CAP Talk

I was just on the Hock's website to order some uniform items for a few new members and saw this:

QuoteThe Hock Shop
Civil Air Patrol Uniforms & Insignia
24 February 2010

To Our Customers:

Due to an ongoing lawsuit, we have been prohibited from selling articles which contain the words "Civil Air Patrol", the letters "CAP" or the three-bladed propeller.  These items have been removed from our website and are not available for sale by us.  We hope that this will be a temporary situation. If it is resolved, the items will return to our website.  A more formal announcement will be posted as soon as it is received from our attorneys.
We realize that this puts a burden on our customers who now will have to order some of their requirements from us; and the rest elsewhere.  We also feel that it is unfair for our customers to have to pay two shipping charges to obtain the items they need.  As a result, we are temporarily suspending shipping charges on all orders for which the customer requests UPS Ground shipping.  This free ground shipping applies to orders of any amount. We will continue our practice of shipping all orders received by 3 PM Eastern Time, the same day that the order is received. We hope this takes some of sting out of the inconvenience that our customers will experience as a result of this restriction placed on us.  Your past support as well as your continuing support is greatly appreciated.

Thomas E. Flanagan
Owner

It's probably not a surprise that it eventually happened, but nonetheless it's a problem for the membership. If we lose the Hock Shop, we lose probably the last place we can go to for CAP uniform items with decent prices and customer service. (I've had nothing but good service from the Hock, and on the flip side nothing but problems and poor service with Vanguard).

@####*#*@#&@&#^  Thay what I have to say.........This guy provides a great service to CAP memebers.   SCAMGUARD WINS AGAIN!

Very sorry to about this....
I've always had outstanding service from The Hock Shop over many years.  I've avoided dealing with Vanguard because of their reputation for poor service/inferior products. 
Guess Vanguard just can't stand the competition...

Wow.


..and combatting it with free shipping.

OTOH, what I really think it's time to do, is rise up against the machine here.

I've not been overly thrilled with the quality of the merchandise from the Hock Shop, BUT.. I will say they do a 300% better job than the Big V ever did, and would do nothing short of make it right when they screwed up.


Everything was fine when we could get stuff however, whatever, wherever we wanted.

Now with the Scamguard Kickback, the whole thing just blows.

Pointedly, too. After all, many vendors were able to justify participation in the market place previously, where as the big V said "no, unless we are the sole supplier."

Who died and made them special?

They have had *years* to get their act together.

I have to wonder if this has anything to do with working out their losses on the CSU debacle. Probably not, NHQ probably had to buy all that stuff, too.

NHQ gets a kickback from the purchases of CAP SKU's, in some places folks have pointed out differences in the price for the same item if you buy from the "Air Force" page, or the "Civil Air Patrol" page, the big V says "ooops" and fixes it.

Sorry, I don't buy the "ooops". CAP while a corporation, is basically a corporation dependent on appropriated funds and is closely integrated model wise after the Air Force.  The military branches are not beating down vendors for putting "ARMY" , "AIR FORCE", on stuff.

CAP throws lawyers at stuff like if they were ground teams looking for lost pages in the law library.

It's sad that NHQ can't clear the same amount they get kicked back from VG on their own, and SAVE the members the price of these items by not having kickbacks be built into the price.

You know we are paying for it.

I wouldn't sweat to much. Tom has been in business for something like 20 years and will probably prevail. He was around before Vanguard became "exclusive".

I'm surprised it took this long.  NHQ took its time to send out a cease and desist order.  Hopefully, Tom will prevail or at least get NHQ/Vanguard to back off.  No competition equals higher prices.

If we want to do something we need to start an online Petition for TOM and stand behind him We need to let the powers that be that the past aand current memebership have benifited from his buisness..  Looking at his website he does not have much of anything since he had to remove stuff.   With the Economy they wa it is I am sure that this is going to hurt a small busness owner like him.  I dont think vanguard is hurting.  Any time I have had a problem with the he takes care of it right of way.  With vanguard , any time I have hada problem they try and blame it on me or make an excuse.   I wonder how much in lawyer fees this costing him? .  If I was CAP National leadership, I would cease services with Vnaguard and give TOM the rights to sell the products we need. 

P.S If any body is interested in the online petition thing and can start one that would be great, I am not that computer savy...

How can he prevail?  Unless he has a license agreement, he has no leg to stand on, and if they are going to start licensing the insignia, it should go to RFP's.

http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html

tell me what to write and I can write it up...if not that is the link to make one...pretty simple

Lt Col Tom Flanagan is a classy guy who has devoted decades of his time to ensure that we received the best service.  It is very sad to learn that he must face a situation like this.  Since 1984 I have spoken to him and ordered thousands of dollars of equipment.  I will follow this situation pray that the causes are rectified in his favor.

I'm still with you Tom!

This is very distressing news!  I have NEVER had a problem with any item or service I received from the Hock Shop.  Like many others, I have had my share of issues with Vanguard.  I always thought choice and competition were hallmarks of democratic capitalism?  Silly me. ???

Quote from: DogCollar on February 25, 2010, 06:55:14 PM
This is very distressing news!  I have NEVER had a problem with any item or service I received from the Hock Shop.  Like many others, I have had my share of issues with Vanguard.  I always thought choice and competition were hallmarks of democratic capitalism?  Silly me. ???

National Board is tomorrow. Email your wing king and express your extreme displeasure with this. It might make things happen.

Poor CAP, can't stand a little competition?

Isn't that what the USA was built upon

Poor CAP having to bully a competitor due to licensing...

RFP's and CAP?   Really?  Did Vanguard file an RFP for its "exclusive right?"

Poor, Poor CAP having to get a lawsuit a a small operator.  CAP, another factor in today's litiguous (sp) society...proving it is no more than the guy stubbing his toe on a city sidewalk and suing the city

So CAP can not claim that they are above board when THEY need to to sue, huh?

WOW!!

Let me start with the standard disclaimer: I have nothing against Tom or his business and genuinely wish him well.

But we should remember how we got into our current situation with Vanguard.

For decades, CAP lost buckets of money running our own insignia/uniforms/doodads and trinkits store.  Whether we called it the Bookstore or CAPMART, whether we ordred via the mail, on the phone, or on the web.  GOB managers or professional managers.

It just bled money.  Which was dues money paid in by you and me.  Money that could have been used for other programs and projects - it went down the drain in a torrent of red ink.

So our volunteer leaders wisely decided to outsource the function after a competative bidding process.  Vanguard won.  And it was "Win-Win" for CAP and the membership.

• CAP got to save the afore-mentioned buckets of money.
  
• CAP gets money returned from VG that is used to support training.
  
• CAP members get to purchase the full line of CAP insignia, even the "less used" stuff.

(Obviously, the fact the VG returns some money to CAP means that essentially by definition that VG could choose to charge less for some or all of their CAP items.  The problem comes with the assumption that they would.)

And clearly VG charges more for some of the popular items like "CAP" tapes  for BDUs, etc.

But the simple fact is that they pretty much have to, in order to offer our less popular insignia at reasonable prices.  For example, VG can probably sell thousands of embroidered CAP tapes a year, but I would be surprised if they sold more that a couple of dozen Master CDI badges a year.  If our veteran CDI had to pay the full  cost of dies, enamel machines, etc., their badges would cost hundreds of dollars each.

Tom and others can charge less simply because they are not obligated to carry the full line of CAP insignia.  They are in essense, siphoning off the low hanging fruit which makes it that much harder for VG to carry our full product line.

So in a very real sense, popular items like CAP tapes subsidize the "micro-market" stuff like Master CDI badges which would otherwise become prohibitively expensive.

Vanguard service can be problematic at times, but I have been around long enough to remember similar and perhaps more vocal complaints about the Bookstore and CAPMART.

Maybe we could have a good discussion about why CAP needs so many unique insignia and uniforms, instead of using "off the rack" stuff.

Heck, does anybody have a count of how many unique CAP insignia, ribbons, badges, etc there are?  My WAG is over two hundred - each of which have to be designed, manufactured, stored, cataloged, marketed, sold, and delivered.

VG dies a pretty good job, all things considered.

Well....I'm a six of one half dozen of the other sort of guy on this issue.  I have had good service and quality product from both Vanguard and the Hock.  And I have had poor service and cheap product from both.

Bottom line is that corporation owns the rights to CAP and all our insignia and they gave exclusive rights to Vanguard for a rebate on sales.

This is not a SCAM...this is a normal standard business practice.

If anything we are to blame for this legal action by pushing so many customers to the Hock Shop....once he started making a significant cut it was inevitable that Vanguard and CAP would have to take action.

Sorry it is happening....but that is just the way business works.

^ +1

Granted I haven't used the Hock since CAPMart came around, but...

The reason I began to use CAPMart and Vanguard was BECAUSE Hock was recommended to me by word of mouth, but did not deliver on the expectations.

It took Hock 8 WEEKS to get me my blue tapes for my first uniform...not knowing other sources even after that I went to them. Having seen the crap that came from them (this is circa 2004), I was glad to use CAPMart.

WTF??!!??!!

I've never had anything but good service from The Hock.

Of course, this means you can't buy grey rank epaulettes or any style nameplate except the USAF brushed silver, CAP cutouts, etc. etc. etc.

Patrick and Ned are absolutely correct.  CAP has an "exclusive" contract with Vangard and, it will probably remain in force for some time.  We've received  about $230,000 in the last 4 years from them.  The money has gone directly to regional/national training site improvements.  Vangard continually improves the service we receive (I know; it still needs improvement).  The only way Vangard will be more receptive at this point is to complain up the chain to Mr. Don Rowland, CAP's Executive Director.  I find however, phone orders are the best way to get items with the least problems.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 25, 2010, 08:25:42 PM
Of course, this means you can't buy grey rank epaulettes or any style nameplate except the USAF brushed silver, CAP cutouts, etc. etc. etc.

?

Heck, Tom had to take his supply of old blue Flight Officer rank slides off too. Something that hasn't been in production for 15+years that was merely listed as a collectible. Luckily I bought my pairs already!

I'm with Tom on this one.  During the CAPMart-Vanguard change over debacle, he single-handedly picked up the slack while Vanguard was standing around for almost 6 months trying to figure out what to do with 58,000 new customers.  He should get an award, not a cease and desist letter.  I will admit that Vanguard's service has gotten better, but I still have consistently better service from Tom.

This situation is not only for CAP. In the last edition of Leatherneck magazine, there was a discussion of the Marine Corps requiring a $5,000/per annum royalty fee from major producers of Marine Corps memorabilia. The Civil Air Patrol seal and insignia are the property of CAP and while we may disagree about the way it is handled, Vanguard was awarded the franchise. BTW CAP is the one issuing Cease and desist orders, not Vanguard.

I've used Hock mostly, for price reasons, and been extremely satisfied with their service.  I hate to see them forced out.  I guess I'll use Vanguard if forced too.

While I can't say much I will say this. CAP did refuse to license the Hock Shop during the 6 months this case has been through legal proceedings. During the 47 years Tom has been in business he has done nothing but dedicate his time and money to the members of CAP and the families that work for him. I fail to see how him not being able to sell the items can do anything other than hurt the members.

The royalties are nice.  I want to know how much money we have spent buying back the items from Vanguard that we've phased out.  How about just on the TPU?  I think that we should see the answer to this.

Quote from: JC004 on February 25, 2010, 10:06:21 PM
The royalties are nice.  I want to know how much money we have spent buying back the items from Vanguard that we've phased out.  How about just on the TPU?  I think that we should see the answer to this.

Or the fact that a good chunk of the cash supposedly went to improve the mountain...

Quote from: Ned on February 25, 2010, 07:10:23 PM
But we should remember how we got into our current situation with Vanguard.

For decades, CAP lost buckets of money running our own insignia/uniforms/doodads and trinkits store.  Whether we called it the Bookstore or CAPMART, whether we ordred via the mail, on the phone, or on the web.  GOB managers or professional managers.

It just bled money.  Which was dues money paid in by you and me.  Money that could have been used for other programs and projects - it went down the drain in a torrent of red ink.

Quite true.  However, I'd say a large part of that was just simple and utter mis-management.  Free FedEx shipping for over a year is a great example  (I mean, shipping doesn't cost much money, right? Let's give that away...)

Quote from: Ned on February 25, 2010, 07:10:23 PM
And clearly VG charges more for some of the popular items like "CAP" tapes  for BDUs, etc.

But the simple fact is that they pretty much have to, in order to offer our less popular insignia at reasonable prices.  For example, VG can probably sell thousands of embroidered CAP tapes a year, but I would be surprised if they sold more that a couple of dozen Master CDI badges a year.  If our veteran CDI had to pay the full  cost of dies, enamel machines, etc., their badges would cost hundreds of dollars each.

Tom and others can charge less simply because they are not obligated to carry the full line of CAP insignia.  They are in essense, siphoning off the low hanging fruit which makes it that much harder for VG to carry our full product line.

So in a very real sense, popular items like CAP tapes subsidize the "micro-market" stuff like Master CDI badges which would otherwise become prohibitively expensive.

Vanguard service can be problematic at times, but I have been around long enough to remember similar and perhaps more vocal complaints about the Bookstore and CAPMART.

Maybe we could have a good discussion about why CAP needs so many unique insignia and uniforms, instead of using "off the rack" stuff.

Heck, does anybody have a count of how many unique CAP insignia, ribbons, badges, etc there are?  My WAG is over two hundred - each of which have to be designed, manufactured, stored, cataloged, marketed, sold, and delivered.

VG dies a pretty good job, all things considered.

Here's the thing.  Your personal evaluation is that Vanguard does a pretty good job, and we've already seen that Vanguard is returning over $200k to the organization through the profit sharing/kickback plan.  And that was with The Hock operating.   So why does The Hock need to be shut down?   Vanguard was obviously making enough profit that they not only covered their costs and expected profit, but were able to also pay $200k+ in royalties to CAP. 

Are we so greedy that we just need to make double that or more, from a source that traditionally generated no money or lost money, and at the cost of member goodwill?

I'd certainly like to see some customer service surveys of CAP members who have used Vanguard.  I would hope that we included some quality control measures in our contract with them. 

I just order two days ago.  I hope I stil get my stuff.  Where's that petition- I'll sign.

Quote from: Pylon on February 25, 2010, 10:26:53 PM

Quite true.  However, I'd say a large part of that was just simple and utter mis-management.  Free FedEx shipping for over a year is a great example  (I mean, shipping doesn't cost much money, right? Let's give that away...)

You could be right, but they did go through multiple managers and at least one reorganization in attempts to find the right "management mix."

Maybe they just never found the right manager, but another possibility is that it is simply not economically sustainable to offer inhouse services given the product base and available customers.

QuoteHere's the thing.  Your personal evaluation is that Vanguard does a pretty good job, and we've already seen that Vanguard is returning over $200k to the organization through the profit sharing/kickback plan.  And that was with The Hock operating.   So why does The Hock need to be shut down?   Vanguard was obviously making enough profit that they not only covered their costs and expected profit, but were able to also pay $200k+ in royalties to CAP. 

Are we so greedy that we just need to make double that or more, from a source that traditionally generated no money or lost money, and at the cost of member goodwill?

Fair question.  A couple of caveats - I haven't seen the VG contract, nor have I seen their books.  You question contains an assumption that VG makes a profit from the CAP line and a separate assumption that a profit is a pre-requisite for the royalty part of the agreement.
IOW, the contract may require VG to pay us a percentage of sales even if they are losing money.

But having said that, the answer is one of those slippery slope things.  Although the following example isn't really fair to Tom who has always had the members' interest at heart, this isn't much different than considering one person shoplifting small amounts from a store.  In the big scheme of things, the store will probably still make a profit despite the one shoplifter and no one is really hurt.  But imagine more and more shoplifters (or another half-dozen Hocks) and you can see the problem.   

I know the bookstore/CAPMart was a drain on corporate money, but guess who made all of that insignia that they used to sell?  Yep, Vanguard; if not them, then it was IRA Green, but most of what I remember was Vanguard.  They did nothing more than stop shipping items to Maxwell, took six months to set up an inferior eCommerce site, and kicked the prices up on virtually everything.  Out of stock items?  Sorry.  Need something in a hurry?  Sorry.  Got a problem with an item that is different that what they depict/advertise on their website, contact customer service about it, and you're essentially called a liar.

Who's benefiting from the kickbacks from Vanguard?  Hawk Mountain and Oshkosh/NBB are the biggest ones I know of.  I understand that they're also using this money to build facilities at Camp Atterbury for NESA (How is CAP building/owning property on a federally owned/state operated military installation?  What happens to those buildings if something happens and CAP is no longer welcome there?).  Are there any other places benefiting from these kickbacks?  How about kicking some of that money to the wings to help defray the cost of summer encampments or whatever program the wing decides?  We're all being forced to contribute to CAP's coffers in another way, why can't we ALL benefit from this monopoly?

What really irks me the most about this is that Tom's one of us.  He's been providing quality services and mostly quality products for as long as I can remember.  He's helped me out more than once when I needed something in a hurry.  Why is CAP going out of their way to put a member out of business?  What's next?  Units can't maintain an inventory of insignia to sell to members because Vanguard is the only one who can sell products to our membership?

For NESA, we gave Camp Atterbury $20,000 for the renovation of our facility there.  The NG put in $250,000.  I think we have a 99 year lease for the facility.  If that's the case, we are getting a pretty good deal.  Since we own Hawk Mt. and the facility at Oshkosh, it isn't an issue there.
The NEC voted to use the Vangard funds for regional training facilities.  The NEC can vote to reallocate the funds anytime they wish.  It's just a matter of desire.

The Hock has done a great job over the years however, CAP has signed an "exclusive deal" with Vangard.  CAP must hold up its side of the contract. 

