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' ..."
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 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.
Ummm... no. Really. Tell me you don't believe that, please. "If you can put it on a t-shirt, then it's free speech." isn't just a witty one liner ya know. Trademarks control trade. It may be illegal to sell a t-shirt with someone else's logo on it, but there's no law against wearing one.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
I grew up in L.A. and had an integrated social circle that drew from a pretty wide swath of communities. After what happened in '92 there was legally sanctioned trouble for people wearing certain clothes, having certain tattoos etc. I know that someone will inevitably point out that the policies were eventually scaled back, but there was a time in L.A. where law abiding youths of certain appearances/demographics literally had to fear the legally authorized power wielded by police.
IIRC the Rampart scandal grew out of policies put in place after '92...
The world has changed since those days, and I fear that this development is not pipe dream bullshit as you suggest.
On another note: Forgive the Godwin, and correct me if I am wrong, but don't some European countries have criminal penalties for displaying a swastika even in the form of satire or parody?
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.
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?
Are you just stupid or what? Selling T-shirts with a logo on them that you are not authorized to use may well be something someone could be sued for. Wearing one of these T-shirts is not trade and therefore Trademark law has nothing to say about it.
For fuck sake, what's wrong with you people?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wow, that's freaky. The last thing I read by Charles Petzold (back in the 80s, dude!) was an article in PC Magazine about how sick he was that horrible old Windows was triumphing over the technically superior OS/2. I suppose he's like one of those ex-hippies who becomes a hardcore right-winger in middle age. What a wanker.
No...I gotta go with the other poster, what you wear should give the police NO reason to pull you over, even if a trademarked logo is taken over, that does not prohibit ANYONE from wearing it, nor does it present reasonable cause for pulling someone over.
If pulling someone over just for what they wear or look like is on the books...then we are really in serious trouble in the states.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You had to obtain the shirt with the logo somehow. Even if you got it for free, that would be an unsanctioned use and dilution of the trademark, and because you accepted it, you participated in the trade (especially if you paid for it), and therefore would be a party to the infringing action.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
And if you made it yourself?
No fucking shit. We know it's a RICO case.. it's right there in the freakin' summary. What I called bullshit on was the claim that by seizing the gang's trademark they would somehow be able to prevent the gang members from wearing jackets with the logo on it. Trademark law doesn't work like that. You can use a trademark to stop trade using a registered mark.. not to stop people from wearing a jacket.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
Staying together in a group is simply advantageous tactically, and doesn't say anything about the strength or weakness of its members. Let us know how it works out the next time you go up to a lone Mara Salvatrucha member and call him a pussy.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Saying the same thing over and over will not change the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
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
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.
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.
If you affiliate yourself with the FBI, you are, in fact, affiliating yourself with people KNOWN for illegal acts.
If you affiliate yourself with Microsoft, Exxon, ADM..., you are, in fact, affiliating yourself with people KNOWN for illegal acts.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Not really biker's are very protective of their colors and the feds quite literally stole their colors; the humiliation factor is extreme.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So in trying desperately to distance itself from the Nazi legacy, the German government has effectively become a bunch of Nazis again.
Hmm...I don't think just because a private organization excludes certain people, makes them a hate group??
I mean...a men's only club doesn't mean they hate women, they just aren't welcome in the club. A private club should be able to decide on what they want in their membership, no?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Private groups discriminating against homosexuals is not illegal (although I take more issue with their stance on atheists).
It's despicable, but not illegal. Racketeering is.
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!!
So that t-shirt I have with a pot leaf on it is next, right?
Why stop with the Mongols?
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.
Yes, but if the Feds take this too far, it could backfire on them. For instance, when the prisons took away the belts of inmates, and made them wear pants far too big for them, that eventually became a fashion statement. The same could happen for the Mongols, they could take this every which way, stop wearing jackets with their name on it, call themselves "nameless", use some other designation that's simpler than a full name, introduce themselves as the motorcycle gang that's "formerly known as" Mongols, etc. The government can sure try to legislate fashion, but I seriously doubt it's going to succeed (I only hope they're trying to put a crimp on their t-shirt sales, and that's all).
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).
"Tyranny of the majority" is still tyranny and still damages the individual right to free speech or freedom of worship. What about Indians or Hindus living in Germany? They use the swastika as a symbol of their religion, representing both good luck and God's providence. Are they forbidden from the free exercise of their religion? If so then basic rights have been violated.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
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.
Why hide behind Hinduism? Neo-Nazis have just as much right to bear a swastika. Free speech for some but not others isn't free speech.
I think that the right to free speech trumps the notion that people don't like to be insulted. It's not a good feeling to feel insulted, but it's not a fundamental human right to not be insulted.