic Cube(TM) is a toy for toddlers that makes a crapload of electronic noise when you push buttons on it.
A rubik's cube like toy is fine to import into the US, just don't call it Magic Cube(TM), GameCube(TM), or XBox(TM).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's a matter of priorities and if this our current administration's idea of a law enforcement priority, then we need change really, really bad.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The trademark "Magic Cube", as it applies to "manipulative puzzles", is owned by Atico International USA Inc. of Ft. Lauderdale, FL. You can find out stuff like that here. The manufacturer/importer of the Magic Cube puzzles in the story is the Toysmith Group of Auburn, WA. This could be nothing more than the rightful owner of a trademark pressing its case against a possibly unwitting party who didn't do any trademark research before naming their product. It probably has nothing to do with Erno Rubik, his expired patent, or any copyrights.
Here's the corruption from this week alone. Its not laziness at work here.
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our Homeland." -- Adolf Hitler, on the creation of the Gestapo
As much as I hate the man, that's not a valid point. The dept. of Homeland Security plans were started during the Clinton Administration. Furthermore, though I can't be sure of this last point, I've been told that Bush actually opposed the DHS at first.
Common sense is what tells us that the world is flat
Yup, it's the customs agents who are responsible for trademark violations for imported goods. Not sure who if the goods are domestic, which is the case here.
The problem here is the agents didn't do their homework. They MERELY ACCEPTED THE COMPLAINT ON FACE VALUE. This makes the agents look stupid.
If they'd done their homework, they'd know that the only potentially valid claim is a trademark claim, and in order to be clear-cut, they'd have to be something so close to "Rubik's Cube" as to cause confusion. If they'd been misspelled as "Rubick's Cubes" or even "Rubick's Boxes" I could see the feds having a case, but "Magic Cube" has no confusion. The "Cube" part is "merely descriptive" and not worthy of protection.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
How do you know the claim is bogus? Nowhere does it even say what the actual claim was. Are you the judge and jury because some slashdot article gave you inaccurate and incomplete infromation, that you can pronounce a claim bogus? For that matter, how do you know they didn't have a warrant? The article doesn't mention it either way.
No. You'd expect him to abstain.
By the way, maybe there are 735 bills a year. BUT it should be common sense to have some priorities, and it did seem clear to most people that the PATRIOT act was something bigger as, say, the latest bill "recognizing the accomplishments and loyal service of XYZ" (there's quite a bunch of those, check loc.gov). So it is CLEARLY not required for them to read all 735. But it is also obvious that priorities are important.
But we shouldn't really be arguing too much about this, because even though I like the job Moore is doing, we must recognize that he also knows where to spin facts and exaggerate things to make his overall point.
Non citizens do not have the right to speedy trial. US citizens do, and that's why I support the US Supreme Court saying the same thing. So no that right has not been taken from you.
"We used to have a right to face our accuser, now we have annomous tips, they dont leave much for us to face"
Hyperbole. Name one case where that has happened. "We used to have the right to be secure in our person, property and effects, now, not so much, as evidenced by this story."
As I and others said in other postings in this story, this was not a Patriot act investigation, it was a Customs act. The article never mentions whether or not a warrant was present, so for us to declare that here rights were taken away is pre speculation. So no, that right has not been taken away from you either.
Next!
I'm also incredibly impressed that they were able to show the restraint necessary to keep from smacking this jackass upside his head.
Ever hear of Volitaire?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Despite what you may think, we have (or should I say had) a freedom of speech in this country. Get a clue you moron.
They have a hard job: protecting the life of a very important and very well known world leader (they have other jobs too). World leaders are popular to try and off, no matter who they are, there's plenty of people who have a beef with them. They ALL have security details and these are peopel who do not take risks and do not have a sense of humour.
You can get a secret service visit by sending a threatening e-mail to basicaly any valid e-mail address at whitehouse.gov. They investigate all of it because guess what? People have not only tried to kill presidents, they have succeded on a few occasions. It's serious bussiness.
Also notice that said blogger is NOT locked up for life, in fact he didn't even get inconvenienced. Right after your little exceprt he goes on to say "as what I said could apparently be misconstrued as a threat to his life. After about ten minutes of talking to me and my family, they quickly came to the conclusion that I was not a threat to national security."
So, what happened? Well the secret service found out about someone who said they wanted the president dead in a very public venue. Ok so tey need to find out is this just some idiot venting, or is this a wacko who might be a real threat? They go, interview the guy, and in ten minutes decide there's no problem and leave.