Quote from: Pylon on February 25, 2010, 10:26:53 PMHere's the thing.  Your personal evaluation is that Vanguard does a pretty good job, and we've already seen that Vanguard is returning over $200k to the organization through the profit sharing/kickback plan.  And that was with The Hock operating.   So why does The Hock need to be shut down?   Vanguard was obviously making enough profit that they not only covered their costs and expected profit, but were able to also pay $200k+ in royalties to CAP. 

Are we so greedy that we just need to make double that or more, from a source that traditionally generated no money or lost money, and at the cost of member goodwill?

I'm not a lawyer...but as I understand that's the law.

Hock can't operate as a retailer and sub-contract for Corporate controlled items because Vanguard has the exclusive rights to it.

Not saying that was the smartest thing to do...but right now CAP CAN'T give Hock a license even if it wanted to...because they gave that to Vanguard exclusively.

It does not matter how much Vanguard and CAP are making.....Vanguard tells CAP "you gave us exclusive rights....shut down these other guys" and we have to do it.....or else Vanguard can sue CAP for breach of contract.

Quote from: FW on February 26, 2010, 12:07:00 AM
For NESA, we gave Camp Atterbury $20,000 for the renovation of our facility there.  The NG put in $250,000.  I think we have a 99 year lease for the facility.  If that's the case, we are getting a pretty good deal.

Yeah, that does make sense, and is a good deal for us.  I was given the impression (might have been a post here somewhere) that CAP was building a facility there.  Oshkosh and Hawk are a little different because neither is located on a military installation.  Neither of them are one terrorist incident away from being locked down to nonessential personnel/civilians for the intermediate future (the way most military bases are to this day, it was a lot easier to get to wing HQ on 9/10/01 than it was two weeks ago when I was there).

What's really irritating about this is that Tom's been in business for what, 30 years?  I know he was around when I first joined in 1983.  He's been operating alongside Vanguard for the last 6-8 years.  Now, it's a problem?  Quality service must really be hurting Vanguard's bottom line.

I know it will all flesh out in the courts in the end, and the only real winners will be the bloodsuattorneys, not the wallets of the members who make this organization run every day of the year.  But what's an equitable solution here?  Vanguard could license Tom as a dealer, he has to buy his products through them (CAP still gets their kickback), and it might cost us a little more so Tom can make a profit.  I'd gladly pay a little more to use Tom if it means I know I'll get what I ordered sometime within the same month I order it.  His suppliers of plastic coated embroidered insignia and off-color ribbons might have to suffer, but we-the members-get the same quality items from a reputable source who can give the personal touch and provide higher quality service.

Slim,

Vanguard may not be able to transfere the license....nor would they want to.

As far as service goes....I have to say I....in the last year or so...I have had the same luck with with both of them.

Yes it sucks that Tom is one of us and he has provided good service over a long period of time....but bottom line is that it is buisness.....Vanguard has a contract and it says they are the only ones who can sell CAP stuff.

I don't know if a petition will help any...because again botton line CAP has a contraact with Vanguard...their hands are tied or they could be sued.

If CAP does nothing and gets sued then there goes our membership dues to pay back Vanguard for lost proffits and court costs.  There goes all that kick back money that pays for NESA, NBB and HMRS.

I don't like it....but the damage was done 4-5 years ago....I just hope that they allow Tom to operate enough to cover his loses and get rid of his inventory. 

Shutting down the Hock sounds like...........Obamacare to me.

I've had nothing but good luck with the Hock.  Vanguard on the other hand  charges absurd prices for shipping the small stuff, acted like I was bothering them on the phone, etc. 

Maybe it's time for a TeaParty for Vanguard.

The problem here is that The Hock was run over when it came time to license the stuff. Tom's been doing this for years, but CAP still gave the exclusive contract to Vanguard.

That's CAP's mistake.

Vanguard's just enforcing their rights. Tom must have known this day would come at some point; he was violating the law, and the fact that we like how he runs his business doesn't change that.

When the contract comes up, this could be easily fixed.

And, by the way, online petitions have no effect on anything. Don't waste your time.

Just FyI , I went to the vanguard website and they have customer survey on service.  It took me thirty seconds to fill it out.  I recommend evey person share their experince with them ,good or bad

Another possible consideration is what's called "brand dilution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_dilution)." Related to this are Genericized trademarks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark)

Examples of trademarked items that have, through neglect, become genericized:

   
• aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG
• escalator, originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company
• thermos, originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH
• yo-yo, originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company
• zipper, originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich

IP owners must take active measures to protect their property, or their claims can become invalid. I think this is part of what CAP is doing.

Quote from: Slim on February 25, 2010, 11:48:58 PM
What's next?  Units can't maintain an inventory of insignia to sell to members because Vanguard is the only one who can sell products to our membership?

That is a slippery subject all in itslef.  You should ask FW about it.

Guess there are going to be a lot of personal items listed on eBay soon. :)

In all reality, from most of the posts here, it seems the Hock has gotten better at service/quality over the last 5 years or so.

But either way, I saw this one coming as a 16 year old *or when ever the Vanguard deal happened*, because that's what is expected in giving rights away to a single company.

Quote from: Spike on February 26, 2010, 03:54:13 AM

Quote from: Slim on February 25, 2010, 11:48:58 PM
What's next?  Units can't maintain an inventory of insignia to sell to members because Vanguard is the only one who can sell products to our membership?

That is a slippery subject all in itslef.  You should ask FW about it.

Unless the unit makes the insignia it doesn't matter. What happens is someone at the unit stocks up from Vanguard, saves on the combined shipping, and the unit then sells at cost/slight profit for unit expenses. Either way Vanguard/NHQ get their cut.


As to the lawsuit, does anyone know the nature of it? is NHQ suing for something, or is it just to have a court order the end of CAP item sales?

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on February 26, 2010, 03:59:23 AM

Quote from: Spike on February 26, 2010, 03:54:13 AM

Quote from: Slim on February 25, 2010, 11:48:58 PM
What's next?  Units can't maintain an inventory of insignia to sell to members because Vanguard is the only one who can sell products to our membership?

That is a slippery subject all in itslef.  You should ask FW about it.

Unless the unit makes the insignia it doesn't matter. What happens is someone at the unit stocks up from Vanguard, saves on the combined shipping, and the unit then sells at cost/slight profit for unit expenses. Either way Vanguard/NHQ get their cut.

I have yet to see a unit that is able to maintain an insignia stock for sale that doesn't violate the petty cash prohibition.  That's not to say
it isn't done all over the universe, but that doesn't make it right, either.

Are we equating insignia as cash assets or supplies?

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on February 26, 2010, 04:16:05 AM
Are we equating insignia as cash assets or supplies?

I think he's saying that it's impossible to sell it without having change on hand which is my main beef with WB. My unit charges a cadet a set amount of money to get all of their insignia and we use that to buy rank which is just recycled to other cadets along with the personal items such as tapes etc.

Quote from: Spike on February 26, 2010, 03:54:13 AM

Quote from: Slim on February 25, 2010, 11:48:58 PM
What's next?  Units can't maintain an inventory of insignia to sell to members because Vanguard is the only one who can sell products to our membership?

That is a slippery subject all in itslef.  You should ask FW about it.

Nope...nothing wrong with it...so long as they buy it from Vanguard first!

Quote from: Eclipse on February 26, 2010, 04:03:54 AM

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on February 26, 2010, 03:59:23 AM

Quote from: Spike on February 26, 2010, 03:54:13 AM

Quote from: Slim on February 25, 2010, 11:48:58 PM
What's next?  Units can't maintain an inventory of insignia to sell to members because Vanguard is the only one who can sell products to our membership?

That is a slippery subject all in itslef.  You should ask FW about it.

Ours doesn't.  We make the cadets pay in cash, round up all the costs to the nearest whole dollar, write receipts each time and deposit them in the WBP account each week.

Unless the unit makes the insignia it doesn't matter. What happens is someone at the unit stocks up from Vanguard, saves on the combined shipping, and the unit then sells at cost/slight profit for unit expenses. Either way Vanguard/NHQ get their cut.

I have yet to see a unit that is able to maintain an insignia stock for sale that doesn't violate the petty cash prohibition.  That's not to say
it isn't done all over the universe, but that doesn't make it right, either.

Oh this is terrible. The Hock Shop is awesome and totally saved me some times while preparing for honor guard competitions.

Quote from: FW on February 25, 2010, 08:32:07 PM
Patrick and Ned are absolutely correct.  CAP has an "exclusive" contract with Vangard and, it will probably remain in force for some time.  We've received  about $230,000 in the last 4 years from them.  The money has gone directly to regional/national training site improvements. 

CAP's leadership should be doing all it can to ensure required uniform items are available to the membership at the lowest cost possible, not using licensing royalties from Vanguard to fleece its members, regardless of how "worthy" the cause the funds are used for. And really, just how many members will benefit from investments in facilities at Oshkosh or Hawk Mountain? [darn] few.

You guys don't get it...the exclusive contranct? It means that CAP gets a cut from every sale of CAP insignia....which is another reason why the stuff costs so much...and frankly the quality stinks and takes forever unless you call someone you know.

Then they come up with absolutely stupid things like swords. Yes, a little competition is a good thing.

CAP = Come and Pay...

I am not an ATM machine for CAP.  This is just another reason (of many) I am letting my membership lapse (and my daughter) at the end of march...

I worked with volunteers for 15 years.. We treated them like GOLD... they in turn wanted to help and give... But what CAP is doing is antithetical to the proper treatment of volunteers.

What they should be doing if they are worried about brand dilution, etc.  Is having licensing requirements much like professional sports.  you pay a fee or %%, but it is not limited to a sole source.

As a corporation CAP is run very poorly.  What is happening with the uniforms, purchasing, etc are just the tip of the iceberg.

Over the course of my (now) 17 years in CAP, I've done business with the Bookstore, CAPMart, Vanguard, and Tom.  With the Bookstore and CAPMart, things were pretty much okay -- maybe because I live close enough to Maxwell AFB to get my deliveries quickly, or I could even take an afternoon and drive there.

With Vanguard, it's been something of a nightmare.  Somewhere on here is a series of posts about my experience with them double-charging me for a rather large order ... and it taking just short of an Act of Congress to get the second charge nullified.  They eventually did it ... but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

But Tom ... I have had 100% positive experiences ordering from The Hock Shop.  The stuff I get is good quality (I have never gotten any of the off-quality stuff others get; I must be a lucky fellow) ... the prices are good ... and the service is gold standard.  I know a lot of others have had quick fixes on order problems with Tom, but I can state that as far as my memory goes, I haven't even had one order problem.  What I order, I get ... and if it's backordered, I get it as soon as Tom does.

Yes, I know that the law says CAP and Vanguard have an exclusive agreement.  And that, by offering anything with "CAP," "Civil Air Patrol," or the three-bladed propeller insignia, Tom's violating that agreement.

But just because something is legal does not make it right.

Jack

Is anyone else worried about the possible abuse and fraud that can occur when someone has an "exclusive" arrangement?  I know the money given back to CAP is helpful, but what kind of transparency is there?  Was the exclusive arrangement put out for bid?  Is the arrangement audited regularly?  Is there someone from the CAP side whose job it is to ensure quality control, adequate stock of needed items, customer service complaints are tracked, as well as assuring members are getting a good price?  If it is someones job, I would submit that there needs to be better job performance!!  If no one has that job, than CAP is failing its membership.

I have an issue with NHQ getting a return on items that members purchase for required uniform items.  My concern is that Vanguard will charge what they need to on required items so that they may money on their end and NHQ gets their required cut.  We are paying ourselves.  I have no problem with this arrangement on optional items like coffee mugs, mousepads, etc. but we should be able to get required items, uniforms, tapes, insignia at the lowest possible price that Vanguard can offer it to cover their costs and reasonable profit.  CAP should not be getting money from items that they are requiring for the members.  If they need money like that, just raise the membership dues and don't try to hide it under a "donation".

That's my opinion, I could be wrong.

Since no one else said it I will.  Everything Vanguard sells (everything) is produced in the United States by American Citizens.  Before they become exclusive supplier of everything CAP, Vanguard produced over 50% of everthing the Bookstore and CAPMART sold. 

Can anyone tell me where Tom gets his "low-cost" items? 

This was bound to happen.  Tom should consider himself luck to have been given such a long run while other retailers were threatened and sent S&D letters. 

Do I feel bad for Tom......not one bit.  He made a profit off of us for a VERY LONG time. 

Do I hate that Vanguard is sole supplier......you bet I do, but that is something we can not change here.  If you want it changed you need to speak to the BOG and National Commander. 

I say stop the whining and start writing letters to NHQ and Amy Courter. 

Without seeing the lawsuit or knowing what type of licensing agreements CAP has with Vanguard or The Hock regarding CAP items that may be covered under copyright or trademark or trade dress, it is not unusual for an organization to enter into licensing agreements or even exclusive licensing agreements with a vendor.  An intellectual property rights holder has the legal right to license or not license their IP and protect the use and sale of their IP.

Whether CAP should have an exclusive licensing agreement with one vendor is an economic and public relations issue but probably not a legal issue, IMHO.

My experiences with Vanguard have all been very positive.  I've had good customer service.  Their shipping costs and prices are somewhat higher than The Hock's but they also have a better selection of goods.  Their delivery is also slower than The Hock's by a bit in my experience.  But I would have to say I have no real complaints with Vanguard.

I also have had excellent experiences with the The Hock.  And as noted, their shipping is usually cheaper and a bit faster.  But they don't have quite the same selection of items overall (pre-lawsuit).

I think competition is good. But Vanguard has also paid for the beautiful "wraps" on our two new Dodge Caravans that the SD Wing received recently.  And I think they do some other things for CAP.  Some say kickback, I'd say how business operates.   And I agree, suing our own members is awkward but being a member doesn't give us the right to violate licensing agreements.  (Again, I don't know if The Hock has or hasn't.  Hence, the lawsuit by Vanguard.)

This is just my opinion and not my squadron's, wing's, region's, or national's.  My guess is that there will be a settlement of some sort that details what The Hock can and can't sell that has CAP IP on it.

Can they just vote the "exclusive" to go to the Hock when the Flemguard contract runs out?

Quote from: alamrcn on February 26, 2010, 08:43:26 PM
Can they just vote the "exclusive" to go to the Hock when the Flemguard contract runs out?

Sure.....heck they can do anything they want to with the license they want.  But I have no idea how long Vanguard got the exclusive licence.

WOW!!! I like the HOCK. GO TOM, IM WITH YOU......... :o

Quote from: alamrcn on February 26, 2010, 08:43:26 PM
Can they just vote the "exclusive" to go to the Hock when the Flemguard contract runs out?

Tom would need to have a significantly bigger operation to ever get an exclusive contract, and that's not even
accounting for his Pac-Rim suppliers and the inferior quality and incorrect colors on many of the insignia he is selling.

Since no one else said it I will.  Everything Vanguard sells (everything) is produced in the United States by American Citizens.  Before they become exclusive supplier of everything CAP, Vanguard produced over 50% of everthing the Bookstore and CAPMART sold. 


WRONG....ROTHCO UTILITY UNIFORM, My aero ed badge had a nice gold sticker on the back that said china on it.

Quote from: Strick on February 26, 2010, 09:57:07 PM
WRONG....ROTHCO UTILITY UNIFORM, My aero ed badge had a nice gold sticker on the back that said china on it.

I believe the proper statement would be everything Vanguard produces - they are just a reseller of Rothco and similar products.
Not even Harley's are "all American" any more...

I can go down the street to any one of the many taylor shops here and have almost all CAP embroidered or stamped uniform items made.  It cost a few percent more, but well worth the convenience.

Is CAP going to serve them with C&D letters and lawyer threats too?

WTF is wrong with the executive staff at Maxwell? 

This is going to make me order as much as I can from someone other than Vanguard.

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on February 26, 2010, 03:59:23 AM

As to the lawsuit, does anyone know the nature of it? is NHQ suing for something, or is it just to have a court order the end of CAP item sales?

I'm thinking this might be one of those Cease and Desist letters, similar to web site hosts posting pics or news about celebreties and other companies.

But it does irk me a bit that our budget took major backslides this year and I can't even get basic attention for "mandatory" repeater installations, but CAP legal services seem to have an unlimited purse to threaten ma and pa shops.

Quote from: desertengineer1 on February 26, 2010, 10:59:57 PM
But it does irk me a bit that our budget took major backslides this year and I can't even get basic attention for "mandatory" repeater installations, but CAP legal services seem to have an unlimited purse to threaten ma and pa shops.

The problem is right or wrong....they gave Vanguard an exclusive license.  CAP must protect that or Vanguard can sue CAP for breach of contract and Vanguard has a whole lot more money (not to mention the law) on its side.

It is cheaper to send a C&D letter and sue mom and pop then it is to sue (or defend against a suit) from Vanguard.

Not saying it is a pretty scene....not saying it was a screwed up thing to do.....but right now today....CAP's hands are tied.

The only thing I can say is "The Hock Shop" offers much better customer service than "Vanguard" >:(

The Hock normally will ship out what you've ordered the same day you ordered it.  :clap:  With my limited experience with Vanguard it will take them 4 days to process and maybe they will ship on the 5th day. >:(

Perhaps I'm spoiled, but other mail order retailers also appear to be able to ship same day or next day whether it is apparel or radio equipment.  Got to wonder what the problem is at Vanguard :o

IF CAP is going to have any exclusive contract with anyone, make sure the customer service at least meets industry response standards.

BTW I think someone in Membership Services is responsible for monitoring comments & performing analysis on Vanguard's customer service.  I'm sure she would like to hear comments both positive & negative about Vanguards ops.

Now personally, whatever I can buy from Tom at "The Hock Shop" I'm going to buy. 
RM       

Ned


Let me correct your post.  During the 1970's the Bookstore DID make a profit. I was at an NEC meeting where the Bookstore made the announ=cement of the profit. The problem with the Bookstore and CAPMART was poor management, and a larger than needs staff. The same could be said for the CAP Supply Depot.

