Investigation Exposes Yet Another Small Town That Is Little More Than A Law Enforcement Honeypot

Legal Issues

from the going-to-the-well-far-too-often dept

Law enforcement for profit is an ugly proposition. Most of us immediately think of civil asset forfeiture, which is generally just cops going shopping for stuff they want or cash to buy the stuff they want that isn’t subject to outside oversight.

But there’s another undercurrent of corruption that runs through small town America — places where cops and their supposed oversight have converted small stretches of highway into ATMs.

Everyone knows these small towns that have converted themselves to speed traps are corrupt. They’re overseen by people who see themselves as the second coming of Buford T. Justice and, for all intents and purposes, act as though their sole job is filling a burlap sack featuring a Sharpie-inscribed dollar sign.

It’s not a new thing, not even for Techdirt. Going back almost a decade, we find this article detailing the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety pulling the plug on Stringtown, OK — a town with a population of 410 that somehow managed to rake in nearly $500,000 in speeding ticket fines alone in 2013. That total represented 76% of the town’s total budget for that year. That would be the second time the town was stripped of its ability to write speeding tickets. The first occurred about a decade earlier.

Four years later, it was the town of New Miami, Ohio making national headlines. The small town was ordered by the state Appeals Court to refund more than $3 million in speed camera citation fees, ending a six-year battle between those wronged and the government that profited from being wrong. The court said the town was free to collect fines for speeding, so long as it could find a way to do it constitutionally. But the town argued being constitutional was too hard, an assertion the court disagreed with.

A few years later another small town was making national news for treating highway drivers like blank checks, rather than citizens with long-recognized rights. Brookside, Alabama was completely subservient to its police force whose hunger for cash had converted a nearby highway into a playground for opportunists and the local court into a kangaroo court for out-of-town drivers. Drivers reported receiving as many as 12 tickets during a single traffic stop with all infractions being routed through a court whose parking routinely overflowed with out-of-town drivers seeking to challenge obviously bullshit citations.

Now, it’s time for Fenton, Louisiana to experience the national spotlight. As of 2010, Fenton was home to 379 residents in space covering roughly 20 blocks. 2010 was apparently the town’s population watershed. As ProPublica notes in its expose of this speed trap town, the current population barely clears 200. Fenton contains one city hall, one library, one gas station, and one extremely opportunistic police force.

In many ways, Fenton is like other small towns in Louisiana. But it is remarkable in one way: This village of 226 people collected more money in a single year through fines and forfeitures, primarily traffic tickets, than almost any other municipality in Louisiana, according to audits.

In the year ending in June 2022, Fenton brought in $1.3 million that way.

Yeah… let’s not even pretend this is fine or normal or in any way justified by state or local laws. This is corruption supported by local leaders and carried out by local law enforcement. The fines were collected by something called the “mayor’s court” — a quasi-judicial operation that can only be found in two states: Louisiana (home of the parish!) and Ohio (see above!). All the court does — at least in the case of Fenton — is process the hundreds of tickets and millions in fines supposedly racked up by drivers who had the misfortune of venturing in or near this completely corrupt town.

Who stands to benefit from this arrangement? Well, it’s pretty much everyone who’s a part of this arrangement.

The mayor runs the village with revenue primarily made up of those fines. The bulk of the salaries of the people in the courtroom — everyone from the mayor to the clerk — comes from fines and fees collected by the court.

The conflicts of interest are so apparent those involved refuse to discuss them. The former village attorney, Mike Holmes, boldly and falsely claimed the mayor’s court operates in a “neutral, impartial manner.” The mayor offered no comment at all.

It doesn’t matter. The numbers tell the story the principal participants won’t.

The average municipality in the U.S. gets 1.7% of its revenue from fines and forfeitures, according to the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that promotes equity. In Fenton, it’s 92.5%.

This makes it apparent the town government serves itself. It may somehow serve the extremely small community by raking in millions in cash every year, but it does so by committing highway robbery. And, despite being subject to previous court rulings ordering the mayor’s court to behave in a less self-interested manner, the town of Fenton still runs its court in a way that ensures those benefiting directly from this unnatural partnership with law enforcement will continue to enrich themselves at the expense of due process.

