Slashdot Mirror
Feds Target "Mongols" Biker Club's Intellectual Property
couchslug writes in with a Reuters account of a Federal raid on a California-based motorcycle club, the Mongols, on charges "ranging from murder and robbery to extortion, money laundering, gun trafficking and drug dealing." The interesting twist is that the authorities are asking the courts to seize the IP of the biker club — specifically, their trademarked name "Mongols." "Federal agents and police in seven states arrested more than 60 members of the Mongols motorcycle gang on Tuesday in a sweep that also targeted for the first time an outlaw group's 'intellectual property,' prosecutors said. The arrests cap a three-year undercover investigation in which US agents posed as gang members and their girlfriends to infiltrate the group, even submitting to polygraph tests administered by the bikers ... [T]he name 'Mongols,' which appears on the gang's arm patch insignia, was trademarked by the group. The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer 'who sees a Mongol wearing this patch ... to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back' ..."
I'm not aware of any law that can prevent a particular logo from appearing on a jacket.
This sounds like pipe dream bullshit.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"...which would allow any police officer 'who sees a Mongol wearing this patch... to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back'..."
Like that's going to happen.
If police informants can pass and beat a polygraph in a situation where they would be killed on the spot*, then how can the same test when used against people charged with a crime is still admissible as evidence?
*if the common perception of the 1%-ers is to be belived
Might as well band hand guns too, I heard that might reduce crime. It's bananas next..
...until they can do this to anyone for any reason? I think this would set a bad precedent--except for the sheer humor of witnessing a biker be stripped of his jacket by an officer for 'IP violation'.
The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer 'who sees a Mongol wearing this patch... to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back'..."
Some douche licker apparently never heard of the right of first sale.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If you're investigating someone for murder, you better believe they could kill you.
Get tattoos of their logo/insignia. Get it someplace prominent and call out the cops to try and take it from them. I doubt law enforcement is going to start a collection of biker lampshades.
If police informants can pass and beat a polygraph in a situation where they would be killed on the spot*, then how can the same test when used against people charged with a crime is still admissible as evidence?
*if the common perception of the 1%-ers is to be belived
You're assuming the questions they were asked resulted in their lying to the gang.
You're also assuming that the gang administered the test properly in the first place...
So we would still be able to wear swastikas, KKK logos, Iran Revolutionary Guard insignias and NWA "Fuck the Police" t-shirts, but a patch from some gang most of the world never heard of would be a crime?
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
The Mongolian embassy might have something to say about it :-)
Actually, polygraphs are inadmissable in the US court system.
You hit the nail exactly on the head! If it's possible to pass a polygraph test while blatantly lying to a biker gang, then how could it possibly be used as a reliable method of proving guilt or innocence in a court of law?
Of course the obvious retorts are going to be that the test is only as good as the person administering and interpreting the results.
So why aren't polygraph tests done in panels? In order to eliminate errors. So you'd have to be asked the same set of questions by a panel of say 5 separate polygraph "professionals" (who can not interact with each other)? Then go with the majority decision.
The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer 'who sees a Mongol wearing this patch... to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back'..."
Sorry, but just because a group loses their right to a trademark, doesn't mean that someone can't wear a piece of clothing with a patch any longer. If Nike doesn't defend their trademark, and loses the rights to it, that doesn't mean that all the Tiger Woods fans suddenly can't wear Nike clothing any longer or that it can be confiscated...
This is nothing except PsyOps on the part of the Feds. They know that these gangs are typically all about their 'Street Cred' and that their name and reputation is everything to them. Nothing else matters. Trademarking their name is just some half-assed attempt at making it difficult for some other fools to claim that they're the Mongols, and to 'deal with it legally' if and when the issue arises. I doubt that they ever would actually do so, they'd probably prefer to beat the fools senseless, but being able to *CLAIM* that's what they intended might throw some naieve judge off track and cut them a break.
The feds know that these idiots don't care about anything - losing whatever they have doesn't mean jack shit to these guys - they'll just go back out into the world and keep doing what they do, and get their ill gotten gains back again. So the only thing the Feds can take from them is their "trademarked name". Not that it's going to amount to anything - they will still use their name, and they'll likely call themselves "The Original Mongols..." or some such nonesense...
Nothing to see here... move along...
I find it hard to imagine a single intellectual amongst them.
Our club is called "The Mongoloids." If we were smart enough we might be worried!