As to the money returened to CAP, where did most go?  To Hawk Mountain for towers and other facilities. So the benefit goes to a handful of cadets that attend, and not to CAP training.that helps Wings or Squadrons.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 26, 2010, 09:55:48 PM
Tom would need to have a significantly bigger operation to ever get an exclusive contract, and that's not even
accounting for his Pac-Rim suppliers and the inferior quality and incorrect colors on many of the insignia he is selling.

While I too have occasionally received insignia from Tom's shop that was not the quality embroidery I was expecting, you really can't claim that anything he sold had "incorrect colors".  Unlike the Armed Forces, CAP has never bothered to spec out cloth colors and other technical specifications for any of our insignia, nor do they use a certification process whereby the quality and accuracy of goods are checked and certified to be what CAP expected/wanted before they can be sold to the membership.  Since CAP doesn't say which shade of blue or grey (specifically, "medium grey" or "ultramarine blue" come in dozens of varieties, all "correct" unless further specified) is to be used, there is no incorrect.  Whatever happens to be the fabric on sale when the last manufacture made a round of that insignia is what's "correct".

Quote from: BillB on February 27, 2010, 12:35:01 AM
Ned


Let me correct your post.  During the 1970's the Bookstore DID make a profit. I was at an NEC meeting where the Bookstore made the announ=cement of the profit. The problem with the Bookstore and CAPMART was poor management, and a larger than needs staff. The same could be said for the CAP Supply Depot.

I don't mean to imply that they "never, ever" made a profit.  They may well have done so 30 years ago as you say.  And management is always part of the situation, but they did try different managers and even re-organized the whole shebang on one or more occasions.  You may be right that they were just extremely unlucky and had several poor managers in a row.

But it is more likely that despite "average mangement" it cannot be reasonably cost-effective for us to maintain a stand alone shop given the inventory and distribution requirements in an organization of 60,000 or so members.

And yes, I spent several happy hours on multiple occasions wandering around the old Bookstore and CAPMART.  I saw a lot of inventory just sitting on shelves, some of which was clearly obsolete even at the time.  I saw a fair number of full time CAP employees just managing the warehouse, processing and shipping orders, etc.  It looked like a big operation to me at the time.

In hindsite, it also looked like a pretty expensive operation with all the inventory that they had to keep on hand.  Maybe too expensive.

The bottom line is that it lost a lot of money, our volunteer leaders looked at alternatives, sent a competitive contract out to bid, and carefully selected VG as our exclusive vendor.  And yes, there are customer service standards in the contract, and yes there is a designated NHQ employee who works as the VG liaison. 

Ned Lee
Former Bookstore/CAPMART/Supply Depot customer

All the hoopla and scare tactics by the National Legal Officer will only end up costing the CAP member more money.  The name Civil Ail Patrol to my knowledge is not copyrighted nor is is it trademarked.  Since it was established by an act of congress the name belongs to the people of the United States not Vanguard under license and not some members of the corporation that decide they want to make some money with kick backs at the expense of the CAP member.  You'll note that I use CAP here, let someone send me a cease and desist if I send it out to thousands of people in a spam email.  As for a three bladed propeller I don't see any signature mark on that either!

The Hock Shop coexisted with the bookstore for many years and by virtue of the fact that it has been operating for over 40 years doesn't bode well in a court of law.  So let the arrogant leadership bleat...stay the course Tom you are in the right!

Quote from: CS on February 27, 2010, 01:45:41 AM
The Hock Shop coexisted with the bookstore for many years and by virtue of the fact that it has been operating for over 40 years doesn't bode well in a court of law.  So let the arrogant leadership bleat...stay the course Tom you are in the right!

In fact the Hock Shop cooexisted with Vanguard for several years before this. You cant tell me that they have just now discovered that they have competition.

Quote from: CS on February 27, 2010, 01:45:41 AM
All the hoopla and scare tactics by the National Legal Officer will only end up costing the CAP member more money.  The name Civil Ail Patrol to my knowledge is not copyrighted nor is is it trademarked.  Since it was established by an act of congress the name belongs to the people of the United States not Vanguard under license and not some members of the corporation that decide they want to make some money with kick backs at the expense of the CAP member.  You'll note that I use CAP here, let someone send me a cease and desist if I send it out to thousands of people in a spam email.  As for a three bladed propeller I don't see any signature mark on that either!

No matter how it was created, CAP is now a 501c(3) corporation with full rights to its name and insignia.  Try selling American Red Cross
T-Shirts and other items for personal profit and see how long it takes to get a C&D.

Your use of the terms as part of the normal course of business is different than making personal profit.  Try lighting up a visible web store
where the profits go to you personally and you'll get a letter as well.

Quote from: CS on February 27, 2010, 01:45:41 AM
The name Civil Ail Patrol to my knowledge is not copyrighted nor is is it trademarked.

You'd be wrong.  The public law that established CAP gives exclusive rights to the name to the CAP corporation.

My gentle suggestion would be to avoid further barracks-lawyering on the situation, especially since it is Tom facing litigation, and not you or me.  If he needs a lawyer, I'm sure he will get one.  IOW, it's always easy to give "legal advice" to someone else when your own wallet is not on the line.

You are certainly fee to disagree with our volunteer leaders on how best to get needed insignia into the hands of the membership at a reasonable price.

But that's a policy question, not a legal question.


Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Quote from: CS on February 27, 2010, 01:45:41 AM
All the hoopla and scare tactics by the National Legal Officer will only end up costing the CAP member more money.  The name Civil Ail Patrol to my knowledge is not copyrighted nor is is it trademarked.  Since it was established by an act of congress the name belongs to the people of the United States not Vanguard under license and not some members of the corporation that decide they want to make some money with kick backs at the expense of the CAP member.  You'll note that I use CAP here, let someone send me a cease and desist if I send it out to thousands of people in a spam email.  As for a three bladed propeller I don't see any signature mark on that either!

The Hock Shop coexisted with the bookstore for many years and by virtue of the fact that it has been operating for over 40 years doesn't bode well in a court of law.  So let the arrogant leadership bleat...stay the course Tom you are in the right!

Another J.D. from the University of Google?  I thought we already experienced our fair share of Wikipedia Counsel in the "Don't Nuke Your Posts" thread.

If I recall correctly, at the end of CAPMART it was losing something like 150-200K a year, which was coming out of members pockets.  I wonder how that compares to the amount of profit Vanguard makes (which comes from member's pockets) after subtracting whatever money they're kicking back to CAP.  I suspect we would find that the overall cost to CAP members is the same, if not higher, than it was in the old days. 

But, without adequate reporting of such financial relationships by NHQ, there is no way to say.  For example, as far as  I can tell such income is not broken out separately in our annual financial reports.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 27, 2010, 03:31:49 AM
If I recall correctly, at the end of CAPMART it was losing something like 150-200K a year, which was coming out of members pockets.  I wonder how that compares to the amount of profit Vanguard makes (which comes from member's pockets) after subtracting whatever money they're kicking back to CAP.  I suspect we would find that the overall cost to CAP members is the same, if not higher, than it was in the old days. 

But, without adequate reporting of such financial relationships by NHQ, there is no way to say.  For example, as far as  I can tell such income is not broken out separately in our annual financial reports.

It may have to reported as Unrelated Business Income on the IRS-990.  When they file their latest taxes, we can take a look and see.  Unfortunately, it may also be lumped in with other income.  Hard to say now, but we can get a copy of the 990's with a quick call to NHQ (as a 501(c)(3), they're required by law to provide a copy of their tax returns on request).  The information could potentially be discernible.

In 1942, the Office of Civilian Defense, copyrighted all of their emblems including CAP's prop and triangle. The copywight reverted to CAP when the Coporation was established. It's questionable that Civil Air Patrol can copyright the letters CAP since it is in common use in the military (Combat Air Patrol), or is something worn on the head.

I doubt if whether CAP has properly protected it rights to "CAP" or other such stuff.  If this goes to court, that may be something that the Hock will demonstrate.  There's a great deal of law that says that copy rights and trade marks must be actively protected.  It would be interesting to see if the corporation had sufficiently exercised its rights over the years in order to demonstrate to the court that it had not given them up by default.  (I'm relying on my old communications law professor from 1975).  But if CAP, Inc hasn't been asserting its rights over its emblems, name, etc. the question may be moot.  With the history of multiple companies of producing CAP insignia, The Hock may be able to demonstrate that CAP, Inc has only recently exercised its rights and, therefore, has lost them in the process.  Just random thoughts.

Tom got away with what he did for YEARS, while others were forced to stop selling.  Does it matter if CAP bling or names are protected property?......NO.  The Corporation says "members, our ONLY supplier of uniform items from this point forward is Vanguard".  TOM did not abide by the rules, and as a member should be copied on his termination papers. 

He made money off of all of us for many years.  I seriously doubt he is in any financial hardship.  However, he may be sitting on CAP items that he can no longer sell and he will write those losses up on his taxes. 

Do I feel bad for the guy?  Not one bit. 

Is it wrong that Vanguard is CAP's sole supplier?  You bet it is!

Can I or anyone else change the rules?  No, but we can forward our displeasure of Vanguard being sole supplier.  We should have done that when it first came to pass.  Now IT IS TOO LATE.

PERIOD

Anyone know if the lawsuit against the Hock Shop was brought in state... or federal court?

A quick review, from 2007:

Quote from: SarDragonFirst of all, this is not, and never has been, a copyright issue. Copyrights cover such things a printed material, music, and software, among others. If anything, it is a trademark or service mark issue. As stated in a post above, and in at least one other thread, CAP's legal rights derive from Title 36 of the U.S. Code:

TITLE 36 > Subtitle II > Part B > CHAPTER 403 > Sec. 40306.
Sec. 40306. - Exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks, and words

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name ''Civil Air Patrol'' and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.
*****

CAP (the corporation) holds only two trademarks - CAPMART, and WHERE IMAGINATION TAKES FLIGHT. I have found no patents listed. Copyright information is too diverse and numerous for online cataloging.

Quote from: Spike on February 27, 2010, 05:21:50 PM
Tom got away with what he did for YEARS, while others were forced to stop selling.  Does it matter if CAP bling or names are protected property?......NO.  The Corporation says "members, our ONLY supplier of uniform items from this point forward is Vanguard".  TOM did not abide by the rules, and as a member should be copied on his termination papers. 

He made money off of all of us for many years.  I seriously doubt he is in any financial hardship.  However, he may be sitting on CAP items that he can no longer sell and he will write those losses up on his taxes. 

Do I feel bad for the guy?  Not one bit. 

Is it wrong that Vanguard is CAP's sole supplier?  You bet it is!

Can I or anyone else change the rules?  No, but we can forward our displeasure of Vanguard being sole supplier.  We should have done that when it first came to pass.  Now IT IS TOO LATE.

PERIOD

No one was required to patronize The Hock Shop...frankly, To provided a much needed service at a time when the "CAP Bookstore" (later CAPMART) was renowned for it's inability to fill orders correctly and deliver them in a timely manner.

Interestingly no one interfered with The Hock Shop's operations during the 15-20 years of the National leadership fumbling around to find an answer to insignia supply.

When CAP entered into the exclusive contract with Vanguard, common decency demanded that we negotiate an exception for Tom, in recognition of the many years he closed the gap which National could not...but, of course, that was not even considered, CAP has become so 'corporate'.

Terminate the man over a civilian business dispute? Sorry, but that strikes me as cold, callous, vindictive, and, incidentally, an inappropriate response to the situation.

Wait a minute...Tom has been termianted as a CAP officer?  It was my understanding that he has been in CAP since the 1950s.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 28, 2010, 07:37:16 PM
No one was required to patronize The Hock Shop...frankly, To provided a much needed service at a time when the "CAP Bookstore" (later CAPMART) was renowned for it's inability to fill orders correctly and deliver them in a timely manner.

Interestingly no one interfered with The Hock Shop's operations during the 15-20 years of the National leadership fumbling around to find an answer to insignia supply.

When CAP entered into the exclusive contract with Vanguard, common decency demanded that we negotiate an exception for Tom, in recognition of the many years he closed the gap which National could not...but, of course, that was not even considered, CAP has become so 'corporate'.

Terminate the man over a civilian business dispute? Sorry, but that strikes me as cold, callous, vindictive, and, incidentally, an inappropriate response to the situation.

The bookstore, CAPMART and supply depot all got my orders to me quick and correct.  When National went to an exclusive supplier why should exceptions be made for Tom?  Your argument is based on personal feelings, not fact or truth. 

Tom is a CAP Member, but he violated CAP's multiple S&D letters as a private citizen.  He is lucky that he was not cashiered from CAP years ago. 

I think exclusivity for Vanguard is not right.  However, where was everyone when it was being developed years ago?  Why are we all getting worked up over something that (in fact) we all knew was coming.  Tom gambled and the law (unfortunately) is not on his side. 

He made money for years, he took the chance of not following the S&D letters and has lost.

Should CAP Corporate sue him?  Yes.  Should CAP get money from him....NO!!!!!!!!!!!  The lawsuite is a way to enforce the Corporations stance.  I seriously doubt it will go very far.  If it ever got to court, there is no way for Tom to win.  He will not let it go that far (at least a person who lives on truth and fact, would not)

I am not being harsh, cold-hearted or vindictive or inappropriate in any way.  I am using fact and truth that we all know of.  For years we knew Tom would be the target of NHQ, this is just the "when" of the equation.

He can still sell his stuff as long as it does not violate the rules that were granted by our Federal Government to CAP Corporate.  If you have issues with that go talk to you Congressperson, Wing Commander or write a letter to General Courter.

2000 Bookstore Catalog. (http://www.fairfaxcap.org/DC053/regulations/BK2Kcat.pdf)  Now that's how it should be...

Quote from: Stonewall on February 28, 2010, 10:34:01 PM
2000 Bookstore Catalog. (http://www.fairfaxcap.org/DC053/regulations/BK2Kcat.pdf)  Now that's how it should be...

Bring back the smurf suit. :)

"C & D" letters -- it's Cease & Desist

Still disagree with you, Spike, but I said my piece.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 01, 2010, 03:34:59 AM
"C & D" letters -- it's Cease & Desist

Still disagree with you, Spike, but I said my piece.

Thank you.  I forget how to spell sometimes when I get so worked up over something that has nothing to do with me or impacts my life in any bit what so ever. 

"Seest and dasist".  Why won't the world just spell words by how they sound.

People who feed their families via revenue from intellectual property and creative works, and/or those who obey the law regarding copyrights and trademarks, tend to have a less "gray" area regarding infringement and piracy than those who believe title 17 is there simply to keep 16 from hitting 18.

It doesn't matter who created the indices and insignia, or who owns them. Someone does, and just because the alleged infringer may have a semi-benevolent relationship with CAP, doesn't change the infraction or the potential harm to both the customer and the brand.

There's also the issue of goose and gander, and the fact that there are other businesses that have also received C&D's and complied, and some of those did offer to license insignia and were refused. CAP was literally setting up the Hock as a competitive monopoly by allowing it to ignore C&D's and continue operations while other companies knocked it off.

Further, its not out of the realm of possibility that CAP, Inc. might actually lose a case were it ever go to court, or the NB might simply decide its not worth the hassle, expense, and bad feelings, which then potentially opens the field back up for anyone who wants to stamp a propeller on a patch and call it CAP.

What CAP is doing is certainly within the law.

This does not mean it is fair, just, equitable or right.

There is a lamentable trend today (not just in CAP) to brush away the past as though it were meaningless, to regard those who have served needs previously as presently expendable.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!

I love the Hock!  (As previously stated in another thread), I have had almost always good quality products from the Hock and great customer service.  I ordered from Vanguard a month ago and still haven't got that order in. tick tock tick tock.  Glad it wasn't something I needed quickly.

I feel I can weigh in, having a U.S. patent in my name and several copyrighted works.  I was faced with a situation where one of my fellow officers took my copyrighted work, put it on a copier, and began selling them to other officers.  I was extremely upset because he was literally taking money from me.  The quality was inferior and it still had my logo on it.  I issued him a C & D on it, he ignored me, so I filed a formal complaint.  That got him to stop.  However, I still saw (and see) fellow officers using photocopies of my stuff.

I can understand the theoretical argument.  I always thought that the CAP stuff was public domain and not subject to copyright (much like the words "Air Force" "Navy", etc) which is why Tom was selling it.  However, the question comes to my mind about how copyright-protected is CAP stuff and if the sole-vendor contract will stand up in a court of law.  And, as someone mentioned before, Tom filled the gap when things went south for CAPMART.  There should be a certain amount of leniency. 
Wise man once said "The law and justice are two entirely different things."

Good Luck Tom, my best wishes are with you.

Quote from: a2capt on February 25, 2010, 06:11:23 PM
Sorry, I don't buy the "ooops". CAP while a corporation, is basically a corporation dependent on appropriated funds and is closely integrated model wise after the Air Force.  The military branches are not beating down vendors for putting "ARMY" , "AIR FORCE", on stuff.

I'm reasonably certain that any insignia belonging to the US Government is public domain.  You don't need permission or to pay fees to use the Thunderbirds logo or to use the phrase "It's not a job, it's an adventure".  CAP is a private corporation; the intellectual property of that organization is protected.

I'm not saying that I like only one supplier (and I'm not gonna take sides on VG vs. Hock) but it's a legit claim.

The Civil Air Patrol, as a corporation, can own and protect its intellectual property.  And the trademarks don't have to be registered to be protectable under federal or most state trademark law.  Use in commerce provides common law rights.  If not federally registered, however, the marks can't use the R-in-a-circle but can use TM or SM for trademark or service mark.

Trademark owners have a duty to "police" their marks so they do not fall into the public domain.  They also have the right to license (or not license) their marks to others.  This is no different than the University of Kansas licensing "Kansas" for sweatshirts, jerseys, etc.  It is a term in common use but it also denotes quality, source, etc., the hallmarks of a trademark.