What is the damn problem? They did this before 9/11 too. At the university where I work we get about 1 visit per year from them because some student made a threat. It doesn't end up in an arrest, just a check on the student to make sure they really are just a stupid college student, and an explination to said student that this is a bad idea.
If you read his blog you notice a lot of inconsistent ranting. He calls them the Sekkrit Service, because I guess it sounds sinister or something and talks about rights violations, yet admits they were nice about it and non threatening.
This is NOT an exmaple of law enforcement being bad or the PATRIOT act being abused (and there are plenty of examples), it's an example of the opposite. Some kid made a stupid post on his website that could be construed as a threat to the president, which is a serious thing. A couple of agents investiagted, determined he was no threat and just blowing off steam, and that is that.
If you want to argue abuses of power, pick a real example. It's not like they aren't out there.
...tha's just wrong. Completely absolutely wrong. I distinctly remember when we had a great, viable economy, a GOOD one, BEFORE almost everything was imported. BEFORE. When any random Joe Normal blue collar job was enough for a house and a car and a flock of kids and benefits and vacations and savings. Not even a high paid white collar, just a normal middle of the road blue collar, and yes, it might even have been making inexpensive toys. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't exist. They not only could inspect the containers, they could change the laws back to where the bulk of the containers were going OUT like they used to be when we had a REAL economy that wasn't skewed towards the globalist elite millionaire crowd and calling massive debt, deficits and credit a "strong economy".
That "not be able to inspect" the containers jazz is a load, OF COURSE they could if they wanted to, they don't want to. They manage to "inspect" 80 year old ladies and crippled vets in wheelchairs at the airport. They manage to "inspect" a heap of countries over yonder, to the tune of billions of dollars a WEEK using hundreds of thousands of dudes, some of them making in excess of 600$ a day to just tote a rifle. The "war on terrorism" is a complete fraud. It's war to terrorise americans,oh, that's true, that's really true, but it's being waged by the government, and this article proved it in yet again another small way.
You had to watch it grow ever since the 60s to see it,but it's been creeping incrementalism, and a lot of folks have been warning about it for years. The past few years they have hit the nitrous button, that's the only difference. And they show no sign of relenting, or rolling anything back for that matter, just ever onward. And people have been eating it and sucking it up every step of the way. Can't look at a news site anymore without seeing more and more evidence of it. A FAN at a baseball game shot and killed by getting hit in ther eye with a riot paintball pellet? Huh? Random "courtesy" checkpoints? Huh? Cameras all over staring at you? Huh? Even that name "Homeland Security" WHAT WW2 B war movie did they drag that from? What is all this crap BUT big brotherism and state terrorism?
The goons have proven it, the slow boiling frog, most people will just slurp it down, excuse it, make believe they aren't seeing or hearing what they are seeing or hearing, every step of the way.
When I said:
"And no, John Kerry in office isn't going to change anything because you still have Republicans in the house and senate."
I didn't want to sound like another annoying liberal slashdotter who spews anti-Bush/republican rhetoric just to be modded up at +1 liberal.
I'd rather people read the post and understand that while I generally side with republicans, I can still disagree with the actions of those who wear the republican label.
I'm not a politician so I don't consider myself wearing the republican label. I don't feel that saying you're a republican or democrat stifles independent (no pun intended) thought.
But thanks for questioning me though. I like to be challenged and back up my viewpoints. It makes them stronger and everyone should be questioned so they can ask themselves if they really believe all this stuff or are just following a bandwagon, as you claimed I was.
This sort of incident is best understood when you look at America's history. The apple don't fall too far from the tree. America was born on the backs of slaves and indentured servants.
Historically, the power of the state has almost ALWAYS been aligned with the top of the hierarchy. Back in the slave days, the government mainly worked for Master, or "Massa," the slaveowner, the rich plantation owner, or the merchant, or the rich farmer. The government was designed mainly to take care of Massa's property.
These days the corporation is our "Massa." And it don't really matter whether Massa is right or not. You best obey the Massa, or you get a taste of the whip.
And if you can afford to take Massa into court, then YOU must be Massa.
Always, always act first to protect Massa's property, whether it be a runaway slave, an indentured servant on the run, or one who has been stealing food, or a thief in the cornfield, or a shoplifter, or an IP infringer, then, and only then, ask questions, or deal with it in the courts.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
You do realize that this is exactly the type of speech the First Amendment was put in place to protect?
fish and pipes
The first part of that is the investigation of wrongdoing by the appropriate authorities. Hopefully, I don't need to point out that we only have one side of the story here, and the toy store lady is hardly a neutral observer. Customs has the power to seize infringing goods on the spot as part of their investigation, and yet they simply ordered her to take it off the shelves and then left without them? Something doesn't add up there, and I won't be a bit surprised to learn that there's more to the story than she's letting on...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Nobody expects the homeland security! Our primary weapons are expired copyrights, and rubik's cubes...
oh damn, let me come in again.