Eddie Alfred Jr. is the mayor of Fenton and the “judge” who presides over the mayor’s court. He does this despite telling ProPublica he does not, instead claiming defendants are required to speak to the town’s prosecutor if they wish to challenge their citations. Despite his assertion he does not preside over the court, this is what ProPublica observed during its visit to Fenton’s court:

When we visited Fenton in September to observe court, “Judge Alfred,” as he is referred to in court records, donned a black judge’s robe, walked down the hall from the mayor’s office and sat at the bench. No one was waiting to have their cases heard. After Holmes [the local prosecutor] noted for the record that several people had missed their court date, Alfred said, “Court is now adjourned.” Afterward, he refused to speak with us and went back to his office.

Those are the actions of someone who knows their actions are indefensible. They’re also the actions of someone who never expected their lies to be exposed by reporters who don’t actually live near Fenton, Louisiana. Alfred underestimated ProPublica. And because he did, he had to do a hasty walk of shame out of the court and into his office where he could safely ignore requests for comments.

Records also show drivers who don’t show enough deference to local cops are hit with higher fines than those who are more subservient. Notes written on tickets let the court know which drivers were “rude” and request these drivers not be allowed to talk their way out of citations with less-than-subtle phrases like “Bad attititude! DO NOT FIX!”

If a driver decides to blow off this small town and its mercenary version of law enforcement, the town does everything it can to punish them anyway.

For those who miss court and don’t pay, the consequences can be severe. Fenton sent the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles about 750 requests to suspend driver’s licenses between 2018 and June, a number on par with much larger municipalities in the state.

When asked about this policy, the local prosecutor claimed state law required instant reporting of missed traffic court dates. When asked again, the prosecutor admitted he had lied:

He later acknowledged that’s not true and cited a two-year deadline under state law to request a suspension.

Say what you will about Big Brother or federal overreach, but sometimes, it’s the smallest towns with the smallest police forces that are the biggest bullies. All we can hope is that being exposed for what they truly are will force this town to change its ways. On the other hand, there’s no legitimate way this town can get its hands on $3 million in funding without pulling bullshit like this. And when there are millions on the line, it’s extremely easy to ignore the criticism of the people footing the bill.

Filed Under: civil asset forfeiture, eddie alfred jr., fenton, forfeiture, honeypot, law enforcement, louisiana, speed trap

Hormel Fairly Chill About ‘Spam’ Trademark, Still Missing Business Opportunities

Trademark

from the spam-spam-spam-eggs-and-spam dept

Hormel, the foodstuffs company that makes Spam, amongst other items, has made it onto our pages before. And not for good reasons. Ages ago, the company attempted to sue anti-spam proprietors, arguing that its “Spam” trademark somehow translated into the world of IT and email. Separately, the company also bullied a Canadian brewery into changing the name of one of its brews, Damn Skippy, claiming to be concerned as to customer confusion over its Skippy peanut butter brand, despite Skippy no longer being sold in Canada at the time. So Hormel has shown itself to be an aggressive trademark enforcer on occasion.

In this specific instance, in which a chef in Minnesota paid homage to Spam on her restaurant’s menu, it never got far enough. Instead, chef Ann Kim changed the name of her menu items to remove any reference to Hormel’s product instead. Kim created her own “spam” in house and served it in two dishes, including a fried rice dish and a “Spam ‘n Cheese” sandwich. The names of those dishes and the ingredient lists have since been changed after Hormel reached out, not with a cease and desist letter, but which questioned if she was using Hormel Spam in her dishes.

“We did not get an official cease and desist letter. It was an inquiry email asking if we were using the official Spam product,” Rachael Crew, a spokeswoman with Kim’s Vestalia Hospitality group, said in a statement. “Based on Hormel’s email, we knew it would come next. So we proactively changed the ingredient name to Ann’s Ham.”

The online and printed menus now reflect the change, including the renaming of the sandwich to “Ann’s ham ‘n’ cheese.” Kim did not respond to requests for comment.