In fact, the CAP is the registered trademark owner on at least two marks, but probably on the ones we're all thinking:  From the US Patent and Trademark Office (here's the link, but I'm not sure it will work http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Aitb82q.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=civil+air+patrol&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24OW&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query):

   
   Serial Number    Reg. Number    Word Mark    Check Status    Live/Dead
1    78300723    2987217    CAPMART    TARR    LIVE
2    76069569    2544252    WHERE IMAGINATION TAKES FLIGHT    TARR    LIVE

Federal agencies such as the USAF can also own trademarks.  The USAF has registered quite a number.  Again, I'm not sure this link will work: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Aitb82q.4.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=united+states+air+force&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24OW&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

FYI: My Master of Laws (the degree after a Juris Doctorate) is in intellectual property from the University of Houston Law Center and I practice in this area of law.  I hope this helps clarify the discussion a bit.

Quote from: necigrad on March 01, 2010, 04:19:50 PM

Quote from: a2capt on February 25, 2010, 06:11:23 PM
Sorry, I don't buy the "ooops". CAP while a corporation, is basically a corporation dependent on appropriated funds and is closely integrated model wise after the Air Force.  The military branches are not beating down vendors for putting "ARMY" , "AIR FORCE", on stuff.

I'm reasonably certain that any insignia belonging to the US Government is public domain.  You don't need permission or to pay fees to use the Thunderbirds logo or to use the phrase "It's not a job, it's an adventure". 

No it is not.  You actually do need permission.  When JC Penny started selling "Army Branded" merchandise it had to go through the Government for approval to use the words "United States Army" and the logos/ unit patches.  I am not sure if they are still selling these items, but they were popular before the Holidays last year. 

Quote from: tdepp on March 01, 2010, 06:03:28 PMFYI: My Master of Laws (the degree after a Juris Doctorate) is in intellectual property from the University of Houston Law Center and I practice in this area of law.  I hope this helps clarify the discussion a bit.

Oh well there you go....you actually have training and creditials in this subject....that makes your opinion completely vull and void!  :)

Quote from: tdepp on March 01, 2010, 06:03:28 PM
Federal agencies such as the USAF can also own trademarks

FYI: My Master of Laws (the degree after a Juris Doctorate) is in intellectual property from the University of Houston Law Center and I practice in this area of law.  I hope this helps clarify the discussion a bit.

I stand corrected.  My BS in Internet Lawyering (I made the diploma in MS Word) is being destroyed as we speak! ;D

The DOD does protect it's logo's and trademarks.  I found this on the following website:  http://www.defense.gov/trademarks/index.html (http://www.defense.gov/trademarks/index.html)

Use of DoD Seals and Trademarks 

Department of Defense and Military Seals are protected by law from unauthorized use. These seals may NOT be used for non-official purposes.

However, the Military Services typically approve the use of their Service emblem or coat of arms on a case-by-case basis as a substitute. There is no such substitute for the Department of Defense Seal.

------------------

The website then gives all the contact info for each service.

I was on the receiving end of a trademark infringement once.  It gets real expensive, real fast.  What I learned was a valuable lesson - If you don't pay, you don't play.

All legality (or illegality) aside, what really is a bummer (besides losing the great customer service and rapport I was used to getting from Tom and his staff) is that this also jacks up the cost of membership for our cadets.

When cadets in our squadron joined (to make it easier, less confusing, and to expedite the process of getting new recruits into a complete uniform to finish their Curry), we collected a flat $50 fee for all of their uniform miscellany.  With that $50, we were able to buy: 2 sets of nametapes, blue nametag, tie or tie tab, tie tack (for males), flight cap device, CAP cutouts, BDU belt, BDU hat, enforcers, reverse flag patch, a 1-ribbon holder and Curry ribbon, and the squadron would toss in a squadron patch.   With that, their Free Cadet Uniform (FCU) funded through the AF, and with the set of BDUs our squadron issues to each cadet, that $50 got them a complete set of blues and BDUs.   We were able to get that from The Hock for under $50 a cadet. 

Want to know what the exact same items cost at Vanguard?  $73.80.  Add a $20 premium per new cadet, payable to Vanguard.  And for that extra $20, I get less.   I don't have someone strive to get our items shipped out the very same business day (like Tom always strove to do when I ordered in the AM).     And whether it's the squadron ordering it up front for the cadet, or the cadet or his or her parents ordering their new belts and insignia online, that $20 premium over the Hock prices still applies.  Per new cadet.  And we haven't even started adding grade chevrons and all the extra doodads... that's just about the bare basics (with very few, but typical optional items) for one set of BDUs and blues.  Most every new cadet is going to need to order most if not all of those items sooner or later.

NHQ would be well within their rights to jack up membership rates for new cadets by $20, and put that money directly into regional training centers, too.   Yes, legally they could do it.  But would most of us tolerate that?   Probably wouldn't be as well received, would it?

And I can't help but think that, as Ned aptly pointed out, if we didn't constantly create so many unique-to-CAP badges that require dies and set-up charges, but likely only a handful of people will ever order,that the cost of our items in general would come way down.  And that blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the National Board, who in the past 10 years has created a prolific volume of uniform insignia and changes (and changes back, and no wait, just kidding, changes back again).

Again, I understand the legality of what CAPNHQ is doing.  I understand they went through some sort of process and were within their rights to declare Vanguard sole distributor of CAP shenanigans.  But that still means the membership at the squadron level is paying for it.  Not just you and me who might be able to afford the premium cost for average items.  But that cadets from rural areas who scrape a few bucks a week together to save up so they can afford to go on the next squadron bivouac or attend encampment (particularly the 95% of cadets that aren't using the NOC or Hawk Mountain or wherever National decides to use the royalty monies) are the ones truly paying for this.   Those cadets have been my cadets, and for their sake and for the sake of every other young cadet who doesn't have unlimited resources but wants to become a dynamic, future aerospace leader anyways, I'm pretty pissed.

With the exception of the insignia, why would you buy any of that from Vanguard? 

Its all available elsewhere, cheaper.  An informed consumer is our best member.

Pylon...I hear your story....but if we are going to pull the "it costs too much"......take a look at the next encampment packing list and your $20 for new cadets argument goes out the door.

Quote from: mashcraft on March 02, 2010, 02:39:28 AM
The DOD does protect it's logo's and trademarks.  I found this on the following website:  http://www.defense.gov/trademarks/index.html (http://www.defense.gov/trademarks/index.html)

Use of DoD Seals and Trademarks 

Department of Defense and Military Seals are protected by law from unauthorized use. These seals may NOT be used for non-official purposes.

However, the Military Services typically approve the use of their Service emblem or coat of arms on a case-by-case basis as a substitute. There is no such substitute for the Department of Defense Seal.

------------------

The website then gives all the contact info for each service.

I was on the receiving end of a trademark infringement once.  It gets real expensive, real fast.  What I learned was a valuable lesson - If you don't pay, you don't play.

Thanks for finding this.  Very helpful to this IP lawyer.  Federal trademark law does make a sort of "fair use" exemption for the use of trademarks in news reporting, criticism, etc.  Trademarks indicate the source and quality of goods.  See the golden arches? We think McDonald's autmatically.  Trademarks are similar to religious symbols in their power to easily convey meaning.

Did I read right that Tom's membership was pulled?

Quote from: tdepp on March 01, 2010, 06:03:28 PM
The Civil Air Patrol, as a corporation, can own and protect its intellectual property.  And the trademarks don't have to be registered to be protectable under federal or most state trademark law.  Use in commerce provides common law rights.  If not federally registered, however, the marks can't use the R-in-a-circle but can use TM or SM for trademark or service mark.

Trademark owners have a duty to "police" their marks so they do not fall into the public domain.  They also have the right to license (or not license) their marks to others.  This is no different than the University of Kansas licensing "Kansas" for sweatshirts, jerseys, etc.  It is a term in common use but it also denotes quality, source, etc., the hallmarks of a trademark.

In fact, the CAP is the registered trademark owner on at least two marks, but probably on the ones we're all thinking:  From the US Patent and Trademark Office (here's the link, but I'm not sure it will work http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Aitb82q.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=civil+air+patrol&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24OW&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query):

   
   Serial Number    Reg. Number    Word Mark    Check Status    Live/Dead
1    78300723    2987217    CAPMART    TARR    LIVE
2    76069569    2544252    WHERE IMAGINATION TAKES FLIGHT    TARR    LIVE

Federal agencies such as the USAF can also own trademarks.  The USAF has registered quite a number.  Again, I'm not sure this link will work: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Aitb82q.4.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=united+states+air+force&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24OW&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

FYI: My Master of Laws (the degree after a Juris Doctorate) is in intellectual property from the University of Houston Law Center and I practice in this area of law.  I hope this helps clarify the discussion a bit.

But as you stated above, the owner of the mark must protect it or it will go into public domain.  If an owner of a trademark doesn't police it for several decades and allows someone to use the mark even after a licence has been granted, then the mark may have fallen into the public domain.

Quote from: Pumbaa on March 02, 2010, 09:01:03 PM
Did I read right that Tom's membership was pulled?

He still shows up under the OPS Quals - Report search. My guess is his membership is still active.



With a quick Google search, I found this:
The Civil Air Patrol v. Flanagan (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-almdce/case_no-2:2009cv00763/case_id-41507/)

QuoteThe Civil Air Patrol v. Flanagan

Plaintiff:   The Civil Air Patrol
Defendant:   Tom Flanagan

Case Number:   2:2009cv00763
Filed:   August 11, 2009

Court:   Alabama Middle District Court
Office:   Montgomery Office [ Court Info ]
County:   Montgomery
Presiding Judge:   Honorable Wallace Capel Jr.
Presiding Judge:   Honorable Myron H. Thompson
Referring Judge:   Honorable Wallace Capel Jr.

Nature of Suit:   Intellectual Property - Trademark
Cause:   15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jurisdiction:   Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:   Plaintiff

Quote
But as you stated above, the owner of the mark must protect it or it will go into public domain.  If an owner of a trademark doesn't police it for several decades and allows someone to use the mark even after a licence has been granted, then the mark may have fallen into the public domain.

Absolutely correct.  It's called "laches."  In other words, you waited too long to assert your rights and others have acted based on your non-enforcement. It's similar to a statute of limitations but it is not set on a precise date but the totality of the circumstances.   I'm not saying laches never works and is a typical defense in trademark infringement cases but I've seldom seen it asserted successfully.  I don't know what actions CAP has taken in the past to protect its marks, which will be an important factor in the case.

The one thing I'm learned in trademark cases is that they are very fact specific and one can't draw conclusions without knowing all the circumstances.

All the C & D letters over the year probably more than qualify for enforcement.

So does Tom have to go to Alabama?  Are Trademark cases Federal Cases?

Quote from: Spike on March 03, 2010, 04:12:09 AM
So does Tom have to go to Alabama?  Are Trademark cases Federal Cases?

Trademark infringement cases can typically be brought in either federal or state court.  There are legal and strategic reasons for choosing one over the other.  Federal trademark law (the Lanham Act) is typically the better option because of allowance for damages and attorneys fees to the prevailing party.  Since the federal lawsuit is venued in Alabama, yes, Tom would have to go to Alabama for court.  From a practical point of view, he'll probably be deposed, if goes that far, where he lives. 

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 03, 2010, 03:44:08 AM
All the C & D letters over the year probably more than qualify for enforcement.

If that is the case, I would agree.  It would be one of the chief ways of showing that CAP has gone after infringers through the years.

Quote from: tdepp on March 03, 2010, 05:38:28 AM

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 03, 2010, 03:44:08 AM
All the C & D letters over the year probably more than qualify for enforcement.

If that is the case, I would agree.  It would be one of the chief ways of showing that CAP has gone after infringers through the years.

I think that Tom could easily show that over the years CAP had allowed a constellation of companies to sell CAP insignia, badges, ribbons, etc.  AAMOF, CAP used to advertise them in the CAP Times and later CAP News.  If Tom had been selling these products for decades with the full knowledge of CAP, without CAP acting to enforce its rights, then Tom may have a compelling argument to say "I've sold these for decades with the implied consent of the corporation.  Then they started sending me letter last year saying that the status quo was never allowed and we would have sent you this years ago if we thought it would have been important now."

I think CAP, Inc may have missed its opportunity back in the 70s or 80s. Should be interesting to watch.

Perhaps it is part of the conspiracy to make everything cost more for the members.   >:D

They are doing an outstanding job of this and I wouldn't want to stand in their way.

As was said in the "Fake CAP insignia on eBay" thread...

Tom should just move to Canada so they can't touch him. It's not a far trip from Michigan, and the weather might even be better!

I'm not saying the Hock Shop is right in what they do, but National COULD choose to look the other way if there is no threat of retaliation by Staticguard. Maybe the organization does'nt make as much money, but the members would seem to be happier - ie. rentention.

Simply moving to Canada doesn't exempt him from his liabilities.

Exempt? No.
But it's much more difficult to prosecute someone internationally.

Quote from: Marshalus on March 03, 2010, 05:06:55 PM
Simply moving to Canada doesn't exempt him from his liabilities.

Yes - Don't we have reciprocal enforcement agreements on copyrights, etc.?

Quote from: Eclipse on March 03, 2010, 05:29:34 PM

Quote from: Marshalus on March 03, 2010, 05:06:55 PM
Simply moving to Canada doesn't exempt him from his liabilities.

Yes - Don't we have reciprocal enforcement agreements on copyrights, etc.?

Or how about the increase in shipping fees?

Here is what it's like from US to Canada:

Want something small here? $4.90
Canada? $~12

A "big"(er) box here: $10.40
Canada? $25

A "Large" box? here: ~14
Canada? ~$40

I imagine the reciprocal is the same.

I live in Minnesota... I can see Canada from my house!

j/k

Ok, I'll give on the idea. Now I'll have to think of Tom as on the lamb, runnin' from the man and dealing CAP paraphernalia out of the trunk of his car!

No fun for Tom though, poor guy... Thank you for your MANY years of service to our members!

Does he even have to move physically? Couldn't he just incorporate in the Cayman Islands or some such place?!? :)

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 03, 2010, 09:20:14 PM
Does he even have to move physically? Couldn't he just incorporate in the Cayman Islands or some such place?!? :)

You do not want to incorporate in any country that is either a "commonwealth country" (UK Control) or one that has any treaty ties with the United States that dictate the adherence to following international law regarding money and trade.   

Quote from: alamrcn on March 03, 2010, 04:01:51 PM
As was said in the "Fake CAP insignia on eBay" thread...

Tom should just move to Canada so they can't touch him. It's not a far trip from Michigan, and the weather might even be better!

I'm not saying the Hock Shop is right in what they do, but National COULD choose to look the other way if there is no threat of retaliation by Staticguard. Maybe the organization does'nt make as much money, but the members would seem to be happier - ie. rentention.

The Hock SHop is located in Massachusetts, Not Michigan. The nearest point in the Great Frozen North is Quebec, and I don't think Tom speaks French.

Everyone buy from the HOCK as much as possible, I know I will unless I need something with CAP on it.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 03, 2010, 05:29:34 PM

Quote from: Marshalus on March 03, 2010, 05:06:55 PM
Simply moving to Canada doesn't exempt him from his liabilities.

Yes - Don't we have reciprocal enforcement agreements on copyrights, etc.?

There is an international copyright treaty to which we are a party.  It is probably pretty hard work to deal with issues that way, though. 

...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

I am disgusted by these actions.  I gave up on Vangaurd back when they became our "exclusive" provider, their poor service, confusing layout, and excessive prices lost my business.  Since then I have been loyal to The Hock.  Anyone that has been a member fully understands that CAP already has enough of a financial burden as it is, and to create a a monopoly against the members is appalling. 

On a side note, Vanguard does not even carry all of our uniforms and accessories.  If they are our "exclusive" provider then where is half our uniforms and accessories? 

There is still lots of "gear" to be bought from the HOCK.  In fact, I will be making an order from there for some pistol belts.

Quote from: Swylie on March 04, 2010, 07:48:31 AM
I am disgusted by these actions.  I gave up on Vangaurd back when they became our "exclusive" provider, their poor service, confusing layout, and excessive prices lost my business.  Since then I have been loyal to The Hock.  Anyone that has been a member fully understands that CAP already has enough of a financial burden as it is, and to create a a monopoly against the members is appalling. 

On a side note, Vanguard does not even carry all of our uniforms and accessories.  If they are our "exclusive" provider then where is half our uniforms and accessories?

Vanguard is the exclusive provider of CAP specific uniform items. You can buy all the rest of what you wear anywhere you want.

I am against this action, but my biggest concern is...WHERE WILL THIS END?

Are we going to be prevented from ordering ANYTHING that says "Civil Air Patrol" on it from any other source from Vanguard? This includes things like t-shirts and other misc clothing items (for encampments and other activities), trophies and plaques, promotional items? If so, you won't be able to go to your local trophy shop and order anything if it says "CAP" on it.

Are we going to be prevented from selling anything CAP related on eBay?

Will units be prevented from selling any items as a fund raiser if the item they are selling has any of the intellectual property items discussed in this forum?

I can understand why CAP went with Vanguard. I can understand how we got to this point. I have very little hope that this is going to get resolved in the way we want it to. But my biggest fear is that this is just the beginning of total Vanguard domination.

Some of this C&D is irritating because they do it on things that we cannot get from Vanguard or cost substantially more from Vanguard, like when they have done this with suppliers of fabric strip nametapes (NOT available from Vanguard), challenge coins, and unit patches. 

For one thing, fabric strip nametapes/branch tapes are awesome and the quality that I got from them on the embroidery alone was FAR superior to that of Vanguard.  Not to mention the fact that the embroidery on the nametape and CAP tape MATCHED. 