A few inconveniences are a bery small price to pay for safety and security of the state and its people.
No amount of protection from terrorism - not even if it protected us all ad infinitum - is worth one iota of my precious liberty. There is a bigger number of human lives than I can even conceptualize that were given so that I could live in a place where I have the chance to live freely. Nothing is worth voiding the fruits of their sacrifices. Nothing.
Now on to my point. The only rebuttal I have seen to complaints about the PATRIOT Act have been of the "Don't worry. Nobody will use it to do that sort of stuff."
I humbly submit this:
Even if you think Bush and the executive branch of the government under him are from the highest chorus of angels and would never do anything to hurt the citizens of the USA, it should not affect your judgement of the PATRIOT Act at all. For that matter, it should not affect your judgement of any law passed while he is in office, regardless of who passes it, who proposes it, and who votes on it. A bad law passed by a group of angels is still a bad law.
Say the president is an angel and asks the Congress (who are also a group of angels) to pass a law that provides ways of foregoing due process. Say also that the president, the leadership of Homeland Security and every law enforcement agent in the country are angels and the law is never abused even once. It is still a bad law.
It is a bad law because in the hands of a devil the law could be abused and used to hurt the people of the USA. Your rebuttal - the claim that the law is okay since it will never be abused - is entirely based on the assumption that we will have angels in public office for as long as the law is a law. If you think the terrorist threat is going to be around for a while, then you should expect the PATRIOT Act and things like it to be around for just as long. It shows no signs of going away, and a PATRIOT Act II was even proposed, I believe.
The assumption that this country will elect angel after angel is a tenuous one at best. The President is not the only one you should be worried about. What about the leadership of law enforcement and the DHS? Do you think every one of them is an angel? Have you met all of them? The "goodness" of a law should never have to be judged based on who uses it. This is something that a citizen of this country should agree on regardless of their political affiliation.
A law is a good law if 1.) it does what it sets out to do efficiently, 2.) what is sets out to do is in the public's best interest, and 3.) it can not be abused by those who would abuse it. For the PATRIOT Act, point 1 can be argued on both sides, most people will agree on point 2, but it fails miserably on point 3. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to give law enforcement a way to forego due process, but it's in the Act.
As a citizen, I will not bet the well-being of my country ride on whether or not the people in office have good intentions. I know a lot of people who don't like to see the PATRIOT Act being attacked feel that it is a personal attack on their Candidate of Choice. I mean to suggest that even if John Kerry or Clinton had pushed the PATRIOT Act through Congress, the very same people would be complaining. I definitely would. They would be complaining not because they are Republicans or Democrats, but because they are good citizens. One prerequisite to having good laws is being critial of them.
All that being said, I think it's really funny that a lot of conservatives rag on John Kerry and the liberals in Congress for voting to pass such a heinous law. Who proposed the law in the first place?
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
Ummm, no. Most speech is protected by the First Amendment. Some speech is not. Usually, there are two canonical examples given of speech that is not protected:
1. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
2. Threatening to kill the President.
Another is joking about bombs while you're waiting to get aboard an airplane. These forms of speech are not protected. Anyone who does them is stupid.
Imagine you get a speeding ticket. You follow 'due process' and fight the ticket. Let's say you win (I have done this). You will be made to pay court costs, which are probably as much as the ticket. If you lose, the fine will be outrageous and the judge might slap community service or some incarceration atop of that if you piss him off too much.
That ticket is just a cop telling you he accuses you of doing this. The DHS people were doing the same thing. If they want to fight it, go to court. Expect to pay a lot of money and really be screwed if you lose, though.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
This is part of the Cornerstone Initiative, "Protecting the Homeland through Economic Security". Their site is "being revised", but their newsletter lists what they're up to.
Are trade mark cases normally looked into via the gov. Its my understanding that for patent and trademark issues the owner has to launch the law suit to follow it up...
I can attest to this - I was in the Raleigh/Durham (NC) Airport this past weekend and saw a sign while waiting in line for security. It stated that making jokes about bombs or other security threats was not permitted and would lead to interrogation. Fun times, eh?
The Kingdom of Retarsia
I think that pre-pre war II Germany started like this, and every one around knows how it ended.
:(
Power corrupts, to say the least.
Same acts, different people, different time, but will it be same result? If so, who can save us? China? yea sure! Europe... don't think so
--
Cook
but not kitchen!
ooo#### THREAD END ####ooo
Godwin's law applies.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
Everyone knows Rubik's Cube is a smart toy that helps kids train thinking and generally extends intelligence.