Now, would Hormel have sent a C&D if those changes hadn’t been made? We can’t be sure, of course, but that would seem at least somewhat likely given Hormel’s history. Still, I would consider Hormel’s statement on the matter not overly aggressive nor maximalist.

“From time to time, we come across instances of others using our trademarks without licensing agreements. We understand that people are inspired by our iconic products and may even create replicas, usually unaware of any trademark violation that may have occurred,” the statement read. “Typically, we try to give people the benefit of the doubt and simply ask if they are aware of our trademarks and what our process is for the use of our trademarks.

“The issue is, if trademark owners don’t police their trademarks, they may lose them. So, we do this in order to prevent that from happening and work with [the] business to try and remedy the situation without too much hassle.”

It should be pointed out that this reflects the company’s recent stance on its trademark enforcement. The further you go back in history, the more you find Hormel acting very much like a trademark bully. This softer tone is certainly preferred.

But that last bit of the quotation is precisely the problem. Yes, there is a requirement in trademark law to enforce marks or risk losing them… if there is indeed the potential for customer confusion or a risk of the term becoming generic. But, as we’ve pointed out ad nauseum in the past, there are other options beyond simply shutting other uses down. The most common of those options is cheaply licensing the term is an option, thereby endorsing the use as official.

But instead, Hormel now gets to not be the trademark bully and still get its way, merely as a chilling effect result of its own enforcement history. Words are one thing, after all, while actions tell the true story.

Filed Under: ann kim, spam, trademark
Companies: hormel, vestalia hospitality

Yes, The First Amendment Protects Displaying The ‘Thin Blue Line’ Flag Even In Publicly Owned Buildings

Free Speech

from the but-especially-unpopular-speech dept

Most people seem to understand the First Amendment protects their right to say stupid or offensive things, especially when they’re the ones saying them. These same people often forget the First Amendment does not protect them from counter-speech, during which they may be publicly decried as stupid or offensive.

The same goes for most government employees in most situations. First Amendment protections aren’t quite as free-ranging when public servants are involved, but it certainly doesn’t just disappear because the expression springs from government sources.

That’s the upshot of this decision, which features some hot government-on-government action. On one side, we have police officers and their union litigating on behalf of their First Amendment rights after being “silenced” by a city statute that targeted just one particular form of expression: the display of the cop-bastardized version of the American flag known as the “Thin Blue Line” flag.

The decision [PDF], handed down by a federal court in Pennsylvania (and brought to us by Courthouse News Service), contains some handy depictions just in case no one’s familiar with law enforcement’s preferred “us vs. them” shorthand.

There’s this version, which is described by the law enforcement plaintiffs in their lawsuit as representing a “show of support for [and] a solidarity with member[s] of law enforcement, which includes, police officers.” Not only that but it allegedly “represents the preservation of the rule of law” and the “sacrifice of fallen law enforcement officers.”

Whew. That’s a lot to ask from one slightly altered American flag. But that’s what the suing officers claim, as well as the union reps from the Springfield Township Police Benevolent Association (PBA), which has not-so-boldly decided to incorporate this separatist version of the American flag into its logo:

Kind of gross, to be honest. The “blue line” flag doesn’t do the things the plaintiffs claim it does. Instead, when displayed by cops or their unions, it represents the “us vs. them” mentality that permeates US law enforcement. The “thin blue line” doesn’t represent cops saving us non-cops from criminal anarchy as much as it represents law enforcement’s insular culture. But I suppose a “circle the wagons” flag wouldn’t be nearly as popular.

In this mockup, the stars represent police supervisors, union reps, and other officers on the scene surrounding an officer involved in an egregious violation of rights — a show of solidarity that includes crafting narratives, synchronizing statements, and applying generous amounts of white-out to in-progress reports to ensure everyone is telling the same story the PD’s PR reps are currently delivering to nearby reporters. More accurate but certainly far less inspiring.

Anyway… back to the lawsuit.

Springfield tried to break up the insular cop culture by enacting a resolution prohibiting the display of the “thin blue line” flag “on all township property” earlier this year. That resolution became the immediate target of this lawsuit, filed by a handful of PD employees, as well as their police union.