When I was visiting the local Coast Guard Auxiliary flotilla, a guy showed me a guide that they have published by the Auxiliary.  It lists the authorized vendors (yes, plural) and what is authorized from each vendor.  That is what we need.

STOP costing us extra money.  You want to talk retention?  Let's talk why CAP is universally referred to as "Come and Pay" across the country.

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 12:34:29 PM
When I was visiting the local Coast Guard Auxiliary flotilla, a guy showed me a guide that they have published by the Auxiliary.  It lists the authorized vendors (yes, plural) and what is authorized from each vendor.  That is what we need.

What ends up happening is that you have to buy stuff from multiple vendors since no one carries everything you need.  It is sort of a pain. 

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 06:40:54 AM
...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

500 people have already joined the "Save the Hock Shop" cause on Facebook!

Quote from: RiverAux on March 04, 2010, 01:18:10 PM

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 12:34:29 PM
When I was visiting the local Coast Guard Auxiliary flotilla, a guy showed me a guide that they have published by the Auxiliary.  It lists the authorized vendors (yes, plural) and what is authorized from each vendor.  That is what we need.

What ends up happening is that you have to buy stuff from multiple vendors since no one carries everything you need.  It is sort of a pain.

And that is different from now, how?

Quote from: ltcjwl on March 04, 2010, 11:24:19 AM

Are we going to be prevented from selling anything CAP related on eBay?

Will units be prevented from selling any items as a fund raiser if the item they are selling has any of the intellectual property items discussed in this forum?

In my opinion, no.  Under the "first sale doctrine," it only applies to someone who first sells the item other than the rights owner or a licensee. After the initial sale, the item can be resold without fear of being accused of infringement.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

As to the squadron sales, if they are re-selling items purchased lawfully, same answer.  If they are making CAP items, a dicier situation, IMLO.  I don't know what permissions or licenses, if any, the organization has given its wings, groups, and squadrons to manufacture or sell their own items with CAP, et al on them. 

Think about it.  Otherwise, commerce would come to a screeching halt if anything with intellectual property on it couldn't be sold on the after market. 

Quote from: tdepp on March 04, 2010, 02:37:30 PM
Otherwise, commerce would come to a screeching halt if anything with intellectual property on it couldn't be sold on the after market.

No commerce would look like the music and movie industry. ie a royal charlie foxtrot.

Quote from: ltcjwl on March 04, 2010, 11:24:19 AM
I am against this action, but my biggest concern is...WHERE WILL THIS END?

Are we going to be prevented from ordering ANYTHING that says "Civil Air Patrol" on it from any other source from Vanguard? This includes things like t-shirts and other misc clothing items (for encampments and other activities), trophies and plaques, promotional items? If so, you won't be able to go to your local trophy shop and order anything if it says "CAP" on it.

Are we going to be prevented from selling anything CAP related on eBay?

Will units be prevented from selling any items as a fund raiser if the item they are selling has any of the intellectual property items discussed in this forum?

I can understand why CAP went with Vanguard. I can understand how we got to this point. I have very little hope that this is going to get resolved in the way we want it to. But my biggest fear is that this is just the beginning of total Vanguard domination.

Technically, Vanguard has exclusivity on any indices the corporation owns, including local squadron insignia, etc.  This has been asserted
regularly by VG when they are asked, especially about unit patches.

As mentioned, first-sale is basically the issue, as well as whether the the items are being made for non-profit member use, or commercial sale.  Members have some rights themselves for business-use of the indices, so internal sales back to other members becomes an internal policy issue, not a civil or criminal infringement situation.  Were VG to be so inclined, they could certainly complain to CAP about contract violations when they find a given squadron or activity has gone elsewhere for a product.  CAP, Inc.'s fortitude in disciplining the membership would then have to be balanced against the Corporation's needs and whether VG even provides a given product. 

Real-world enforceability depends on the agreement and the money involved.  VG is not going to spend more than an email on one unit's patches, but starting selling more than a few co-branded Android phones and see how fast those C&D's hit your mail box.

For all the people screaming "Vanguard Domination", consider that there is basically a single official source for USAF uniforms as well (AAFES/MCSS), and the only reason you can buy some military insignia and other uniform parts from other sources is because they are either used universally by other services, and most of the world, or they are under some sort of license.

These are market forces, not anti-member conspiracies.  Few vendors will want to take the time and expense of creating dies and setups for patches for what would literally be a few sales a year.  VG's exclusivity gives them the ability to take on these setup expenses and spread them across the whole line.  In many of our conversations here, we hold VG responsible for failings of CAP to rein in the constant uniform and insignia changes.

And then there's the $200k+ sent back to CAP.  Again, argue with the CAP leadership about price points and the agreement (since CAP apparently rarely properly exercises its purchasing power), but they did give us back $200K+.

How does CAP Inc. own my unit's patch? I don't remember signing over my rights to the image to any corporate officer after I designed it.

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:03:10 PM
How does CAP Inc. own my unit's patch? I don't remember signing over my rights to the image to any corporate officer after I designed it.

It has to be approved by Wing in order to wear it, and upon that approval becomes a corporate asset.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 04, 2010, 05:16:04 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:03:10 PM
How does CAP Inc. own my unit's patch? I don't remember signing over my rights to the image to any corporate officer after I designed it.

It has to be approved by Wing in order to wear it, and upon that approval becomes a corporate asset.

Approved for wear yes but I never signed over my rights. Does that mean that all the approved military badges are corporate assets too? The right hand flag as well?

Eclipse... It does?   :o

The mere fact that unit patches can be made by any vendor by choice makes me think that it is not "corporate" property.

I never signed my unit patch design over to CAP.  Approval of a design does not take away the rights of the creator.

That would be like saying "here is my crayon drawing of my house, my teacher said it was acceptable to turn in for a grade".....does the teacher or school district own my picture now??

Your example is not relevant to this discussion.  As a matter of course, when I do all of my patches, I actually do assign all rights to the corporation in perpetuity for non-commercial internal use to avoid this very discussion.  The last thing a unit wants is a disgruntled
member suing them because they want their patch back.

I maintain that once it goes on the uniform it belongs to CAP, Inc.

However it probably takes Ned to comment definitively.

Quote from: Spike on March 04, 2010, 05:44:40 PM
Eclipse... It does?   :o

The mere fact that unit patches can be made by any vendor by choice makes me think that it is not "corporate" property.

I never signed my unit patch design over to CAP.  Approval of a design does not take away the rights of the creator.

That would be like saying "here is my crayon drawing of my house, my teacher said it was acceptable to turn in for a grade".....does the teacher or school district own my picture now??

Do you think universities require a massive investment in the printing and publication of Masters and Doctoral Theseus because it's your property. They do revert to the college in exchange fore the degree.

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:42:21 PMApproved for wear yes but I never signed over my rights. Does that mean that all the approved military badges are corporate assets too? The right hand flag as well?

The Flag is the intellectual property of the U.S. Government and is controlled by Federal Law.

But yes....everything you are allowed to put on your uniform could be argued to be part of CAP's intellectual property.

Copyright does not transfer to CAP, Inc. just because they say that a unit can use it as a patch design.  What is given is usage rights to said unit (and to a small extent CAP, Inc.) to have the design turned into a patch and worn on the uniform. 

As a designer and photographer, if I do something for my unit or wing or NHQ, and I say "sure, you can use it" that does not give them the rights to it, nor does it give them the right to take it as their own and use it elsewhere.  Especially if it does not have any mention of CAP, as with our current unit patch. 

It would also require a very specific contract that precludes me from taking that design (i.e. squadron patch) and going and selling it on shirts, mugs, etc., that would be between me and the unit (or wing, more than likely) which constitutes exclusivity, if I decide to agree to it.  However, as CAP, Inc. would have not designed the item itself, nor would I have designed it and been compensated for it (as an employee or contractor while under the employ of CAP, Inc.) they could not claim it in any way without my approval.

Would someone design a patch and then perhaps be disgruntled later down the road and tell the unit to stop wearing it?  Perhaps, but at that time, the unit could easily find someone else to design a unit patch to replace it. 

The reason I know this is not only because I do this professionally, but I also have designed unit patches for another unit, not my own.  I can take that design and use it as I see fit, and I've given them the right to make it their "logo".  I have no specific use for it, so there's no reason for me to go selling it elsewhere, which is probably the case with many designers who create designs with such specific and detailed use.  But that doesn't mean I've given up my copyright or intellectual property rights to it.

And no, I wasn't compensated by the unit for the design, save for the fact that I'll get a patch when they have them made, and potentially any other item with the design on it (i.e. shirt, hat, whatever).  I did it voluntarily and because the unit commander asked as a friend.

But if anyone else is looking for a new unit patch, my fees are reasonable...    >:D ;D

With talk of IP and everything, is MilitarySignatures.com in violation?  They are creating products that we "buy" with CAP branding on it.  Is Vanguard going to offer this as a product if militarysignatures.com is told to stop but there is enough interest in the membership?

Just some thoughts going through my head.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 04, 2010, 05:16:04 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:03:10 PM
How does CAP Inc. own my unit's patch? I don't remember signing over my rights to the image to any corporate officer after I designed it.

It has to be approved by Wing in order to wear it, and upon that approval becomes a corporate asset.

This is a sticky situation.  Ideally, as Eclipse does, he licenses or assigns certain rights to CAP with his designs.  He retains the copyright unless it is a work made for hire and it is his/her duty to design these things for the squadron as an employee, which is a highly unlikely scenario, or it requires a writing.

I would argue that at the least, the designer of the squadron patch provides an implied license to CAP and the squadron to use their design.  They hold the rights in the design.  The best practice as far as the artist is concerned is to have a written agreement between the designer and an authorized CAP signatory (a corporate officer) about the design.  Squadron commanders are not corporate officers and cannot bind CAP.  Only the Wing Commanders and other certain designated corporate officials can bind CAP legally.

Quote from: tdepp on March 04, 2010, 08:57:37 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 04, 2010, 05:16:04 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:03:10 PM
How does CAP Inc. own my unit's patch? I don't remember signing over my rights to the image to any corporate officer after I designed it.

It has to be approved by Wing in order to wear it, and upon that approval becomes a corporate asset.

This is a sticky situation.  Ideally, as Eclipse does, he licenses or assigns certain rights to CAP with his designs.  He retains the copyright unless it is a work made for hire and it is his/her duty to design these things for the squadron as an employee, which is a highly unlikely scenario, or it requires a writing.

I would argue that at the least, the designer of the squadron patch provides an implied license to CAP and the squadron to use their design.  They hold the rights in the design.  The best practice as far as the artist is concerned is to have a written agreement between the designer and an authorized CAP signatory (a corporate officer) about the design.  Squadron commanders are not corporate officers and cannot bind CAP.  Only the Wing Commanders and other certain designated corporate officials can bind CAP legally.

I won't argue against an implied license as that is what the case is. However it is not CAP Inc. property and they can not tell me I can not produce or sell them nor can they tell me I must use their supplier and that they get a cut as I am the copy right holder and I allow GLR-IN-227 to use the image as a unit patch and on letterhead, websites, etc. If I want to have a hundred made and sell them for five bucks a pop, nobody can stop me.

Quote

I won't argue against an implied license as that is what the case is. However it is not CAP Inc. property and they can not tell me I can not produce or sell them nor can they tell me I must use their supplier and that they get a cut as I am the copy right holder and I allow GLR-IN-227 to use the image as a unit patch and on letterhead, websites, etc. If I want to have a hundred made and sell them for five bucks a pop, nobody can stop me.

I think you are correct (with a caveat to follow).  It is your design, your IP, but you've probably given an implied license (which is like a lease) for use.  Caveat: If you use "CAP" or "Civil Air Patrol" or any of the distinctive CAP symbols like the propeller, it still could be infringement.  My advice would be to not include such items in a design to avoid infringement issues.   

Quote from: Dracosbane on March 04, 2010, 07:57:30 PM

As a designer and photographer, if I do something for my unit or wing or NHQ, and I say "sure, you can use it" that does not give them the rights to it, nor does it give them the right to take it as their own and use it elsewhere. 

Absolutely true.  You can license your IP to anyone on earth, and reserve any rights to yourself.  Normally this is done with a written contract and license, which as a professional I'm confident that you use routinely.

However, just giving away your work without reserving any rights in writing may well mean that your work is now in the  public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain) and can be used by anyone without compensation.

Which is usually the situation when a unit member designs a patch - intending it to be used by the unit - and it is passed out freely to everyone in the unit without any sort of reservation of rights.

Nobody owes anyone anything in that kind of situation.  Nobody can assert ownership down the line and prevent anyone esle from using it. 

Just one of those "legal" things.

QuoteHowever it is not CAP Inc. property and they can not tell me I can not produce or sell them nor can they tell me I must use their supplier and that they get a cut as I am the copy right holder and I allow GLR-IN-227 to use the image as a unit patch and on letterhead, websites, etc. If I want to have a hundred made and sell them for five bucks a pop, nobody can stop me.

Unless the artwork includes the words "Civil Air Patrol" or other IP reserved exclusively for CAP, Inc.  In which case, they have the right to enjoin any unauthorized use or sale.

Another one of those "legal things."



Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Quote from: Ned on March 04, 2010, 09:19:54 PM

QuoteHowever it is not CAP Inc. property and they can not tell me I can not produce or sell them nor can they tell me I must use their supplier and that they get a cut as I am the copy right holder and I allow GLR-IN-227 to use the image as a unit patch and on letterhead, websites, etc. If I want to have a hundred made and sell them for five bucks a pop, nobody can stop me.

Unless the artwork includes the words "Civil Air Patrol" or other IP reserved exclusively for CAP, Inc.  In which case, they have the right to enjoin any unauthorized use or sale.

Another one of those "legal things."

Not to mention that CAP can certainly direct you in your capacity as a member to do, or not do, anything they want.  You are free to turn in your membership card, but beyond that, you must comply.

Quote from: ascorbate on March 04, 2010, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 06:40:54 AM
...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

500 people have already joined the "Save the Hock Shop" cause on Facebook!

Now almost 900.

Quote from: Dracosbane on March 04, 2010, 07:57:30 PM
Would someone design a patch and then perhaps be disgruntled later down the road and tell the unit to stop wearing it?  Perhaps, but at that time, the unit could easily find someone else to design a unit patch to replace it. 

There are units in my wing that have patches that cost nearly $10 each, and have invested a lot of money in signage and collateral which
contains their insignia. 

Think changing the insignia for them is "easy" because the member who designed it gets their shorts in a bunch?

These are the kinds of things people don't consider when everyone is having a good time together.

Quote from: teesquared on March 05, 2010, 12:28:57 AM

Quote from: ascorbate on March 04, 2010, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 06:40:54 AM
...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

500 people have already joined the "Save the Hock Shop" cause on Facebook!

Now almost 900.

..and it will have no effect whatsoever.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 04, 2010, 07:39:04 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:42:21 PMApproved for wear yes but I never signed over my rights. Does that mean that all the approved military badges are corporate assets too? The right hand flag as well?

The Flag is the intellectual property of the U.S. Government and is controlled by Federal Law.

Check the law before asserting that.

Quote from: Rotorhead on March 05, 2010, 02:03:56 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 04, 2010, 07:39:04 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:42:21 PMApproved for wear yes but I never signed over my rights. Does that mean that all the approved military badges are corporate assets too? The right hand flag as well?

The Flag is the intellectual property of the U.S. Government and is controlled by Federal Law.

Check the law before asserting that.

Did,

Quote from: U.S. CodeTITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1—THE FLAG
How Current is This? •§ 1. Flag; stripes and stars on
•§ 2. Same; additional stars
•§ 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
•§ 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
•§ 5. Display and use of flag by civilians; codification of rules and customs; definition
•§ 6. Time and occasions for display
•§ 7. Position and manner of display
•§ 8. Respect for flag
•§ 9. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag
•§ 10. Modification of rules and customs by President

See....federal law.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 05, 2010, 02:14:37 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on March 05, 2010, 02:03:56 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 04, 2010, 07:39:04 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on March 04, 2010, 05:42:21 PMApproved for wear yes but I never signed over my rights. Does that mean that all the approved military badges are corporate assets too? The right hand flag as well?

The Flag is the intellectual property of the U.S. Government and is controlled by Federal Law.

Check the law before asserting that.

Did,

Quote from: U.S. CodeTITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1—THE FLAG
How Current is This? •§ 1. Flag; stripes and stars on
•§ 2. Same; additional stars
•§ 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
•§ 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
•§ 5. Display and use of flag by civilians; codification of rules and customs; definition
•§ 6. Time and occasions for display
•§ 7. Position and manner of display
•§ 8. Respect for flag
•§ 9. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag
•§ 10. Modification of rules and customs by President

See....federal law.

The section you cite does not show that the federal government holds a copyright or trademark on the design of the flag. (It does not.)

In fact, this section has been held by the SCOTUS to be unenforceable.

I can't think of any examples of the US government suing a vendor, manufacturer, salesperson, or anyone else for using the flag without permission.

Just think of all the royalties that Betsy Ross missed out on. If she had only planned ahead...

Quote from: Rotorhead on March 05, 2010, 02:01:56 AM

Quote from: teesquared on March 05, 2010, 12:28:57 AM

Quote from: ascorbate on March 04, 2010, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 06:40:54 AM
...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

500 people have already joined the "Save the Hock Shop" cause on Facebook!

Now almost 900.

..and it will have no effect whatsoever.

You never know... Well over 1,000 members now...

Quote from: addo1 on March 05, 2010, 04:25:06 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on March 05, 2010, 02:01:56 AM

Quote from: teesquared on March 05, 2010, 12:28:57 AM

Quote from: ascorbate on March 04, 2010, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 06:40:54 AM
...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

500 people have already joined the "Save the Hock Shop" cause on Facebook!

Now almost 900.

..and it will have no effect whatsoever.

You never know... Well over 1,000 members now...