Especially if the FBI had good enough intel to know exactly what questions would be asked. Anybody would rat their gang out for what the FBI's paying these days.
Good to see that the FBI actually going after some real bad guys this time.
It seems only tangentially related to trademark law; the reference in TFA to a racketeering indictment makes it seem pretty likely that they are looking for, an order under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, specifically, 18 USC Sect. 1963(a), declaring that the trademarked logo, and the tangible items created using the trademarked logo, are "property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity [...] in violation of section 1962 [of Title 18]", and therefore subject to forfeiture under RICO.
then how can the same test when used against people charged with a crime is still admissible as evidence?
In the United States, polygraphs results are not admissible in court. They are only used in investigations, and even that practice is controversial.
I'm just amazed that a criminal organization would file a legal TRADEMARK.
Seriously. Were they going to SUE someone for infringement?
And a polygraph?
Man, biker gangs have certainly changed since I was a kid.
You wearing the wrong colors! Man, you goin' be facing a' injunction! We gots badass LAWYERS who be totally down with dat state bar stuf!
"So you'd have to be asked the same set of questions by a panel of say 5 separate polygraph "professionals" (who can not interact with each other)? Then go with the majority decision."
Last time I checked guilt had to be determined unanimously. Follow this link to witness the power of the juggernaut that is the U.S. legal system:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/21/2008-10-21_judge_declares_a_mistrial_in_britney_spe.html
Regards.
Well, let's hypothetically accept the premise that the police and feds will be able to seize the trademark from the group as though it were originally their own. Then they could at least seek legal action against anyone who produces new jackets with the logo, on the grounds that it would infringe the police's newfound exclusive rights to use the mark to promote their own goods and services. (That's why they wanted the trademark, right? I mean, what else is a trademark good for?)
So this strategy could work, so long as the police pick up the Mongols' trademarked product line and start handing out their own Mongol-branded beatings, robberies, extortion schemes, and contraband sales. (Cue a flood of cynical responses saying that the police would merely have to rebrand their existing product line.) At the very least, they could pay lip service to IP law by selling a few Mongol coffee mugs on CafePress—maybe they could donate the proceeds to those police charities instead of bothering me with telephone solicitations.
If police informants can pass and beat a polygraph in a situation where they would be killed on the spot*, then how can the same test when used against people charged with a crime is still admissible as evidence?
It's not admissible as evidence.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
In the US, but this is beyond the pale. There are already laws like RICO which can be used to shut down corrupt organizations.
If this is allowed to set precedent, the Feds will literally be allowed to steal a company's trademark if anyone employed by the company does something illegal. I'm reminded of the Steve Jackson Games fiasco where the Feds seized their computers because one of their employees illegally downloaded a document from AT & T that same was selling for $17. (IIRC)
I seriously doubt that seizing a gang's name is going to deter them the least. At worst, they'll just change their name. This is more about expanding the power of the Federal government than it is about law enforcement. With civil forfeiture laws extending to copyright violations, soon the day will come when police departments will shore up their budgets by seizing computers under the guise of copyright enforcement ("Can you prove that copy of Windows wasn't pirated? I didn't think so...")
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
There's no need to imagine that
"If police informants can pass and beat a polygraph in a situation where they would be killed on the spot*, then how can the same test when used against people charged with a crime is still admissible as evidence?"
That's because government liars are professionals.
American justice has never been renowned for its mercy. Or its justice for that matter.
May the Maths Be with you!
For all of you alarmists that claimed IP regulation would be misused by the government and reach beyond trade and artistic works were totally off base. It hasn't led to rampant surveillance, corporate intimidation of citizens and small businesses, or the police indiscriminately stopping motorists and tearing the clothes off their backs. Oh crap, it has? Is it too late to change our minds?
While I'm sure it would help in the short term, actions like this set dangerous precedents. First they outlaw the Mongols, KKK, swastika... next thing you know some right winger takes offense to Dawkins' scarlet A, or the fear mongers go after the Muslim Crescent Moon symbol as sign of terrorism. The phrase "freedom isn't free" doesn't just apply to external conflicts. Sometimes we've got to trade a bit of safety to defend our freedoms.
Funny, every time I see these "Biker" groups, they are always doing their best to look bad-ass, with the tattoos, grungy and gruff appearance, tough talk, and attitude.
Yet, they stick together like glue, go everywhere in packs, and stay together for 'protection'.