Why? Because these cops and their reps have plastered the “blue line” flag all over the police station, which resides inside the main township government building. While not displayed (at least not prominently) in areas accessible by the public, the fake-ass flag is displayed nearly everywhere else in the station.

Although there are no depictions of the Flag in the lobby area of the station (Doc. No. 47-1 at ¶ 80), it does appear in other areas of the station, to which the public has limited access (id. at ¶ 75), including:

• A bulletin board displaying patches from other police departments depicting the Thin Blue Line American Flag,
• A wooden Thin Blue Line American Flag hanging on a wall,
• A Thin Blue Line American Flag hanging on a wall,
• Thin Blue Line American Flags displayed in the safety office,
• A wooden “ballot type” box,
• On a recycling bin, and
• On challenge coins displayed on officers’ desks.

The court notes the township perhaps had a legitimate reason to forbid the posting of this flag on town property.

While Plaintiffs revere the Thin Blue Line American Flag, many members of the public, including residents of Springfield Township, view it as a symbol of police brutality and racial animosity.

The town passed its resolution, prompted in part by the police union’s decision to revamp its logo to incorporate the “blue line” flag. The police union and these police officers wanted nothing to do with dispelling the perception that those displaying this particular flag were supportive of law enforcement actions/officers who engaged in police brutality and/or racial animosity. Instead, they sued.

They’re right, even if their insistence on displaying this flag is not nearly as correct. Whatever injury they might suffer (which appears to be, at most, a reprimand from city officials and/or removal of the offending flag) is still an injury. The speech is protected and this specific targeting of only one certain form of expression by town employees is exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment strictly forbids.

The Township has not, and indeed, cannot, contest that the Resolution is a viewpoint regulation—it prohibits employees, agents, and consultants from displaying only the Thin Blue Line American Flag, not from displaying flags or political speech generally.

Not only that, but if the town wished to eliminate expression that might undermine trust in local law enforcement or discourage racially divisive behavior, it needed to go even further than it did here. On one hand, the law goes too far already. On the other hand, it doesn’t go far enough, as least according to the town’s own assertions in defense of its hastily erected (and poorly thought out) resolution against this one particular form of speech.

In addition to being overbroad, the Resolution is underinclusive in that Township employees, including police officers, are allowed to engage in other forms of discourse that could exacerbate racial tensions and undermine public confidence in the Police Department. For example, nothing in the Resolution precludes an officer, while on duty and in uniform, from voicing opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement or for example, carrying a coffee cup that says, “Blue Lives Matter.” Both forms of speech would seem to trigger the same concerns that the Township is trying to address through the Resolution, perhaps in an even more direct way.

Sure, it’s a little bit more complex than that because it involves the government regulating the government, but at the end of it all, it’s still impermissible. The town’s cops are free to be divisive and the town’s residents are free to think the cops are being divisive. But the town itself can’t really do much about this other than encourage its officers to be less divisive. The First Amendment protects this expression, though, as divisive as it may be. And that’s how it should be. Even divisive expression is still protected expression.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, springfield township, thin blue line

Daily Deal: Skill Success

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Skill Success gives you access to over 4,000 online video courses from hundreds of the top experts around the world. Learn new skills from our expansive course library with topics such as Languages, Business, Technology, Meditation, Cooking, Music, and everything in between. It’s on sale for $120.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Elon Musk Says Only Those Who Pay Him Deserve Free Speech

Failures

from the price-check-on-freedom-on-aisle-7-please dept

Okay, okay, I think this is the last of my posts about Elon Musk’s unhinged appearance at the DealBook Summit with ill-prepared interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin. We already covered his cursing out advertisers, while predicting that “earth will judge” them, as well as his statement that AI copyright lawsuits don’t matter because “Digital God” will be here before it’s over, but I also wanted to cover one more exchange, in which Musk effectively says that only those who give him money deserve “free speech” (his definition of free speech).