Facebook groups are nice but paying customers are better.  If you want to do something useful, actually buy something from the Hock Shop.

Quote from: tdepp on March 05, 2010, 04:43:29 AM

Quote from: addo1 on March 05, 2010, 04:25:06 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on March 05, 2010, 02:01:56 AM

Quote from: teesquared on March 05, 2010, 12:28:57 AM

Quote from: ascorbate on March 04, 2010, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 06:40:54 AM
...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

500 people have already joined the "Save the Hock Shop" cause on Facebook!

Now almost 900.

..and it will have no effect whatsoever.

You never know... Well over 1,000 members now...

Facebook groups are nice but paying customers are better.  If you want to do something useful, actually buy something from the Hock Shop.

Looking at the posts, people will be... As for myself, I will be making a freaking huge order here soon.. Obviously I will be minus a few specific items, but I will get everything I can there.

Quote from: Ned on March 04, 2010, 09:19:54 PM

Quote from: Dracosbane on March 04, 2010, 07:57:30 PM

As a designer and photographer, if I do something for my unit or wing or NHQ, and I say "sure, you can use it" that does not give them the rights to it, nor does it give them the right to take it as their own and use it elsewhere. 

Absolutely true.  You can license your IP to anyone on earth, and reserve any rights to yourself.  Normally this is done with a written contract and license, which as a professional I'm confident that you use routinely.

However, just giving away your work without reserving any rights in writing may well mean that your work is now in the  public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain) and can be used by anyone without compensation.

Which is usually the situation when a unit member designs a patch - intending it to be used by the unit - and it is passed out freely to everyone in the unit without any sort of reservation of rights.

Nobody owes anyone anything in that kind of situation.  Nobody can assert ownership down the line and prevent anyone esle from using it. 

Just one of those "legal" things.

QuoteHowever it is not CAP Inc. property and they can not tell me I can not produce or sell them nor can they tell me I must use their supplier and that they get a cut as I am the copy right holder and I allow GLR-IN-227 to use the image as a unit patch and on letterhead, websites, etc. If I want to have a hundred made and sell them for five bucks a pop, nobody can stop me.

Unless the artwork includes the words "Civil Air Patrol" or other IP reserved exclusively for CAP, Inc.  In which case, they have the right to enjoin any unauthorized use or sale.

Another one of those "legal things."

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Disagree. Any IP work done on behalf of an employer becomes property of the employer. Any newspaper I've ever worked for owned my stories, my graphics, my photos, whatever, since I was doing the work for hire.

As a member of CAP deployed on a CAP activity, you are an agent of CAP. You follow CAP regulations. You are covered by CAP insurance (which could be considered a form of compensation). You, in essence, are working for CAP, albeit for nothing. Any intellectual property generated on behalf of CAP is CAP's property unless the corporation says otherwise.

As for a squadron emblem ("patch"): The emblems of subordinate units in a wing are to be approved by the wing commander, who is also the only corporate officer in each wing. Since the emblem will be worn on the uniform and used in other ways, it is the wing commander who approves/disapproves emblems in his/her wing. The emblems, we can contend, become CAP property.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 05, 2010, 12:52:10 AM

Quote from: Dracosbane on March 04, 2010, 07:57:30 PM
Would someone design a patch and then perhaps be disgruntled later down the road and tell the unit to stop wearing it?  Perhaps, but at that time, the unit could easily find someone else to design a unit patch to replace it. 

There are units in my wing that have patches that cost nearly $10 each, and have invested a lot of money in signage and collateral which
contains their insignia. 

Think changing the insignia for them is "easy" because the member who designed it gets their shorts in a bunch?

These are the kinds of things people don't consider when everyone is having a good time together.

I didn't say changing would be easy.  I said finding a designer would be easy.  Throw a stone on the internet and you can hit a graphic designer.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 05, 2010, 05:09:32 AM

Quote from: Ned on March 04, 2010, 09:19:54 PM

Quote from: Dracosbane on March 04, 2010, 07:57:30 PM

As a designer and photographer, if I do something for my unit or wing or NHQ, and I say "sure, you can use it" that does not give them the rights to it, nor does it give them the right to take it as their own and use it elsewhere. 

Absolutely true.  You can license your IP to anyone on earth, and reserve any rights to yourself.  Normally this is done with a written contract and license, which as a professional I'm confident that you use routinely.

However, just giving away your work without reserving any rights in writing may well mean that your work is now in the  public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain) and can be used by anyone without compensation.

Which is usually the situation when a unit member designs a patch - intending it to be used by the unit - and it is passed out freely to everyone in the unit without any sort of reservation of rights.

Nobody owes anyone anything in that kind of situation.  Nobody can assert ownership down the line and prevent anyone esle from using it. 

Just one of those "legal" things.

QuoteHowever it is not CAP Inc. property and they can not tell me I can not produce or sell them nor can they tell me I must use their supplier and that they get a cut as I am the copy right holder and I allow GLR-IN-227 to use the image as a unit patch and on letterhead, websites, etc. If I want to have a hundred made and sell them for five bucks a pop, nobody can stop me.

Unless the artwork includes the words "Civil Air Patrol" or other IP reserved exclusively for CAP, Inc.  In which case, they have the right to enjoin any unauthorized use or sale.

Another one of those "legal things."

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Disagree. Any IP work done on behalf of an employer becomes property of the employer. Any newspaper I've ever worked for owned my stories, my graphics, my photos, whatever, since I was doing the work for hire.

As a member of CAP deployed on a CAP activity, you are an agent of CAP. You follow CAP regulations. You are covered by CAP insurance (which could be considered a form of compensation). You, in essence, are working for CAP, albeit for nothing. Any intellectual property generated on behalf of CAP is CAP's property unless the corporation says otherwise.

As for a squadron emblem ("patch"): The emblems of subordinate units in a wing are to be approved by the wing commander, who is also the only corporate officer in each wing. Since the emblem will be worn on the uniform and used in other ways, it is the wing commander who approves/disapproves emblems in his/her wing. The emblems, we can contend, become CAP property.

No.

I am a volunteer.  I am not employed by CAP.  And I did not design a unit patch on CAP's time.  I still own the rights to the images I created.  You worked for a newspaper, and as such your work for them was paid for.  If I was paid properly (well more than what any unit would be able to afford) I could sign over the rights.  As I volunteered my time, I still have the rights.  I can be compensated for usage, and they still wouldn't have the rights to the image.

Being approved for usage does not take my IP or copyrights away from me.  It's still just usage.  If I freelance a photo, and allow a company to use it for an ad, I still have the rights to my photo, but I'm letting them use it based on approval of their boss/company/client.  Granted, I'd probably be paid a lot of money for that usage in that scenario.

And no, it's not public domain just because I gave that unit the usage without formal compensation.  They'll compensate me by being word of mouth advertisers for me, and by giving me credit for the design when people ask, and by giving me a patch when they're created.  And I can use it for whatever else I want, because it's mine.

Until CAP first cures its own addiction to creating the logo, slogan, or symbol of the week, suing over someone infringing on our pathetic brand is laughable.  CAP Inc may be within their legal rights to do so, but not everything that is legal is just.

Why CAP doesn't simply agree to terms with The Hock is beyond me.  They could very easily insist on some cash for use of CAP's distinctive images.

Shame.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 05, 2010, 05:09:32 AM
Disagree. Any IP work done on behalf of an employer becomes property of the employer. Any newspaper I've ever worked for owned my stories, my graphics, my photos, whatever, since I was doing the work for hire.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

I agree any IP work done on behalf of an employer normally belongs to the employer absent some agreement to the contrary. 

I'm guessing, however, that relatively little IP work is done on behalf of CAP by volunteers.  Particularly graphical work.

I suspect we would agree that it is only work done "on behalf" of CAP that becomes corporate property.  A CAP member whose duties do not include IP work for CAP is certainly allowed to develop their own IP, even if it tangentally touches on CAP themes or matter. 

I could write my memoir and describe my CAP involvement.  CAP would not own it.  (Nor would anyone else, since no one will every buy my memoirs.) 

QuoteAs for a squadron emblem ("patch"): The emblems of subordinate units in a wing are to be approved by the wing commander, who is also the only corporate officer in each wing. Since the emblem will be worn on the uniform and used in other ways, it is the wing commander who approves/disapproves emblems in his/her wing. The emblems, we can contend, become CAP property.

Not a bad arguement, but I doubt that approval creates ownership in this instance.  Refer to the American flag discussion above.  We don't own that despite corporate approval for wear on our uniform.  The same for rank insignia, etc.

But the net effect is pretty much the same for all practical purposes.  A unit patch designed and adopted years ago by the Anytown Composte Squadron cannot be controlled by the heirs of the designer.  And I suspect that CAP, Inc would have little if any interest or ability to control the use of the patch by civilians (as long as it doesn't contain the words "civil air patrol" or IP explicitly owned by CAP).

Good discussion.

Starting to think that a little too much corporate mentality is becoming the norm at National. The greed part is really disturbing.

What if he "gives" the items away?  I can see it now...order an pistol belt, get a CAP insignia for free.

Quote

Disagree. Any IP work done on behalf of an employer becomes property of the employer. Any newspaper I've ever worked for owned my stories, my graphics, my photos, whatever, since I was doing the work for hire.

As a member of CAP deployed on a CAP activity, you are an agent of CAP. You follow CAP regulations. You are covered by CAP insurance (which could be considered a form of compensation). You, in essence, are working for CAP, albeit for nothing. Any intellectual property generated on behalf of CAP is CAP's property unless the corporation says otherwise.

As for a squadron emblem ("patch"): The emblems of subordinate units in a wing are to be approved by the wing commander, who is also the only corporate officer in each wing. Since the emblem will be worn on the uniform and used in other ways, it is the wing commander who approves/disapproves emblems in his/her wing. The emblems, we can contend, become CAP property.

Work made for hire is for employees.  And work made for hire only applies to employees acting in the scope of their usual duties.  So yes, a employee who is a journalist for his newspaper doesn't own the copyright in his articles.  But the circulation manager who is not expected to write an article could still claim ownership as that is not within the scope of his duties. 

Freelancers typically have to sign an assignment of their works to the newspaper as they are not covered by works made for hire as they are not employees.

The Copyright Act of 1976 defines "work made for hire":
Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:
1 a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment;
or
2 a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a
collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as
a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional
text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties
expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall
be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence,
a "supplementary work" is a work prepared for a publication as a secondary
adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing,
concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting
in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations,
maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer
material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes; and an "instructional
text" is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication
and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

Copyright Office Circular 9 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf) boils down the factors.

All or most of these factors characterize a regular, salaried
employment relationship, and it is clear that a work created
within the scope of such employment is a work made for
hire (unless the parties involved agree otherwise).
Examples of works for hire created in an employment
relationship are:
• A software program created within the scope of his or her
duties by a staff programmer for Creative Computer Corporation
• A newspaper article written by a staff journalist for publication
in the newspaper that employs him
• A musical arrangement written for XYZ Music Company
by a salaried arranger on its staff
• A sound recording created by the salaried staff engineers
of ABC Record Company
The closer an employment relationship comes to regular,
salaried employment, the more likely it is that a work created
within the scope of that employment would be a work
made for hire. However, since there is no precise standard for
determining whether or not a work is made for hire under
the first part of the definition, consultation with an attorney
for legal advice may be advisable.

Using the US Supreme Court's test in CCNV v. Reid, I think a CAP volunteer would not be an employee so work for hire would not apply.  If they were a CAP employee, probably a different result, depending upon their job.

Unless there is some special provision of federal law that I'm not aware of concerning CAP members--who are volunteers, not employees--it is my opinion they would continue to own their IP.  Now, could CAP require, as a condition of membership, a written assignment of IP rights created by members while working on CAP missions and activities?  Sure.  But I don't remember signing any such document. 

So, absent a written assignment, I think it is unlikely that CAP could take ownership of a member's IP.  Might they have an implied license to use it?  Yes.  But outright ownership?  No.

Could I fashion a reasonable argument that CAP should own the member's IP?  Certainly.  Would it likely prevail?  Doubtful.  That's why we lawyers get the big bucks, to make arguments based on the facts and the law.   ;D  That's how the law changes. 

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2010, 05:54:06 AM
Starting to think that a little too much corporate mentality is becoming the norm at National. The greed part is really disturbing.

It's not greed. CAP signed a contract, and this is part of upholding that contract.

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 05, 2010, 06:40:53 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2010, 05:54:06 AM
Starting to think that a little too much corporate mentality is becoming the norm at National. The greed part is really disturbing.

It's not greed. CAP signed a contract, and this is part of upholding that contract.

Sure looks like greed.

As to the signing, we know who signed the contract. And I suspect if more people knew that it was intended to happen, it might not have.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

Quote from: Dracosbane on March 05, 2010, 05:30:38 AM
I didn't say changing would be easy.  I said finding a designer would be easy.  Throw a stone on the internet and you can hit a graphic designer.

Corrected:  Throw a stone on the internet and you can hit someone who calls themselves a graphic designer.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2010, 06:55:41 AM

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 05, 2010, 06:40:53 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2010, 05:54:06 AM
Starting to think that a little too much corporate mentality is becoming the norm at National. The greed part is really disturbing.

It's not greed. CAP signed a contract, and this is part of upholding that contract.

Sure looks like greed.

As to the signing, we know who signed the contract. And I suspect if more people knew that it was intended to happen, it might not have.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

I'm saddened about all this complaining about "greed."  Funding for a private, non-profit corporation like the CAP is always difficult, even in the best of times.  CAP has an asset in its intellectual property that someone is actually willing to pay for through licensing.  And yes, that money ultimately comes from the members through the items they buy.  Vanguard is willing to pay a licensing fee.  Is the Hock Shop?  I don't know the answer to that.

Regardless, would you rather pay higher membership fees to help fund the organization?  Are you willing to go to Congress and your Congressperson and tell them that they should not cut the CAP appropriation in the USAF budget?  Do you have other ideas to help fund the organization?  Are you willing to donate more money yourself? 

Every volunteer organization I've belonged to or served on the board of has expected not just my time but at least some financial contribution as well.  And while, at least for the time being, we have an exclusive provider for CAP-branded items, there are plenty of other vendors who sell most of our other items, such as BDUs, dress blues, SAR gear, boots, socks, coats, etc.  And there is a healthy secondary market for many CAP-branded items on eBay and even here on CAPTalk. 

I realize many of our members are of modest means.  But we also knew, or soon knew, the potential financial burdens we would face by joining.  Frankly, I think back to WWII when many men and women donated not just their time but their air craft, fuel, and, even their lives in defense of our nation.  Our "sacrifice," if it is that, is far, far smaller in comparison today. 

In all seriousness, if you have better ways to help fund CAP, let's hear them.  Then talk to your chain of command and see if you can make them happen.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2010, 06:55:41 AM

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 05, 2010, 06:40:53 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2010, 05:54:06 AM
Starting to think that a little too much corporate mentality is becoming the norm at National. The greed part is really disturbing.

It's not greed. CAP signed a contract, and this is part of upholding that contract.

Sure looks like greed.

As to the signing, we know who signed the contract. And I suspect if more people knew that it was intended to happen, it might not have.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

Um, the contract was signed after the National Finance Committee debated the issue, the NEC debated the issue and, then, the BoG agreed to the contract.  Who's signature was at the bottom line is irrelevant.  The entire leadership bought on to the process.  We were losing our shirt on CAPMART.  Vangard offered to take over and give us a commission on the sales.  We took the deal and that's that.  NHQ continues to work with Vangard to improve service.
 
Capt. Epp is quite correct in his assessment.  We need money without raising dues (which hasn't been done in years).  If anyone wants to give CAP $60k a year, I'm sure CAP can revisit the Vangard contract

Quote from: tdepp on March 05, 2010, 05:57:22 AM

Quote

Disagree. Any IP work done on behalf of an employer becomes property of the employer. Any newspaper I've ever worked for owned my stories, my graphics, my photos, whatever, since I was doing the work for hire.

As a member of CAP deployed on a CAP activity, you are an agent of CAP. You follow CAP regulations. You are covered by CAP insurance (which could be considered a form of compensation). You, in essence, are working for CAP, albeit for nothing. Any intellectual property generated on behalf of CAP is CAP's property unless the corporation says otherwise.

As for a squadron emblem ("patch"): The emblems of subordinate units in a wing are to be approved by the wing commander, who is also the only corporate officer in each wing. Since the emblem will be worn on the uniform and used in other ways, it is the wing commander who approves/disapproves emblems in his/her wing. The emblems, we can contend, become CAP property.

Work made for hire is for employees.  And work made for hire only applies to employees acting in the scope of their usual duties.  So yes, a employee who is a journalist for his newspaper doesn't own the copyright in his articles.  But the circulation manager who is not expected to write an article could still claim ownership as that is not within the scope of his duties. 

Freelancers typically have to sign an assignment of their works to the newspaper as they are not covered by works made for hire as they are not employees.

The Copyright Act of 1976 defines "work made for hire":
Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:
1 a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment;
or
2 a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a
collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as
a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional
text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties
expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall
be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence,
a "supplementary work" is a work prepared for a publication as a secondary
adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing,
concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting
in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations,
maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer
material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes; and an "instructional
text" is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication
and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

Copyright Office Circular 9 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf) boils down the factors.

All or most of these factors characterize a regular, salaried
employment relationship, and it is clear that a work created
within the scope of such employment is a work made for
hire (unless the parties involved agree otherwise).
Examples of works for hire created in an employment
relationship are:
• A software program created within the scope of his or her
duties by a staff programmer for Creative Computer Corporation
• A newspaper article written by a staff journalist for publication
in the newspaper that employs him
• A musical arrangement written for XYZ Music Company
by a salaried arranger on its staff
• A sound recording created by the salaried staff engineers
of ABC Record Company
The closer an employment relationship comes to regular,
salaried employment, the more likely it is that a work created
within the scope of that employment would be a work
made for hire. However, since there is no precise standard for
determining whether or not a work is made for hire under
the first part of the definition, consultation with an attorney
for legal advice may be advisable.