Gangs, street and bikers alike, are for big fake pussies who are too weak to carry their own, and need the help of dozens more to save their ass, rather than being able to do it themselves.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Real simple there. They also can't make you take one. They are sometimes used in investigations either because they pressure someone to take one or because the person want to take it to try and prove innocence, but it isn't something you see much of. Polygraphs aren't reliable. They are a useful tool in some cases, and they are used when you try to get a security clearance, but they aren't 100% reliable and aren't admissible, at least in the US.
Polygraphs aren't admissible as de facto evidence.
They can only be used as circumstantial.
And because of that, it's up to the judge as to whether or not they are let in as evidence.
Polygraphs are fairly easy to beat. Train in some esoteric martial arts, as well as yoga, and it's a done deal.
--Toll_Free
I never liked the name Mongoloids anyway.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
They are a Motorcycle Club not a gang. Just a group of enthusiasts. No, really.
If you were a chicken, and you saw Mexico coming down the street, what would you do?
Sir, please remove that jacket as it violates... please stop shooting me sir. It violates copyri... Sir, the shooting. It violates copyright restricti... Knives sir? Please, this is an important offence. We have records of several accounts of wearing a 'Mongol' jacket and downloading the latest smash hit from Britney Spears...
Task Mangler
Modded flamebait? Yes, he was clearly trying to provoke the wrath of all those non-hells-angels biker gang types browsing slashdot.
Yes.
Enjoy your Freedom Fries(tm).
Law enforcement hasn't stopped using racial profiling, their own statistics (though not conclusions) say so
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjyQqKOJRj4Sp6capLjCY5RoXm2gD93UPH900
So... why exactly are they going to this trouble then? Worried about the massive protests that would break out if they were percieved as discriminating against a legitimate trademark?
That's because government liars are professionals.
Thanks... I mean, hey, wait a minute! I work for the government!
Its about time we recognize our Communistic State.
Agent Bob: They've committed murder and robbery to extortion, money laundering, gun trafficking and drug dealing. What are we going to do?
Agent Dan: I have just the thing that will hurt them. Let's seize their name!
Agent Bob: That's brilliant! They're thugs. We all know thugs are thick. Coming up with a new name will be hard on them. They'll spend so much time coming up with a name their crime spree will be over!
Agent Dan: That's why they pay me the big bucks. Lets go get some donuts.
Agent Bob: Don't you think donuts are a little cliche?
Agent Dan: We're not regular cops Bob. Besides we can always change their name to dough-rings.
Agent Bob: That'll confuse people...Renaming things. Brilliant. I'm in awe of your wisdom. You truly are a law enforcement agent of the times.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If you use their trademark they kill you.
The one most other posters seem to be missing. This is a RICO case. Well, part of RICO is the ability to seize assets related to the criminal enterprise. So for example if a company was a front for money laundering, that company could be seized. Doesn't matter that it was the semi-legit front, since it was a part of the criminal enterprise, it is subject to seizure.
So this isn't an IP issue, that's really a small part. It would be the same thing if they brought down a company under RICO, they'd take the company's name and such. IT all falls under the idea of "You can't profit from your crime."
Actually in Federal criminal cases the jury has to be unanimous, but individual states can allow conviction for less than unanimous if they want.
Alrays trying to tear down mah sheety waaarl
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
C-3PO: He made a perfectly legal move. Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee. /. please don't kill me.
C3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees have been known to do that.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookiee win.
If there are any Mongols on
I say "oh yeah?" What about RAID? Bike gangs have lots of raids. Also I think they beat someone with a model M keyboard so that's good credentials right there.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
But what about the Minority Report?
If I'm a criminal operating under a gang insignia and you take it away from me. I will not curtail my nefarious activities - I'll change the name of my criminal group and move on with my life. You've spend thousands - I'm out a patch for my leather jacket and a trademark application.
I record my sleeptalking
Do any of them actually do that, though?
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Perhaps this is why they are taking away the trademark, after all, this place is so corrupt now, I would not be surprised the pigs have been paid off to take away the trade mark so that it would not interfere in anyway now or in the future with the upcoming movie that goes by the same name.
Actually, polygraphs are inadmissable in the US court system.
They can still be used by the police to essentially bully suspects into a confession.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
One day (sone of a lawyer) Michael Eisner is driving down the road in Florida and spots a daycare centre with a picture of Mickey Mouse on the wall. The same day a hoard of slavering corporate scumbag Disney lawyers go after the daycare for trademark infringement.