Again, Sorkin does a terrible job of setting up the question, so I’ll do what he should have done and explain the context. Sorkin is asking about a few times recently where ExTwitter has fiddled with the knobs to punish sites Elon appears not to like. In September, it was reported that one of those sites was the NY Times, and the process began in July, whereby something changed at ExTwitter so that NY Times’ tweets were suppressed in some manner (what some might call “shadow banned,” even though that term’s meaning has changed over time).

Since late July, engagement on X posts linking to the New York Times has dropped dramatically. The drop in shares and other engagement on tweets with Times links is abrupt, and is not reflected in links to similar news organizations including CNN, the Washington Post, and the BBC….

Now, remember, nonsense conspiracy theories about “shadow banning” were one of the reasons why Elon insisted he had to take over the company “to protect free speech.” But as soon as he was at the controls, he immediately started using the same tools to “shadow ban” some of those he disliked.

Anyway, Sorkin asks Musk about this, and Musk’s response is somewhat incredible to see. He more or less says that if you don’t give him money, you don’t deserve his version of “free speech” (which is the ability to post on ExTwitter).

The discussion starts out weird enough:

ARS: The New York Times newspaper it appeared over the summer, to be throttled.

Elon: What? What did?

ARS: The NY Times.

Elon: Well, we do require that that everyone has to buy a subscription and we don’t make exceptions for anyone and and I think if I want the New York Times I have to pay for a subscription and they don’t give me a free subscription, so I’m not going to give them a free subscription

First of all, what? What do you mean “we do require that everyone has to buy a subscription” because that’s literally not true. Over 99% of users on ExTwitter use the platform for free. Only a tiny, tiny percentage pay for a subscription.

Sorkin tries to bring it back around to throttling, but Musk continues to talk nonsensically about subscriptions, which have fuck all to do with what Sorkin is asking him about.

ARS: But were you throttling the New York Times relative to other news organizations? Relative to everybody else? Was it specific to the to the Times?

Musk: They didn’t buy a subscription. By the way, it only costs like a thousand dollars a month, so if they just do that then they’re back in the saddle.

ARS: But you are saying it was throttled.

Musk: No, I’m saying…

ARS: I’m saying I mean was there a conversation that you had with somebody you said, ‘look, you know, I’m unhappy with the Times, they should either be buying the subscription or I don’t like their content or whatever.’ Whatever.

Musk: Any organization that refuses to buy a subscription is is not going to be recommended.

So, Sorkin and Musk are obviously talking at cross purposes here. Sorkin’s asking about deliberate throttling. Musk is trying to say that news orgs that don’t pay $1,000/month (which is not, as Musk implies, cheap, nor is it worth it, given how little traffic Twitter actually sends to news sites) aren’t recommended.

The correct question for Sorkin to ask here is what’s the difference between “not recommended” and “throttled,” if any, because the evidence suggests that the Times was deliberately punished beyond just not being “recommended.” And, yes, this exact kind of thing was part of what Musk said he had to buy Twitter to stop. So Sorkin jumps ahead (awkwardly) to try to sorta make that point:

ARS: But then what does that say about free speech? And what does it say about amplifying certain voices…

Musk: Well, it says free speech is not exactly free, it costs a little bit.

Which, um, is kinda a big claim. Especially given what he’s said about free speech in the past. Sorkin seems stumped for a moment and so Elon starts laughing and then comes up with some non sequitur from South Park.

Musk: You know, it’s like… uh… South Park like they say: you know freedom isn’t free, it costs of buck o’ five or whatever. So but it’s pretty cheap. Okay? It’s low cost low cost freedom.

So, again, he doesn’t actually answer the question or address the underlying issue, which is that for all the claims that he purchased Twitter to stop those kinds of knob fiddling that he (incorrectly) believes were being done for ideological reasons, he’s now much more actively fiddling with the knobs, including suppressing speech of those who won’t give him money.

The sense of entitlement, again, is astounding. It’s basically, “you don’t get free speech unless you pay me.”

Filed Under: andrew ross sorkin, elon musk, free speech, recommendations, shadowbanning, shadowbans, subscriptions, throttling
Companies: ny times, twitter, x

FCC To Vote On New Rules Cracking Down On Shitty Cable TV Fees

Policy

For decades, cable TV giants have nickel-and-dimed customers with a rotating assortment of bullshit cable TV fees, whether it’s “regulatory recovery” fee (a misleadingly named fee designed to have you blaming government for industry greed), regional sports fees (charged whether or not you watch sports), or the completely meaningless “broadcast TV fee” (which has ballooned at several times the rate of inflation).