Now, if kids start using it, they grow smart and intelligent. And intelligent people start to question questionable orders from the government, protest against warfare, lobby towards upbringing that makes smart kids, may listen to reason instead of blindly following propaganda...
This toy is definitely danger to homeland security.
(but such reasons can't be stated clearly so the dept had to think of some other bogus reasons like the patent or such...)
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Please try to keep the three concepts apart. One thing is clear: the DHS should have no business enforcing any of them.
As far as I can remember threatening to kill the president or encouraging others to do so is not only not protected, it's a criminal offense punishable by jail in the US (at least if you're not a senator according to one of Michael Moores books).
The first step in enforcing the law is knowing what the law is. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a patent is "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling". Therefore, a patent does not take away anyone's rights, it confers a right to the patent holder. It is up to the patent holder to decide whether to enforce or waive that right. Again from the USPTO, "If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court." The maker of the Magic Cube did not violate any law, since their right to produce there product was NOT denied by law. The right to deny their product belongs to the patent holder, not the government. Therefore, even if the Rubic's cube patent was still active, the appropriate action would be for the patent holder, NOT any branch of the govt. to (optionally) file a law suit, and optionally an injuction to prevent the sale of the Magic Cube while the suit is being settled. If a judge approves that injuction, then the product may lawfully be required to be pulled from the store's shelves. Aside from the fact that the patent was expired, there was already absolutely NO legal basis for what the government personnel did.
By the perception of illusion, we experience reality
I will rest well tonight, knowing that Homeland Security is protecting me from possibly illegal toys. That was a close one, too - I live in Oregon!
Tell people you are AMERICAN and be proud of that.
So, what has America done lately that you are proud of?
I'm no attorney, but it appears any department enforcing patents, copyrights, and trademarks like this is overstepping their jurisdiction.
These laws are written to protect products and ideas in CIVIL cases. If your protected idea or product is infringed upon, you go to CIVIL court, sue someone's ass off, get a cease and desist order and walk away with a nice fat stack of cash.
Disobeying the court's ruling might land you some criminal charges, but that requires a court order and cops.
If my understanding of this is wrong, hopefully an attorney will correct me.
-ted
Many of the specifics of this case don't really matter, I think. What everybody in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) needs to realize is that they now work in the most intimidating department of the federal government, because of stories like this and worse ones... whether true or not, the stories of people being taken away and held without bond, the blanket superuser authority of DHS officials is scary to anybody.
Because of the fear involved in their department, they need to be very careful the way they deal with the public, especially when the public they're dealing with is obviously and completely unrelated to a serious threat against the Homeland (and I'm not talking about a minor "economic" threat like selling cheap copies of toys). Of course, this won't matter to many of them, because unfortunately there are many in law enforcement at all levels who do it because of the power they can yield by flashing a badge, turning on a blue light, or calling somebody on the telephone and dropping the name of their agency.
I am voting for Bush next Tuesday for a variety of reasons (please try not to get inflamed about my choice, which might be different than yours) and I often defend the actions of the DHS (although I wasn't convinced and am still not convinced that we needed a new cabinet-level department to keep us safe) and I often defend the Patriot Act (though I have an open mind about parts of it that might need to be ammended). But I'm not going to be partisan and find an imaginary way to defend anybody from the DHS contacting a retailer and making them remove an item from their shelves without clearly and kindly demonstrating the reasons for the removal, just because I think that's supporting my candidate. These guys would have gotten all the response that they wanted from the retailer by simply saying they were with the Customs Service. Suddenly everybody who is a part of the DHS (which is a LOT of people) wants to go around name-dropping so they get an extra little fear out of everybody. It's completely unneccessary and ridiculous. I would say that many, many people in the DHS should never have to tell the public in their introductions what cabinet department they're in. It will inevitably generate more fear and intimidation than is necessary.
I believe this is not a policy problem, though. This is that rampant problem with the lower levels of law enforcement, the name dropping and ego trip problem. Unfortunately, there's little that can be done about this, except for a change in the culture, which can take decades.
RP
"... Expired Trademark" + "...now is enforcing copyright law as well" + "The patent for Rubik's cube..." = WHAT THE FUCK
This is the most illinformed shit I've seen on Slashdot in a while. A Slashdot while that is, which is not very long. Sometimes people make a little mistake and think say for instance a trademark is covered under the same laws as copyright. Pisses me off, but it's never the end of the world. But this? The End of the World .
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
"I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site, with language such as:..."
