Homeland Security's Toughest Job

[Kitsune]

...is taking the toys away.

When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time.

He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.

Wow, do I feel safer -- thank god Homeland Security was created for our protection against these dangerous people!

[Elspode]

Homeland Security...keeping America's corporate profits safe!

[Happy Monkey]

And to top it all off, the patent was expired. I think we need a separation of corporation and state ammendment.

[Roosta]

She should count her lucky stars there was no food past it's expiry date in her kitchen.

[russotto]

The article doesn't say whether she put the Magic Cube right back on the shelf after learning that the HS people were lying.

[Beestie]

I don't believe this story.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Beestie

I don't believe this story.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by russotto

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

I don't believe this story.

Any reason?

Customs is under Homeland Security now, and corporations are often willing to file false infringement claims on the theory that small businesses don't have the cash to defend themselves.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Any reason?

It just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Why, for example, would a patent infringement suit single out one small, sole-proprietorship store (not even a chain store, mind you) for selling illegal copies of a toy when the company cranking these things out is right up the street (in Auburn, Washington). I could see if they were made in China and imported where the manufacturer is outside of our jurisdiction.

And I also have to suspend belief to accept that the justice department instigated an enforcement act before checking to see if a crime had even been committed by examining the patent. Surely, the complaint included the patent as an exhibit in order to substantiate the claim or if not, somebody had to look the patent over and wouldn't they rather find a reason not to enforce it like citing its expiration?

Other nagging questions persist. Like why the reporter didn't ask the lady at the Imm/Cust office why they harassed this lady when the claim was bogus? Surely, the proprietor mentioned that to the reporter.

Something seems absent from the story as presented in the article.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good points Beestie. Your right in that it just sounds too rediculous but with all the really strange shit going on these days it can't be dismissed out of hand.
I agree the reporter didn't do a very good job.