All of the fees are designed to let the company falsely advertise one price, then sock you with a higher rate when the bill comes due. And now that it has a functional voting majority for the first time in several years, the FCC says it’s looking to vote on new rules in December that could put a damper on the industry’s abuse of at least one type of fee. Maybe.

The agency’s breakdown of its proposed plan suggests the proposal will primarily focus on “early termination fees,” charged when users prematurely cancel service while under contract, and “billing cycles fees” requiring customers pay for a complete billing cycle even if they cancel service before the end of the cycle.

“No one wants to pay junk fees for something they don’t want or can’t use. When companies
charge customers early termination fees, it limits their freedom to choose the service they want,” FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel said in a statement. “In an increasingly competitive media market, we should make it easier for Americans to use their purchasing power to promote innovation and expand competition within the industry.”

Details will matter. As will consistent enforcement (not really the FCC’s strong suit).

Early cancellation fees are also only one small part of a much larger ecosystem of bullshit fees. Including the mandatory rental of a cable box. A 2019 Consumer Reports study found that about 24% of consumer bills are comprised of bullshit fees, generating cable giants $28 billion in additional revenue annually. Efforts to protect consumers from these fees has been inconsistent and selective at best.

So while it’s nice to hear the FCC say all the right things about obnoxious fees, and tackle a genuine issue of annoyance (early cancellation fees), the actual scope of the rules — and whether they’re consistently enforced — will matter.

Filed Under: cable tv, competition, early termination fees, fcc, video

Ubisoft Tries To DMCA Leak Of BG&E Remaster Footage Before Finally Getting It Right

Copyright

from the got-there-eventually dept

One of the more famous, and my favorite, quotations attributed to Winston Churchill is: “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.” My second favorite Churchill quote, by the way, is: “Dammit, I can’t decide between these three fingers of whiskey and this tankard of champagne!”

Anyway, the point of the message is that sometimes it takes an organization failing by doing the wrong thing before they eventually get to doing things the right way. Which brings me to Ubisoft. The gaming company unfortunately did an oopsie and leaked its own remastered version of Beyond Good & Evil to subscribers.

In an email to Kotaku, an Ubisoft spokesperson confirmed that the leak was all its fault.

“Due to a technical error, an early development version of Beyond Good & Evil – 20th Anniversary Edition was recently released to some Ubisoft+ subscribers,” the Ubisoft spokesperson said. “As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of Beyond Good & Evil, we’re excited to share that the official launch is set for early 2024, and we look forward to sharing more with you in the new year.”

That response to the leak is obviously fine. In fact, while we have seen gaming companies absolutely mess themselves over and over again over leaks of game or game footage, we’ve actually promoted this sort of response in the past. You acknowledge the leak, thank your fans for being so interested in the game that they are gobbling up leaked information and footage, and then you remind everyone its not a finished product and to stay tuned for the actual eventual awesome release of the game. Simple!

And, that’s eventually where Ubisoft got publicly on ExTwitter as well.

I say eventually because that wasn’t Ubisoft’s first reaction. As the quotation goes, Ubisoft had to try everything else first, and that in this case meant attempting to put the leak genie back in the bottle via DMCA notices. DMCA notices that are not designed to bury material the company itself leaked.

Ubisoft making the game available was a total accident; however, that didn’t stop folks from sharing clips and screens of the BG&E remaster on YouTube. While the company tried erasing any evidence of this ever happening, copyright striking anyone who published footage of the leaked game, Ubisoft eventually gave up and announced this morning on X/Twitter that the remaster is real.

Now, while this is Ubisoft we’re talking about, perhaps such a clear-cut lesson will be finally learned. Trying to copyright strike leaked information about the game to hell was never going to work. And, in fact, probably would have had the opposite effect. Senorita Streisand, after all, is a resilient mistress.