The blockquoted text was copied from the linked web page... it's down the list if you want to check it... the page has all sorts of other interesting Disney trivia too. Wikipedia used to have references to this under the criticism section of the Disney article but for some reason it isn't there any more. However it is still in the answers.com article on Disney in the criticism section. Go figure.
The link quoted above is one of many if you search for it... and though it is in the 'conspiracies' section of the web site, it is something that really did happen. Besides the about.com article, I personally remember seeing this on the news the week it happened in the late eighties/early nineties; it was a national story. I remember well because I was pretty outraged at the time, and still don't have much liking for Disney or their products any more.
Anyway the bottom line is yes, the police could force the Mongols to take the patches off. I think it is a good tactic. They should use it on the other biker 'organizations' too. They're all a bunch of scum bags... though not quite as bad as corporate lawyers.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Just try wearing a Mongol's branded jacket and temporary tattoo in their neighbourhood, I predict lead poisoning within minutes. Same for their opponent's neck of the woods.
Trust me, you don't want to wear anything that can be mistaken for a club patch (Harley Davidson jackets are just lame).
Just Google: "ITCOB"
Are you a retard?
What can't you understand about a daycare being a business? What can't you understand about them doing trade and that trademarks are about restricting trade.
This is why the USA is in such a fucking mess. Idiots there don't even understand english, let alone the law.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I lived on the same block as the mogols Alhambra club in the 1970's. The cops wouldn't stop these guys from carrying a sawn-off shotgun down the middle of the sidewalk. In fact the cops would speed up and leave as fast as possible when ever they saw these guys. As long no one touched their bikes or women all was good.
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
This is the first time I have heard of stripping an entity of its intellectual property rights unless it was an undeserved or inappropriate patent or trademark.
This would be a great precedent. And the next time Microsoft is charged with something, part of the punishment would be losing "Windows" or maybe even the copyright on Office 2003 or something.
I'm reading that with a tone of skepticism. If that's not what you intended then this is only intended for those who misinterpret you the same way I did.
The name itself is a claim to be the thing that they are commonly perceived to be. The one-percent of "outlaws" that gives the other 99% of MC members a bad name.
This perception isn't unfair.
They deserve their rights, and I don't know enough about this decision to comment on it, but these are bad people who aren't victims of bad press. I mean, these are people who are committed to being bad. They don't wake up the next day with regrets; they wake up in the morning (or whatever) with intent to do wrong. Or, at least, that's what they'd have us believe.
Now, when you lump the other 99% in with the one percenters that is an unfair perception.
-Peter
1. That's a business, not an individual.
2. It was a permanent public installation, not an item of clothing on a private person.
3. The pictures probably stayed up for weeks while the matter was being resolved. I know of nothing that would have required them to take it down immediately upon Eisener's request.
4. They technically *chose* to take it down to get Disney to drop the suit. They could have taken them to court to drag out the process for months.
If a cop saw a biker wearing the logo, he couldn't do anything there on the spot. He couldn't even issue a citation, because it's not a criminal issue.
You post an article regarding police seizure of the intellectual property of a notorious biker club. That alone is unique and praisworthy. Then the legal minds of the /. contiuum "educate" us all on trademark and IP law, albeit with the factual confidence level of an exceedingly obscure wikipedia article. Why work, when I have such exotic entertainment available? Ah, yes; the deadline.
Invenio via vel creo
This might not survive a First Amendment challenge. Using trademark law to suppress an organization is new, with no precedent. Besides, under trademark law, you can't sell a "naked trademark"; it goes with the underlying business. Unless the United States Government takes over and manages the Mongols MC, the Government can't do much with the trademark, except get it canceled. The Mongols could lose legal exclusivity to the name, but then it's not trademark law that keeps people from counterfeiting club colors.
The Mongols aren't likely to take the legal route. They have enough problems.
HA would probably go to court over their name if this was tried against them; they've fought legal battles before. They're very proud of their name and history, have a corporation, and are better organized than the Mongols. There's even HA merchandise, so they use their trademark commercially.
Someone murdered someone, now I can't draw a picture? You expect actual murderers to be afraid of drawing a picture because you have made a bold statement against "dilution"? Do you think police work will be easier if gangs don't self identify? Will you feel safer with the police distracted by symbols instead of watching out for real crimes?