Using the US Supreme Court's test in CCNV v. Reid, I think a CAP volunteer would not be an employee so work for hire would not apply.  If they were a CAP employee, probably a different result, depending upon their job.

Unless there is some special provision of federal law that I'm not aware of concerning CAP members--who are volunteers, not employees--it is my opinion they would continue to own their IP.  Now, could CAP require, as a condition of membership, a written assignment of IP rights created by members while working on CAP missions and activities?  Sure.  But I don't remember signing any such document. 

So, absent a written assignment, I think it is unlikely that CAP could take ownership of a member's IP.  Might they have an implied license to use it?  Yes.  But outright ownership?  No.

Could I fashion a reasonable argument that CAP should own the member's IP?  Certainly.  Would it likely prevail?  Doubtful.  That's why we lawyers get the big bucks, to make arguments based on the facts and the law.   ;D  That's how the law changes.

The circulation manager, if he's called upon to write, would do so under the implied agreement that his/her content would be "work for hire," since it is an order given from his/her employer. Strict duty position definitions would not apply hre, though at a union shop, the Guild or Teamsters or whomever would unsuccessfully try to make suck a point.

But in the case of CAP, could an argument be made that members are indeed compensated for their service, even if it's something as simple as insurance? And if so, could a line be drawn to connect the dots to IP?

Quote from: tdepp on March 05, 2010, 02:03:55 PM
In all seriousness, if you have better ways to help fund CAP, let's hear them.  Then talk to your chain of command and see if you can make them happen.

If the "funds" (a.k.a. kickback funded on the backs of members) were used to benefit ALL members and not facilities that only a small percentage of members will ever use, I am with you.  Use the "commissions" to offset the cost of administering an ID card program for instance.  Everyone gets a photo ID, everyone benefits...... 

Just a thought...

And remember, sole-sourcing insignia is a mainstream practice.

Try buying official Scout gear anywhere besides the Scout House.  And who gets a cut of the sales?  BSA, Inc.  (As well as the local council.)

Everyone with any significant amount of organization-specific stuff does it that way.

My wife buys me all nature of eBay-branded logoware and toys at the eBay company store.

Heck, even the CIA has a "doodad and trinket shop" at their headquarters that sells CIA branded merchandise.  (It has a hilarious sign reminding employees who are working under different identities to be careful in their credit card purchases.)

So does the FBI and the House of Representatives.

Uncle Sam thanks you for your support.

So does CAP.

Ned: funny that you should mention the CIA shop.  I have an account there, having worked for that illustrious organization for 23 years.  There also is an organization that a lot of us belong to, called the Association For Former Intelligence Officers. 

Quote from: cap235629 on March 05, 2010, 04:18:32 PM

Quote from: tdepp on March 05, 2010, 02:03:55 PM
In all seriousness, if you have better ways to help fund CAP, let's hear them.  Then talk to your chain of command and see if you can make them happen.

If the "funds" (a.k.a. kickback funded on the backs of members) were used to benefit ALL members and not facilities that only a small percentage of members will ever use, I am with you.  Use the "commissions" to offset the cost of administering an ID card program for instance.  Everyone gets a photo ID, everyone benefits...... 

Just a thought...

NESA, HMRS, and The Blue Beret Facility do beniefit all members.  That you choose not to participate in these activities is not the issue.

Quote from: bosshawk on March 05, 2010, 05:31:09 PM
Ned: funny that you should mention the CIA shop.  I have an account there, having worked for that illustrious organization for 23 years.  There also is an organization that a lot of us belong to, called the Association For Former Intelligence Officers.

But their things are expensive!  Freaking CIA monopoly.  At least they aren't required uniform items, however...

Quote from: lordmonar on March 05, 2010, 05:50:47 PMNESA, HMRS, and The Blue Beret Facility do beniefit all members.  That you choose not to participate in these activities is not the issue.

Not everyone has the means or the time. Not always a matter of choice. Life is what happens while you make other plans. The "choose not to participate" line is garbage, and smells like it.

Second, it doesn't necessarily benefit more than once. Especially when you're paying to go.

Third, I find it remarkable how many people don't seem to realize that you're still sending more money to CAP, just in a roundabout manner, and someone else is just adding on a fee. You're paying more for that roundabout, a lot more. 

Sole source may be a common practice, but's still a stupid one. Vanguard acts more like they own the rights to the insignia, instead of CAP. Vanguard isn't really concerned about quality, nor even quantity (unless it's money coming in). They've produced insignia that wasn't authorized (but became so later), or didn't even have award criteria.

We had people post on this board about how some Vanguard representatives have told them some things were or weren't authorized. Up until the website changed recently, there were blurbs on what various insignia were authorized for. It's none of Vanguard's business as to what their insignia is authorized to be worn on, or even authorized at all. That's up to CAP, and is regulated by CAPM 39-1. Which is what people need to be reading, not the Vanguard website.

All in all, Vanguard has gotten too big for their britches. That's a result of being that sole supplier.

That being said, I have gotten some of the things I needed from them, although not in a timely manner. I've found the fastest way for me to get something is order most of the military stuff I need, and add a few CAP items to the order. If it's just CAP items, it takes longer.

Quote from: Hawk200 on March 05, 2010, 06:36:11 PMWe had people post on this board about how some Vanguard representatives have told them some things were or weren't authorized. Up until the website changed recently, there were blurbs on what various insignia were authorized for. It's none of Vanguard's business as to what their insignia is authorized to be worn on, or even authorized at all. That's up to CAP, and is regulated by CAPM 39-1. Which is what people need to be reading, not the Vanguard website.

This was all too common with the bookstore and CAPMart as well,  nothing new there.

I'll not argue over whether NESA, HMRS, and NBB are a benefit for everyone or not.

But the real issue is that there are people here who just hate everything!

Vanguard, charges too much, they are too slow, they messed up my order.....I hate them!
Vanguard was telling people what is and is not authorised.....I hate them!


Well you know.....that's just tough!  Live with it.

I'm really sorry Tom is getting the dirty end of the stick.......but that is just the way it is.  Life sucks move on.

Personally I don't care one way or the other.  I've order from the Hock and got good service, I've ordered from Vanguard and got good service. 

Bottom line.....CAP gave Vanguard the exclusive license...and that is that.  What we had before was just terrible (and you all hated that too).  Vanguard got the contract and now CAP must hold up its end of the contract and close down Tom.   

Again....sorry....I hope some sort of arrangement can be made for Tom to cut his losses....that would be the honorable thing to do.....but legally there is nothing else anyone can do.

I too joined the save the Hock Shop facebook group....but it won't do anything because even if everyone joined it, it is about the law and popular opinion.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on March 05, 2010, 05:50:43 AM
Why CAP doesn't simply agree to terms with The Hock is beyond me.  They could very easily insist on some cash for use of CAP's distinctive images.

We don't know that either side didn't try to come to terms. The court filing is dated Aug. 2009. You gotta figure they have been discussing it back and forth since.

Since neither side is talking, who knows. Maybe NHQ did say "you have xxx to sell out and stop".. and maybe Tom said "no." With the August date and the February posting, thats six months of time.

CAP is not alone in sole sourcing.  But CAP is in a rather unique pickle because the Hock was a supplier for quite some time.

Yes, what Vangard did when they started was pretty despicable, and equally as so, how long it's taken to improve. It certainly seemed as if CAP was a bad step child to Vanguard, the way they presented their stuff, the purchasing experience, et al. Where as when some of us would just fax in a CAPMart order sheet, everything was correct in the order. Using their phone sales, or even their web sales, and you generally got a screwed up order. Go figure that out.

Until the proceedings are made public, we will never know the extent of what negotiations went on. But simply painting NHQ is cold blooded heartless towards a long standing member, isn't exactly right either.  Getting it from one side, isn't going to be exactly unbiased either. So it's really hard to tell across the board.

I do think the best is two suppliers. It gives us a choice, there are times when I know not to order from the Hock because I'm going to get something I feel is substandard quality, likewise there are times I know not to order from Vanguard.

Quote from: FW on March 05, 2010, 02:17:56 PM
Capt. Epp is quite correct in his assessment.  We need money without raising dues (which hasn't been done in years).  If anyone wants to give CAP $60k a year, I'm sure CAP can revisit the Vangard contract

Hmmmm 57k members times $2 equals $114k. Problem solved. Ditch Vanguard.

Quote from: davidsinn on March 06, 2010, 02:16:09 AM

Quote from: FW on March 05, 2010, 02:17:56 PM
Capt. Epp is quite correct in his assessment.  We need money without raising dues (which hasn't been done in years).  If anyone wants to give CAP $60k a year, I'm sure CAP can revisit the Vangard contract

Hmmmm 57k members times $2 equals $114k. Problem solved. Ditch Vanguard.

I can live with that.

The shipping deal is interesting though.

I'm using the opportunity to stock up on my next grade insignia. All together with cloth insignia, large insignia, small insignia, and gortex tab insignia plus shipping and handling. The total came out to be less than half what vanguard is offering, when you factor in shipping.

EDIT: Probably not less than half looking back. Still a deal is a deal.

Yeah I went ahead and went with the hock.

The only thing I have to go to vanguard for is my unauthorized subdued insignia  ;)

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/00000007168868.jpg)

http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=7_472_477 (http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=7_472_477)

Quote from: addo1 on March 05, 2010, 04:25:06 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on March 05, 2010, 02:01:56 AM

Quote from: teesquared on March 05, 2010, 12:28:57 AM

Quote from: ascorbate on March 04, 2010, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: JC004 on March 04, 2010, 06:40:54 AM
...and now there is a Facebook page for it:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=333621608998

500 people have already joined the "Save the Hock Shop" cause on Facebook!

Now almost 900.

..and it will have no effect whatsoever.

You never know... Well over 1,000 members now...

All these kinds of things do is allow people to feel like they are "doing something" while not actually having to actually do much of anything.

What's the impact to Vanguard or CAP if this Facebook group gets 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 members?

Nothing. Not a thing.

I certainly believe that there should be a choice in who to purchase from and whoever gives the best price and service would get my business.  On the other hand, if there are too many suppliers, it may be hard to get someone who will provide a good supply due to low volume ordering.

I have ordered from both and have had bad experiences with both.  I have had slow service from Vanguard.  I have received orders with errors from The Hock and couldn't get them to reply to my emails.  More than once.  I say offer it to the open market and lock in the price at the lowest bidder and anyone who wants to match it is welcome to do so with a limit of 3 first come first serve.

I don't like strong arm tactics but I am not happy with either suppliers. ::)

Ive been lurking for a long time had to chime in on this though.  Ive been watching closely and my blood is boiling.  Hope these links help the discussion.

This guys wants to do something  :clap: and wants information:

http://capvine.com/chatter/741-civil-air-patrol-nhq-lawsuit-against-hocks-owner-tom-flanagan-civil-air-patrol-member.html (http://capvine.com/chatter/741-civil-air-patrol-nhq-lawsuit-against-hocks-owner-tom-flanagan-civil-air-patrol-member.html)

Here's the facebook page:  Over 1300 members already!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=333621608998 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=333621608998)

A Twitter page just got started too:

http://twitter.com/SaveTheHockShop (http://twitter.com/SaveTheHockShop)

And of course the blogosphere is buzzing:

http://bit.ly/9ulwLN (http://bit.ly/9ulwLN)

I wonder if any one from NHQ actually views this website and realizes just how really ticked off people are on this subject?

Quote from: capdad on March 06, 2010, 05:47:51 AM
On the other hand, if there are too many suppliers, it may be hard to get someone who will provide a good supply due to low volume ordering.

That is really a self-correcting problem for the business.  If there were 10 possible suppliers, sure some of them would have high prices due to low volume, but more likely others would have lower prices.  What do we care if some of those suppliers aren't good enough at their jobs to make a profit.  Unless CAP is going to run it themselves, the option that gives the best opportunity for CAP members to get the lowest prices for CAP-specific items is to license out the rights whenever our contract with Vanguard expires.  Competition will give us a better deal than a for-profit monopoly every time. 

Quote from: MobyDick on March 06, 2010, 09:46:39 AM
Ive been lurking for a long time had to chime in on this though.  Ive been watching closely and my blood is boiling.  Hope these links help the discussion.

This guys wants to do something  :clap: and wants information:

http://capvine.com/chatter/741-civil-air-patrol-nhq-lawsuit-against-hocks-owner-tom-flanagan-civil-air-patrol-member.html (http://capvine.com/chatter/741-civil-air-patrol-nhq-lawsuit-against-hocks-owner-tom-flanagan-civil-air-patrol-member.html)

Here's the facebook page:  Over 1300 members already!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=333621608998 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=333621608998)

A Twitter page just got started too:

http://twitter.com/SaveTheHockShop (http://twitter.com/SaveTheHockShop)

And of course the blogosphere is buzzing:

http://bit.ly/9ulwLN (http://bit.ly/9ulwLN)

In addition, here is someone who is actually taking action: http://citizenspeak.org/node/1943

^ Feel free to that, and when your "organization" is included along with your petition, you will be looking at a 2b.  As members we support the actions of our superiors (even if we don't agree with them, or think they are stupid), it is in the oath.

It is time to move on from this topic.  It sucks for Tom, but he knew it was coming.  It sucks for all of us, because it is one less supplier we can look to for CAP items.  Is it fair?  NO!  Is it legal?  You bet it is.

No one here seems to know how a business operates.  That is what CAP is.....a business.  You may think it not, but in all areas it is.

The Civil Air Patrol is a Not-For-Profit Company.  If you want to argue anything, lets bring up the salaries at the National Headquarters instead.  How much does the Executive Director make?  What about the "Protocol" assistant? 

Come on people.  We all knew this was coming as well.  If we wanted to help out Tom, we should have stepped forward years ago and protested Nationals actions then!

Checked a few of these out

Surely CAP NHQ HAD to be expecting this fallout..

If they were not prepared.....well....what does the membership do then,huh?

Any CAPTalk experts answer this one.....especially the CAP outhouse lawyers.

Gonna get interesting......Can see it now ...Hock Shop and CAP in Court for yeeeedeeeeeears

I am all for Tom.  If the social media can put pressure on ......so be it   .......CAP may need this to "humble up."

I for one, DO NOT feel sorry for CAP in the least. 

Someone taking action??  Surprising is it?   Quicker than planning any Winter or Summer Board meetings, huh?

CAP needs a house cleaning...maybe  social media will put some pressure on an 68 yr old 501 (c) 3 organization that may really, in this respect, put it into motion.

Stay tuned for the fun!!

???

Heliodoc are you suggesting that CAP HQ cares about CT, Social Media, or that stupid letter campaign from Citzen Speak?

Second....CAP and Hock will not be in court for years.  It will be over quick one way or the other.

Third....as members the only think we can do about this is quit!  Don't like NHQ's policies...voice your concerns ....but don't like the response....all we can do is quit.

You know, Pat

I can tow the CAP company line quite well and I have and will not believe a whole lot on social media nor do I believe alot here on CAPTalk.

It maybe over very quickly, you very well could be right.

No CAP NHQ does not care about CT, social media, stupid letter campaigns nor does CAP NHQ really care about what PAPA 1AF thinks either, nor does it fare very well with the CAP members.  I know 70 and 80 year olds in CAP wondering what in God's Earth is everyone doing there at Maxwell except dreamin up stuff and doing quite well at thieving oxygen!

It is VERY apparent that numbers are quitting CAP due to many reasons, but CAP NHQ makes no bones about where their sense of humility and humbleness is.  I often wonder where these volunteer and paid "adults" make there GOB types of decisions

CAP can play its corporate deal.  Maybe in the near or not so distant future, CAP actions could be more of an issue with the AF.

I may be pretty off base in  my thoughts, but there a lot of "I told you so's" in CAP.  I will continue to drive on in this organization with the so called "Missions for America."

But someday CAP may get or need a swift fanny kicking either by the AF or possibly the Hock vs CAP issues..... we will see if its over quickly

Every one here on CAPTalk knows ALL, don't they?

Quote from: lordmonar on March 06, 2010, 07:44:36 PM
???

Heliodoc are you suggesting that CAP HQ cares about CT, Social Media, or that stupid letter campaign from Citzen Speak?

If they didn't care, then why did so many NB agenda items items suddenly appear that were VERY close to the discussion here on CT ref: corporate uniforms?  They saw the upwelling of anger and saw the writing on the wall.  When we're mad enough, they listen and react to it.

Gunner

You may be right....But I am sure the AF issues on the uniform CRAP we a driver

The anger of the "Corporate" membership was the fallout about spending dinero on a pretty uniform

Stay tuned..... I am sure there is more silliness in CAP to correct than uniform issues

Issues like getting back to practicality (sp) which CAP has SOOO easily been de railed from

CAP needs an a CAP RAP or an AF rep to steer a rudderless ship into the 21st Century of common sense which CAP is becoming clueless especially with operating with other agencies.  CAP folks in some areas might do well with other agencies, but the good majority of SAREX's still have CAP centric missions

But the Hock vs CAP outcome will be interesting

I just find it funny that all of the people who think The Hock has bad sevice, said they stoped using it years and years ago... and now the use Vanguard because they think its better... I was our SQ's Supply Sgt up until I got my Mitchell, and I ordered from a verity of sites, now our squadron exclusivley purchases from the Hock because its service is much more reliable (take it from aperson who spent thousands of dollars on CAP equipment) over the 3 years I was supply Sgt, I was able to find the best most reliabel site through trial and error. Though things were often on back order from the Hock, it only lasted about 2 weeks ON AVERAGE. Back order from Vanguard meant about 5-6 weeks ON AVERAGE. Once had to wait 4 months to get a few nametapes.