No, as a senator, you ARE supposed to read it, and/or have hired trusted competent staff to read it and raise any issues. There is NO EXCUSE for a senator to say "we don't have enough time to read all the bills" -- yes, the workload is high, but that is what you ran and were elected to do, and you should at least take responsibility for your vote.
Moreover, that kind of stilted language is not an obstacle to them, as they are almost all lawyers; they are simply writing legally effective language in a way to which they are accustomed (as software engineers write code or specs).
We at least agree that more understanding and slower legislation would be better, and that the electorate's lack of intrest and education is a root cause of our dying democracy.
So the toy would have been copyright-infringing, except that its patent was granted 24 years ago, which means that its trademark is now expired.
And I thought I had figured this whole IP thing out. Man. *scratches head*
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
The writer utilizes every form of intellectual property as if they were interchangeable. It demonstrates that the writer does not understand any of them. Its kind of sad for such an intriguing story to make it to slashdot on such a poor introduction. Doesn't anyone edit these things?
I think there should be a mechanism to mod down an entire story when it is presented like this. Pretty sad.
The Red Sox won the World Series under a total lunar eclipse. The leader of the moderate Palestinians is on his deathbed. The Israeli coalition government is about to fall apart over the Gaza withdrawal plan. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has a serious case of thyroid cancer. All this less than a week before one of the most contentious US Presidential elections in history.
And now, Slashdot editors confuse copyright, trademark, and patent law all together at once, creating a sort of Grand Unified Theory of IP Confusion which was obviously the purpose of Slashdot.
So yeah, the end of the world.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
This is the most insane thing ive read this week, Is this even true? why havnt any big media sources (ie TV) picked it up? how come its not even one of those "and now for a strange story" items where they send a reporter around to do a quick interview? did she have a security camera? Have any other shops been aproached? has the company been contacted by HS? has HS been contacted to actually confirm this? Was it a prank? so many questions and so few answered. I'd really love to believe this and see some more reporting on it because if its true its just insane and scary and makes no sense and would make great news.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Definitely my award for worst slashdot writeup And that's saying a LOT.
A Rubik's cube can't be copyrighted - there's no text. The INSTRUCTIONS could be...
A trademark on it could be valid - but only if it was confusingly similar - ie, if a reasonable person buying it might THINK they were buying a Rubik's cube, or something from the same company.
The patent is apparently expired, at least if can trust the article. Which we can't.
Patent law != copyright law != trademark law != trade secret law. THEY ARE ALL TOTALLY SEPERATE.
*sigh*
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Is it complaining when I mention that I submitted this story yesterday but it was rejected? And I got the original link from the Oregonian, too. I'm not bitter - perhaps my comments were not pithy enough for you - but I'd like some credit, too.
Erhm... 22mm is almost an inch. That's a friggin' antivehicular cannon of the sort mounted on attack helicopters.
.22 caliber toy gun?
Or were you talking about a
Too late for this post to be read I'm sure, but...
So they've trademarked the appearance of the Rubiks Cube (TM)...
How?
As a corporate logo - this I can see.
As an actual product? You must be joking!
Still, and I never thought I'd say this, kudos to the lawyer who came up with this innovative solution to patent expiration.
Can anyone tell me what would happen if these toys were manufactured by a company based outside the US? Would they be banned/confiscated on importation?
Whibla.
"Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence." /usr/bin/games/fortune
-
--
make install -not war
The last line of the AP story mentions that the Oregonian newspaper was the source of the story:
s sf ?/base/front_page/109896512934940.xml
Here is the original story before AP edited / rewrote it:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.
It contains significant details that the AP decided not to include:
[The call came in late July or early August. A man identifying himself as a federal Homeland Security agent said he needed to talk to Cox at her store.
Cox asked what it was all about.
"He said he was not at liberty to discuss that," she said.
They agreed to meet in early August, but the agent later canceled. Cox thought the matter had blown over when the agent called back Sept. 9 to say he was coming out there. ]
Keeping in mind that this is *her* opinion of the events... So this didn't just come out of the blue... This story is 7 weeks old... it didn't just happen yesterday...
[Kice also said Homeland Security officials routinely investigate such complaints and follow up if they determine they are valid. ]
Paragraph dropped. The clear message of that paragraph is that they did make a determination that the TRADEMARK infringement was valid prior to visiting the store.
[After gaining assurances from Toysmith officials, Cox put the Magic Cube back on the shelf soon after the agents left. ]
Hmmm...
The author of the original story [printed at the bottom of the above linked page] is:
Ashbel "Tony" Green: 503-221-8202; tonygreen@news.oregonian.com if you have any questions...
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0