Land of the free, home of the brave ring a bell? We imposed conditions like this on defeated Nazi Germany but allowed ourselves the pleasure of model airplanes, games, trophy/memorabilia sales and silly costumes and genuine neo-nazi rallies. Don't be a pussy, it's self defeating. Police harassment will not bring you greater safety.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And thus the phrase was born, "Damn that is one ugly biker chick."
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Not only will the injunction outlawing the logo will fail spectacularly on 1st amendment grounds, but the very concept of outlawing a gang's insignia will just give the Mongols additional street cred, as they are now more-badass-than-thou.
"Our gang is so bad, our insignia is illegal. The very mention of our name will get you arrested. Think about us and you're committing a crime, brother!" Etc.
It just gives the gang additional appeal to the probable suckers who'd join a criminal biker gang in the first place.
We're members of the Pissing Scorpions you insensitive clod!
Deep breath. Repeat after me.
I admit that I have become powerless over my frustration with those that disagree with me, my anger issues, and my self-perceived impotence regarding my ability to communicate my opinion to the "unenlightened". I acknowledge that calling people retards and swearing will not sway them to my opinion, even if I defend it well. I will not feed the trolls.
FSM, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Hope that helps. Wow.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Anyone whose seen the history channel documentary on the mongols will tell you that, if this is allowed and enforced, there will be way more dead cops than seized jackets.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Wouldn't this make all law enforcement officers become official Fashion Police?
Yes. The US Supreme Court upheld the practice (again) just this month.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081006/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_divided_juries
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea by a convicted murderer to require that jury verdicts be unanimous in all criminal cases.
Two states, Louisiana and Oregon, allow people to be convicted of some crimes despite disagreement among jurors.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Land of the free, home of the brave ring a bell? We imposed conditions like this on defeated
Dear gods, I find myself agreeing with Twitter. Historic moment.
Somebody hand me a fork...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
If police informants can pass and beat a polygraph in a situation where they would be killed on the spot*, then how can the same test when used against people charged with a crime is still admissible as evidence?
*if the common perception of the 1%-ers is to be belived
The ironic thing is that the government gives polygraphs to employees to get certain clearances, even after government agents have successfully defeated polygraphs in situations where their lives depended on it.
So what? Given the percentage of inmates that are held after plea bargain, all you seem to need is a bit of polygraph voodoo to put some pressure on the suspect before he enters the court system.
It's time for people to remember that the polygraph was a very simple device invented by a comic book artist and sold to the FBI when it was corrupt to the core under J. Edgar Hoover (remember it's government money given out to buy things and not the personal money of the guy that takes the bribe). Unfortunately it has been used for too many years that it can't be abandoned as the pointless voodoo it is without a lot of people looking incredibly silly. Meanwhile law enforcement in other nations actually looks at the cream of US Law enforcement and laughs - real success is not taken seriously when you have belief in magic tainting the results.
Sorry for going ad hominem on you, but the mis-use of the term 'Nazi' for 'grammar nazi' etc is bad enough.
But to imply that by creating legal countermeasures to the glorification and/or denying of the Nazi homocide, crimes, regime and lore, the German government has become the thing they are trying to prevent is so utterly and totally ignorant, stupid, demeaning, wrong and a hundred other bad and worse things it makes me wonder why you are able to remember to breathe.
You are trivializing the Third Reich and its crimes in a way I have only seen from people who are actual neo-Nazis.
The same goes, to quite some extent, to whoever modded you Insightful.
I would appreciate a reply from both you & whoever modded you in a positive way (which would eleminate some mod points in the process).
What about tattooing the logo...
"I am sorry sir but your skin is violating a trademark, please hand it over."
What a fucking crock. They need to seriously consider this for people exiting government buildings with "United States Congress" on their ID badges. Remove that shit and arrest them. Brilliant! *sigh*
I suppose the swastika would be public domain by now. ;)
What they are doing is making sure that the populace don't "forget". The terrors visited in the concentration camps placed within walking distance of towns was overlooked. The populace didn't *know* what was going on there because they didn't look. They didn't look because
a) Germany were winning!
b) They would be in trouble too
c) Well, such terrible things couldn't happen in civilised Germany. That's the sort of thing ANIMALS do. Animals like those horrid Slavs and Jews...
So to ensure they don't think the same way, the denial of the holocaust is considered illegal.