And before someone eventually shows up in the comments suggesting that this was all a planned thing designed to get the game more attention… nah. Just nah. That’s not how Ubisoft operates and there is zero evidence that this was all some guerilla marketing approach.

Instead, this was almost certainly what it appeared to be: Ubisoft handling this the right way, only after it tried everything else.

Filed Under: beyond good and evil, copyright, dmca, leaks, takedown notice, videogames
Companies: ubisoft

Groq Sends Elon’s ‘Grok’ A Cease & Desist, Though A Funny One

Trademark

from the the-likelihood-of-confusion dept

One of things we enjoy here at Techdirt is when even those with legitimate gripes about trademark law take a bemused view about the whole thing, rather than immediately jumping to angry and overly aggressive threats. No one likes a trademark bully, even when the trademark holder might have a legitimate claim.

A few weeks ago, we mentioned that Elon Musk probably should have checked with trademark lawyers (or just done a basic internet search) before naming his xAI large language model “Grok” because there was already a well-known AI chip company in the space named Groq. Groq seems mildly annoyed at the confusion this is causing (and literally yesterday when I mentioned testing something on Groq’s AI system someone asked me why I was using Elon’s AI…), but is mostly taking it in good strides.

Initially, Groq’s CEO, Jonathan Ross (who was the guest on this week’s Techdirt podcast, which was entertaining) used his own AI tools to suggest a new name for Elon’s LLM. The solution they came up with was Slartibartfast, which (unlike “Grok”) is actually from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which Elon keeps insisting is what his AI is trained to be like.

Then Ross used the situation to highlight just how much faster AI running on Groq’s chips are, compared to using the old, tired, slow way that Elon’s appears to be using:

Now, Ross has taken it up a notch with a clearer cease and desist, though still keeping it amusing.

Did you know that when you announced the new xAI chatbot, you used our name? Your chatbot is called Grok and our company is called Groq, so you can see how this might create confusion among people. Groq (us) sounds a lot like (identical) to Grok (you), and the difference of one consonant (q, k) only matters to scrabblers and spell checkers. Plus, we own the trademark.  

We can see why you might want to adopt our name. You like fast things (rockets, hyperloops, one-letter company names) and our product, the Groq LPU™ Inference Engine, is the fastest way to run large language models (LLMs) and other generative AI applications. However, we must ask you to please choose another name, and fast. 

I stand by my recommendation to name it Slartibartfast. It’s both on message with your idea of a sarcastic bot inspired by Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and sounds sufficiently distinct from any other AI company or product (which is why I wouldn’t recommend calling it Giggle or OpenXi). Win-win! But, your call.  

In making this request, we’re thinking about you as much as us. It must be annoying having all those people hitting you up on X, asking how the Groq LPU Inference Engine is able to deliver 10X better performance and precision at scale? Or how it is 10X more energy efficient and 10X more cost-effective? That’s plenty of Xs, even for you, especially when it’s not your Groq.  

I get it. It was annoying when my great Aunt asked me about my new snarky chatbot over Thanksgiving dinner, but I passed her the mashed potatoes anyway.  

 #GroqOn

Of course, Elon has (so far) ignored all of this, and there’s a decent chance he’ll continue to do so. But I’d like to no longer need to explain every time I talk about Groq (which is doing some pretty cool stuff) that I’m not using Elon’s glitchy tech, so hopefully Elon gets around to actually changing the name.

As we’ve explained for years, of the three customary fields often linked together under the terrible and misleading term “intellectual property,” trademark is the most defensible, though only for its original intended purpose: to avoid consumer confusion. As a consumer protection tool that accurately designates the origin of a product, trademark serves a useful process (it’s only when it’s being used for bullying/censorship that gets us upset). But here, Groq appears to have a very clear legitimate claim. The likelihood of confusion is extremely clear (I keep experiencing it personally!).

But, I guess it’s up to Elon if he’s actually going to change the name. He could ask Grok, but I’m guessing the responses might come a little too slowly.

Filed Under: ai, cease and desist, elon musk, grok, jonathan ross, likelihood of confusion, trademark
Companies: groq, twitter, x