Anyone who is old enough to have followed news reports about lifestyles within some 'rogue, biker gangs' will understand how outrageous is this excerpt from the article: "The arrests cap a three-year undercover investigation in which US agents posed as gang members and their girlfriends to infiltrate the group,.." Females inducted into certain such groups are expected to provide sexual favors to others. The initiation rituals published in publicly-available reports describe the sexual demands made of females in the group. To imagine that female law enforcement agents would involve themselves with such behaviours as part of investigative work is, frankly, horrendous. Even police 'anti-hooker' details do not go so far as that! .. and with good reason. If the article is true, what has happened to our sense of 'right and wrong' if this behaviour of female investigators is condoned??
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
I'm not sure which one is more hilarious: bikers trademarking their name or goverment seizing the trademark.
This literally sounds like a plot from the subjected series. Along those lines, I'd suggest they merge with another gang and have a 'patch over' party.
Note to the feds, you might want to take down their website too, if you have the IP rights, the logo is all over it. Is INTERPOL involved? I only ask because they have Italy and Mexico chapters.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
Change the logo unofficially to Mickey Mouse & let them have fun enforcing that.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Various documents, explanations, and analyses may still be found on SJG's site, according to Google. I also just verified these couple of links myself.
Unfortunately, I'll admit it's straying a bit far off the topic of federal IP seizures, except perhaps to show that under the right circumstances, there's nothing an adequately jumpy government won't lay claim to.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
I know you are all sheltered nerds and everything, but this isn't about IP, or any such silly thing. For a biker, his gang patch/colors is damn near sacrosanct. The cops know this, and by being able to just take it anytime they want, its a form of humiliation. It like taking a persons of faiths cross/hijab/torah whatever just because.
When I was younger and worked in fire/rescue, we were actually trained to NEVER take a bikers jacket off in an emergency without permission from the biker or if he was unconscious his friends. Yes, they were that rabid about it. This is about humiliation, and the cops rubbing salt in the wound, to let them know whose boss. For guys who value independence and strength, its a big deal. HUMILATION, not IP or law enforcement. I for one find this very disturbing. Since when is it the polices job to humiliate and degrade people because of their affiliations? Oh wait.
how can the same test when used against people charged with a crime is still admissible as evidence
Do as I say, not as I do.
Isn't that the underlying principle of all government? If government was equal in power to the common man, then government wouldn't exist. It is precisely because of the special "right" to employ coercion -- which only government holds -- that government exists.
This really just comes across as trying to portray the problem differently so they don't have to do it the hard way. In other words, its all about trying to find an out.
So, now they can lump another "crime" on the members instead of really going after what they are doing. Denial of the original issue?
It is no different than banning gang colors in schools, it ignores the problem by hiding it. I guess the Feds are now on that band wagon.
Whats next? Talking to them without preconditions?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Actually, polygraphs are inadmissable in the US court system.
But are used by the government in other contexts where their reliability is assumed, despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/01/2055249&from=rss
the reason the cops could "beat the test" is probably because they knew polygraphs are completely bogus.
I wonder if the govt. of Mongolia has something to say about that?
get a hold of the logo, put it on patches, hats, socks, jewelry etc... get everyone to wear it... this will dilute the "brand" so the mongols won't want it, and send a message to police that that doesn't work, so they won't try controlling symbols again either. when the cops try to arrest a clueless teen fashion victim for wearing a picture the cops don't like, that will point out the futility of controlling images.
Tag: goodluckwiththat
--- Just say no to negativity.
Didn't China build a big ass wall to keep these guys out?
Thank you for the information!
A couple of months ago I read a post about this subject, I think on Freakonomics. It discussed how unanimity may not be as great as we think, since you need a unanimous verdict both to be considered guilty and innocent. If they can't agree then you just get a new trial. And since juries like to go home, people who disagree with the majority will often change their minds just to make the trial finish.
In any case, I didn't know that any places actually did this, so it's interesting to know.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Actually it's because professional liars are government.
Sounds like Kentucky seizing international casino domain names. Is IP seizure going to be the new tactic in this 21st century?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Mod parent up.
While I think that there are some very limited, specific, reasonable limitations to free speech (like where it harms the public safety, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre), you can't limit free speech just because someone, or some group, dislikes what you're saying, even if that group is the majority.
That's the whole point of free speech. Start limiting that, and you limit the viable thoughts that someone can express. Read 1984 if you'd like to know how that can turn out.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I don't know whether the Mongols had acquired any business method patents, but if so, I expect the Federal government could find a use for those, too.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
And yet they're used in FBI and CIA interviews.
Yay hypocrisy!
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I'm not aware of any law...
Unless you have a law degree, or at least have cracked a lot of law books (I'm guessing not), any statement that begins that way is pretty meaningless. Anyway, you don't need legal training to note that thousands of people have been forced to take down signs, withdraw comic books, edit movies, and otherwise be censored because they were using a trademark that they didn't have the right to use. I've never heard of jackets being confiscated right off somebodies back, but it's not fundamentally different.
Of course, people use trademarks as their personal decorations all the time. (Once saw a guy with a Nike swoosh shaved into his do!) And the IP lawyers don't have time to go after them all. But that doesn't make it legal.
We also need to note that confiscating a trademark is not unprecedented. The earliest example I know of is Bayer Pharmaceuticals, which lost the right to use its own name and its cross trademark in the U.S. and Canada. Bayer, being a German company, had its IP seized as "enemy property" during WW I. Sterling bought the rights, and used the Bayer brand until it was sold back to the German company in 1978.
A 99.9% safe maneuver is one you can execute safely 999 times out of a thousand, but one time in a thousand it can kill you.
Safety is is not an either/or situation -- it's not either `all fine' or `you're dead'.
In the case of a high speed pass, hitting a bunch of sink could kill you, especially if the pilot makes a mistake -- but a much more likely outcome, at least with a good pilot, is that he'll have to land the plane somewhere other than the runway. If it's a nice flat field, probably no problem. If it's a forest, well, the plane will probably be seriously damaged or destroyed, but the pilot will usually survive. (Again, a good pilot. A poor pilot will stall the plane at a low altitude and kill himself.)
As for the danger of hitting sink, that's something every glider pilot has to worry about, all the time. It's not restricted to high speed passes.
"The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer 'who sees a Mongol wearing this patch ... to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back' ..."
But what if they wore a hat, so that no one knew?
also, it's is illegal to deny the holocaust and can lead to imprisonment.
Denying facts in Germany can lead to imprisonment. That's quite scary, but the evil side of me immediately thought of the possibility of having every creationist and GW denier tossed in a cell.
0:-) That would be wrong, it's intolerant and draconian!
>:^)> Muahahaha yes, imagine all those dimwits put away where they'll never hurt society again! Imagine the advances in science that could take place!
0:-) You can't lock people up just to raise the anchors on a few areas of scientific progress! Creationists and GW deniers have feelings too!
>:^(> Blah blah blah feelings says the stupid guy with a halo over his head. Everyone in jail has feelings but you don't have a problem locking most of them up.
0:-) Most of them have done something to hurt someone else, creationists and GW deniers are just extremely annoying people who spread disinformation. I see where you're coming from but I must disagree.
>:^)> Well then let's agree to disagree, I have to go, American Idol is coming on soon.
0:-( We don't get that up here.
>:^)> Oh I'm not watching it, we use it down here to torture damned souls.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Anyway the bottom line is yes, the police could force the Mongols to take the patches off. I think it is a good tactic. They should use it on the other biker 'organizations' too. They're all a bunch of scum bags... though not quite as bad as corporate lawyers.
If they're doing something illegal, arrest them for that. There's nothing wrong or illegal about wearing a Hells Angels patch, a swastika, or a crucifix. As soon as they are illegal, we are all fucked.
"The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
No, the government can't take members' jackets from them. But they can keep them from making new jackets. In the end, though, the Mongols will rename themselves the Real L.A. Mongols and produce jackets that say that instead.
Of course, there is the larger conversation on why the government gets to seize the assets of any person or organization that has not yet been convicted or found liable in a court of law.
This is not my sandwich.
You don't seem to know much about them. The Hells Angels are also a copy, ironically of the Pissed off Bastards of Bloomington
"The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
2. It was a permanent public installation, not an item of clothing on a private person.
You can be wearing an official Disney-licensed Mickey Mouse T-Shirt and have them demand you remove it if you've defaced it. Even something as simple as putting safety pins in Mickey's ears.
But usually only if you're wearing their intellectual property while on their physical property.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Well I wasn't talking about about an entire case, I was talking about using a polygraph and the interpreted results of such. So a jury would still need to be unanimous.
Did your wife beat you up last night?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Doesn't it say somewhere in Revelations that the government will even own your name?
Andy
Takedown notice, in ... the 70s? Early 80s? That's soooo PDMCA (pre-DMCA), dude...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Mid 90s. *gets off your lawn*
Here's an email I sent to the PA rep for this US Attorney's office:
Subject: Inaccurate and offensive statements by U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien
It was with dismay that I read the statements of US Attorney Thomas O'Brien concerning the Mongols Motorcycle Gang arrests.
Specifically, when speaking about the seizure of the Mongols' trademark, according to numerous sources he declared:
"It would allow law enforcement to seize the leather jackets right off their back," O'Brien said.
This is blatantly false. The government is well within its legally defined rights to seize any and all property from an organization involved in a RICO action. However, seizure of the rights to the trademark would merely grant an ownership interest in future commercial uses of the trademark itself; i.e., no one could manufacture new Mongols clothing that displays the trademark. However, ownership of any and all items produced prior to the government's seizure of the mark would be protected by the doctrine of first sale.
For example, if Nike was seized for some criminal activity, the government could theoretically claim ownership of the trademarked Nike "swoosh" symbol. Ownership of the trademark would prevent anyone else from putting the "swoosh" symbol on newly manufactured product. However, the government would not have the right to take all of the shoes from the people that purchased shoes prior to the seizure.
Thomas O'Brien's statement is offensive for two reasons:
1. It implies either a deep ignorance or an extreme apathy towards intellectual property law. Although it may not show up in conventional polls as a "hot button" issue, there are many thousands of people in this country deeply concerned with the increasing abuse and enlargement of intellectual properly legislation. Many people feel that IP issues are becoming an excuse for corporate interests to position themselves in a superior position over consumers, and there is great resentment over the tendencies of various corporations and organizations to claim previously unknown legal powers in defense of their nebulous IP rights. In light of these issues, making such an obviously false statement as what Mr. O'Brien said indicates a desire to place sound bites and publicity over responsible legal practice.
2. The statement about seizing jackets off of people's back indicates a callous disregard for the civil rights of those who may wear such clothing. Quite frankly, in light of his appointment by President George Bush, one would have a reasonable expectation that Mr. O'Brien would be in favor of Republican principles such as minimizing government encroachment and unwarranted usurpation of civil rights. Instead, Mr. O'Brien makes a highly inflammatory statement implying that police officers should have the right to just strip people of their belongings because of their views, using as justification the flawed legal argument that ownership of a trademark conveys an ownership interest in previously transferred goods bearing that trademark. One might not approve of motorcycle gangs, but the legal precedent at stake could be used a few years down the road to exert authority over law-abiding consumers. For example, if Microsoft was to purchase Apple, using the argument of Mr. O'Brien Microsoft could then revoke the "right" to use items bearing their newly acquired iPod trademark. They could legally demand that anyone who owns an iPod needs to surrender it to Microsoft. Such a ludicrous possibility sounds absurd, but this is just a logical extension of Mr. O'Brien's remarks.
I would like you to obtain a clarification of Mr. O'Brien's remarks. I am hoping that upon reflection he will realize that perhaps he was a bit over enthusiastic over what otherwise appears to be a solid step in fighting crime.
Thank you for your time
This is an offensive psuedo-criminal abuse of civil torts.
I suppose we have more of this to look forward to with the new Intellectual Property Enforcement Bill passed in the US under the cover of our financial crisis.
I blame Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for colluding with the Bush Administration on this one. Such legislation with sweeping chilling effects deserved its own time for debate and public outrage.
mother#@$#@@#ers.
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
"But neither is wearing a swastika"
This is just plain wrong. Regardless of the fact that you disagree, those of us without a point to prove realize the Swastika is by every intelligent definition "speech", especially when used in the context it is most associated with.
If you are indeed seriously arguing that a swastika isn't speech, I have to wonder why you think your opinion trumps hundreds of years of legal rulings, sociological debates, common sense, ans the commonly accepted definition of speech.
So tell me, why are you right and everyone else is wrong (and by the way, even in countries where it is banned, it is considered speech, it's just considered speech that needs censoring)?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
I don't know if you know much about Biker Laws but when a new "Mama" comes into the group she has to blow and f_ck all the members. Humm so what were these female agents up to for three years?
Taking one for the company.
They can demand all sorts of things as long as you're on their property. If you refuse, the worst they can do is kick you out.