Anyway, my point was, I think those who started exclusively ordering form CAPMART/Vanguard many years ago, should try the Hock again when they get back up. I find it a little biased what some people have said here...  :o

Not to mention I have a thing against Monopolies!  :P   I was down at Buckly AFB the other day, explorin through the BX, when I noticed... the wall of insignia was pure red packaging! Vanguard IS becoming a monopoly, and I personally dont appriciate it, just my opinion...

Over the past few years, It's obvious that the National Board think "corporate think" and the almoghty dollar. Many of the new regulations seem to protect the corporation, not the members. The Board of Governors is a joke since they only hear what the corporation officers let them hear. Members of CAP have no voice in the corporation, other than their Wing Commander, who as a corporate officer thinks only of the corporation. It appears the Ntional Commander is not a member of the Good-Old-Boy network and really cares for the organization.
But CAP entered into a contract with Vanguard that provides the Corporation funds. So don't excpect that to change

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 06, 2010, 09:29:33 PM
I was our SQ's Supply Sgt up until I got my Mitchell, and I ordered from a verity of sites, now our squadron exclusively purchases from the Hock because its service is much more reliable (take it from person who spent thousands of dollars on CAP equipment) over the 3 years I was supply Sgt, I was able to find the best most reliable site through trial and error. Though things were often on back order from the Hock, it only lasted about 2 weeks ON AVERAGE. Back order from Vanguard meant about 5-6 weeks ON AVERAGE. Once had to wait 4 months to get a few nametapes.

No Cadet.  I seriously doubt you waited 4 months for nametapes.  I have never heard of a 5 week backorder by Vanguard either.  Are you telling me you spent thousands of dollars buying materials for you Squadron through Vanguard?  How did you pay for all that? 

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 06, 2010, 09:34:31 PM
Not to mention I have a thing against Monopolies!  :P   I was down at Buckly AFB the other day, exploring through the BX, when I noticed... the wall of insignia was pure red packaging! Vanguard IS becoming a monopoly, and I personally dont appriciate it, just my opinion...

Guess Buckly AFB is doing their own thing at the MCSS.  Ira Green Inc, Marlow White and Vanguard all share in the AAFES contracts almost equally.  Even the Marine Corps/ Navy Exchanges have a fairly even divide-up for ribbons, and uniform bling.

I will also say that many uniform items sold through AAFES is an AAFES production in AAFES packaging.  I would guess that they buy from the cheapest producer and package in AAFES branded bags/boxes.

All Government entities follow GAO/GSA guidelines for procurement of products and materials.  AAFES is no different.  They buy from the cheapest bidder.  Sometimes it is Vanguard, other times it is Marlow White etc. 

If anything needs changing it is CAP Procurement.  We should bid out contracts and vet them through the DLA (Defense Logistics Agency).  I believe that at the time, Vanguard was the best offer, and did in fact beat out Marlow White (they were going to make CAP the first organization that they catered to specifically).

I still can't believe you were in charge of ordering for your Squadron.

SIDE NOTE......How do you like your internet service?  Have your been on an AMTRAK train before?  How is your public education working for you?  Mail anything at the post office lately?  How is your local bus service?  You like using Dollar Bills?  Do you like your electricity?  How is your gas heater in winter?  Watch Television today?  The List can go on.  My POINT is that there are monopolies everywhere.  When you get past Econ 101, I would be happy debate the issue more.       

Quote from: Gunner C on March 06, 2010, 08:43:56 PM
If they didn't care, then why did so many NB agenda items items suddenly appear that were VERY close to the discussion here on CT ref: corporate uniforms?  They saw the upwelling of anger and saw the writing on the wall.  When we're mad enough, they listen and react to it.

Sorry. just had to chuckle at that.

Are you referring to the huge groundswell of anger that manifested itself in the uniform agenda items?  When all of CT was anticipating a huge fight between the NB and the NEC?  The "Meeting of the Century" with fireworks and excitement?  The Return of the CSU?

You know, the one where the uniform items were quietly assigned to Yet Another Uniform Committee (YAUC) to get some more study?  Perhaps the least controversial meeting in CAPs history?

Are we talking about the same thing?

I'm confident that the huge groundswell of CT support for Tom will have the same effect.   ::)

I agree with Ned on this one.  I seriously doubt petitions trying to help Tom will work at this point.
Unless the membership agrees to a dues increase to make up for the short fall, I doubt there will be any changes to the status quo.  And, to tell you the truth, except for the few who will agree, a large part of the membership opposes (or at least prefer not) paying any dues at all.

FW, I do recall you saying that it was your impression that CAPTalk threads on the regulation setting process were responsible for the multitude of agenda items on that topic....

Im just getting tired of all of the people disagreeing with me, so I'm replacing all of my comments with this message... If you cant accept someones opinion, go complain somewhere else, CAP dosent need more whining people... ITS A FRIGGIN OPINION, SUCK IT UP AND MOVE ON PEOPLE!! ???

Mr Caldwell

Consider the source...

This is CAPTalk......a forum of individuals.  Individuals that might put you down for your accomplishments or quite possibly your difference in opinion of CAP.  Take it with LESS than a grain of salt.  Stop by often just to get your humor on.  Take nothing too seriously here!!

Some have basis and fact behind them.  Some do not really realize what goes on beyond their own backyard...

Step in once-n-while....enjoy the humor.   ' Cuz you are gonna get sharp tongued SM's all over the place here.

Stay in CAP....  enjoy the ride .....go on to the military...go on to be a productive cadet and future SM

Then YOU can become sharp tongued as us and again...enjoy the humor.... this is all Fun stuff, Mr Caldwell

Please do not take anything here personally..... take it with LESS than a grain of salt

Seems to me he was on-time, on-target.  I've always been pretty deferential in my military career, but when someone crosses the personal line, fire a shot across the bow then go back to being deferential, as a cadet should be.  Someone has instructed this cadet well.  He'll make a fine officer some day. [/snicker]

Quote from: RiverAux on March 07, 2010, 01:23:09 AM
FW, I do recall you saying that it was your impression that CAPTalk threads on the regulation setting process were responsible for the multitude of agenda items on that topic....

And your recollection would be accurate.  However, in this case, the only idea which would work is one where there would be a viable alternative to getting the commissions from Vangard.  I don't think there is any in the petitions.  If the contributors on CT would offer some, as with the uniform threads, there may be some positive action.  Any other ideas except for raising dues?

Facebook groups, Twitter, and online petitions are meaningless to most corporations and large organizations.  They may pay them lip service because "Social Media" is the "in" thing this year, but they are primarily a necessary evil that corporations put up with because they have to.  Do you think the average business really wants to build a "community" with people who buy their products and are primarily complaining?  Hint: "no". 

Tech support and public contact past the sale means less profit on each respective sale - that's why most customer service reps have been farmed out to call centers in other countries.

Anything which can be submitted with a "click", or the equivalent effort, will get the equivalent attention by the person its aimed at.  Further, many of the comments on that group indicate little understanding of the actual problem, which further degrades the effectiveness.

Considering that NHQ doesn't even have an official Facebook presence means you are basically just talking amongst yourselves. 
You might as well yell into the Grand Canyon, at least the echo will give you the impression someone is listening.

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 01:36:41 AM
@ Spike
I don't know who you are, what your rank is, what you do for a living etc... but I found your response to my OPINION... Highly Disrespectful.

As exactly my issue too, there's just an awful lot of that same kind of attitude towards a lot of peoples posts, questions, and opinions. 

IE, it's a good thing I visited the Salt Mine in Hutchinson, KS, last July.

I keep that big huge salt rock beside the monitor here.. for CAPTalk. A grain isn't enough anymore.

Im just getting tired of all of the people disagreeing with me, so I'm replacing all of my comments with this message... If you cant accept someones opinion, go complain somewhere else, CAP dosent need more whining people... ITS A FRIGGIN OPINION, SUCK IT UP AND MOVE ON PEOPLE!! ???

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 01:36:41 AM
@ Spike

I don't know who you are, what your rank is, what you do for a living etc... but I found your response to my OPINION... Highly Disrespectful. I wouldn't care if you were Gen Courter, even she has to have some respect for her cadets, as we respect her. Your smart ass talking back did nothing for me, and I hope you know when you do things like that, people tend to tune you out and your poit does not get made. I chose not to read all of your response because of this. AGAIN, I was voicing my opinion, and if you can't handle that, please do not respond, and please do not teach others to act like that as well.

FACT: I have had to wait 5 weeks for back order items from Vanguard. FACT: I was the supply Sgt for my SQ for just over 2 years. FACT: I spent more than $1K, closer to 2K on CAP equipment, our squadron is the most active, in the wing (all of my money WAS reimbursed) FACT: I was trusted to run Supply that long because I have the maturity to not talk back to, other people, especially my subordinates, because they are the ones I need to trust me! OPINION: CAP and Vanguard should leave the Hock ALONE!

Chill the horses there. Your response is way out of line, and nowhere near what Spike posted in response to you. Further, when you admit to not having read someone's full response, that only reflects on you.

You believe in normative economics, great! Unfortunately, the law of the land and positive economics are the reality we live with, and whatever opinion you have of how CAP should deal with the Hock issue, there is only way the can deal with it is to uphold the contract they signed some 3 years or so ago. The Hock Shop lost my business and those who asked me about it due to quality issues and lack of inventory. As someone who now works for an American business, I have even less support for them, because I know what it's like to compete with the Chinese crap sellers. Vanguard on the other hand is a USA producer, and since you claim to hate monopolies, you should probably support them over the Taiwan producers the Hock uses.

The Facts are that Hock does not supply us everything we need.
The Facts are that Hock does not always get the quality right.
The Facts are that Hock does not always get the look right.

I still can spot who has a wing patch from the Hock, and who has one from CAPMart/Vanguard in my wing. How? Someone at Hock, or the sweatshop owner in Taiwan is colorblind.

The fact is, Vanguard is required to provide us with all of our insignia, even, as has been pointed out, the ones that sell maybe a dozen units a year. Do you know what I do for my company? If something sells 10 units a year, we don't make it when the stock runs out...in 5 years or so. Vanguard is required to make it nonetheless. The Hock does what my company does, except they don't even bother getting it in the first place. Vanguard I can trust to have the same Feik ribbon as the ones from CAPMart, and they will have the same dimensions. From the Hock...one week I'd get an AF ribbon, the next I'd get two Feik ribbons with different dimensions.

There has been a number of suppliers of CAP items that deserved an exemption more than the Hock, but no one started a petition for them. Simply being around for years avoids the issue of the fact that a legal binding contract is the end all answer in this case.

The "Tom is a member" doesn't cut it either, as an argument in my book either.

Does being a cop make it permissible to get away with things cops go after others for?

I know, not quite the same circumstance, but .. basically, Tom's membership status has zero to do with his offering product.

As I said before, the court filing is dated from August 2009, and the take down stuff commented on the web site is only a couple weeks old. Even within the notice it refers to the ongoing case.

So, until it's all out in the open, calling NHQ on the carpet over it, is rather pointless.

Point is, they are required to uphold their side of a contact. If that contract was "sole source awarding" then they, not the vendor they awarded it to, has to defend the contract. Otherwise they are breaking it, by not doing anything about it, thats condoning.

Im just getting tired of all of the people disagreeing with me, so I'm replacing all of my comments with this message... If you cant accept someones opinion, go complain somewhere else, CAP dosent need more whining people... ITS A FRIGGIN OPINION, SUCK IT UP AND MOVE ON PEOPLE!! ???

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 05:06:21 AM
Ok, I gotta stop posting on this one, but I was just reading through CAPR 52-16 Ch 3, (just brushing up on my CAC info) and I noticed this quote:

"Shoulder cords must be of the same style and shade stocked for CAP by Vanguard Industries (civilairpatrlstore.com)"

Haha, If I wanted to buy my shoulder cord from the parade store, who's gonna stop me... they are all the same color, same material provided by the same distributors... I laugh at this quote simply because it obviously shows favouritism for Vanguard, when in reality, CAP has no authority to tell me who I HAVE to purchase from... that my friends IS against my constitutional rights!  :clap:

You just answered your own question. It doesn't say it has to come from Vanguard, simply that it has to be the same style as the ones sold by Vanguard. And if it's all the same suppliers (it's not), then what difference does it make? Besides, the Honor Guard cord is atrocious. I know because I foolishly wore it.

Please don't try to downgrade >MY< time in CAP simply because I disagree with you/agree with someone you don't. I already explained that what you believe should be, isn't always the IS in this world. To basically call me a mindless drone that obeys superiors is just passing judgments you are in no position to make, while at the same time expecting fellow cadets to rally behind your opinion. I've budded heads with SMs more than I probably should have, but it was all part of >MY< personal growth with CAP.

P.S. Your Earhart is out of place on your ribbon rack.

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 05:06:21 AM
Haha, If I wanted to buy my shoulder cord from the parade store, who's gonna stop me... they are all the same color, same material provided by the same distributors... I laugh at this quote simply because it obviously shows favouritism for Vanguard, when in reality, CAP has no authority to tell me who I HAVE to purchase from... that my friends IS against my constitutional rights! 

You may wish to re-read the oath.  CAP is fully within its rights to tell you to do anything it wants, as long as they don't violate the law.
Your recourse is then to decide whether the benefits provided to you from your membership are worth compliance.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2010, 05:19:27 AM

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 05:06:21 AM
Haha, If I wanted to buy my shoulder cord from the parade store, who's gonna stop me... they are all the same color, same material provided by the same distributors... I laugh at this quote simply because it obviously shows favouritism for Vanguard, when in reality, CAP has no authority to tell me who I HAVE to purchase from... that my friends IS against my constitutional rights! 

You may wish to re-read the oath.  CAP is fully within its rights to tell you to do anything it wants, as long as they don't violate the law.
Your recourse is then to decide whether the benefits provided to you from your membership are worth compliance.

AHH, however, CAP does not have the constitutional right to tell me what to do with my own money! Yes I pay dues, and thats fair, but no group can order you to purchase items form a certain business, thats like your superiror ordering you to only eat at BK for the rest of your life, you cant buy food anywhere else! :p

and I know it doesnt say you HAVE to buy from Vanguard, but the fact that they put it in there, its basically advertising...

Im just getting tired of all of the people disagreeing with me, so I'm replacing all of my comments with this message... If you cant accept someones opinion, go complain somewhere else, CAP dosent need more whining people... ITS A FRIGGIN OPINION, SUCK IT UP AND MOVE ON PEOPLE!! ???

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 05:37:49 AM
AHH, however, CAP does not have the constitutional right to tell me what to do with my own money!

Which Constitution?  The US Constitution?  No, CAP can't force you legally to do much of anything.

The CAP Constitution?  Yes, it can pretty much tell you to do whatever it wants to, and if you wish to remain a member, you will
comply, or risk being disciplined or terminated.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 07, 2010, 05:47:59 AM

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 05:37:49 AM
AHH, however, CAP does not have the constitutional right to tell me what to do with my own money!

Which Constitution?  The US Constitution?  No, CAP can't force you legally to do much of anything.

The CAP Constitution?  Yes, it can pretty much tell you to do whatever it want to, and if you wish to remain a member, you will
comply, or risk being disciplined or terminated.

But yet still, it can not make me buy a spacific thing from a spacific place, unless the regs tell otherwise... but in this case its just a guidline. If 52-16 told me I had to buy from BK and no other restauraunt for the rest of my life, I would not have joined.... simple as that

Putting it in the reg is not advertising, it's telling you what it has to look like.

On the ribbon rack, if it's wrong and you know it is, why put it up?

Also, please show me where I put you down. This isn't a popularity contest, just because you have "300" people in CAP who supposedly agree with you 100%, doesn't mean it's right.

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 07, 2010, 05:56:56 AM
Putting it in the reg is not advertising, it's telling you what it has to look like.

On the ribbon rack, if it's wrong and you know it is, why put it up?

Also, please show me where I put you down. This isn't a popularity contest, just because you have "300" people in CAP who supposedly agree with you 100%, doesn't mean it's right.

I'm done... I don't know why I should have to prove myself to you, I am darn proud of my acheivments in this program, and I will always be greatful for the exeriance. I am loving all of the opportunities my SQ has offered, and all of the people I have met in this lovely program. I shouldnt have to prove how I feel about the program to other people. especially ones I have never met, on an internet forum.

Maybe you should walkaway, you're either not reading or not trying. No one is trying to make you prove anything. I asked how something in a reg is advertising. You chose to ignore it. I asked other questions, you ignore them.

Are you guys serious fighting over a discussion board? And you guys call y'all selves cadets. In GA Wing we go fist to face or nothing at all. We don't figh over them Internet like pussies.

Quote from: Cms.sloane on March 07, 2010, 06:15:58 AM
Are you guys serious fighting over a discussion board? And you guys call y'all selves cadets. In GA Wing we go fist to face or nothing at all. We don't figh over them Internet like pussies.

Ah, a new Cadet on CAPTalk.

Welcome, and how about you clean that post up?

This is a CIVIL discussion board. If you think your fist to face comment or any other part of your second post on CAPTalk adds to your credibility, be ready to be struck down in three, two, one...

Mr Caldwell, chillax. While your original comments might have had some merit, at this point you're just ranting and digging yourself a hole.

"Shoulder cords must be of the same style and shade stocked for CAP by Vanguard Industries (civilairpatrlstore.com)"

This is an example, not an advertisement. If what you buy from another source matches the item from Vanguard, then you've complied with the reg. The intent is to maintain uniformity. They set a standard, and you have to meet it. How you do so is up to you.

Did you ever think about the possibility that your alternate source might be getting their product from Vanguard and rebranding it? That happens all the time.

Did you bother to read the commentary about the various existing monopolies here in the US? If you want to mail something, guess what - it's USPS. Local utilities - one source. I think you get the idea. Vanguard  and CAP have a contract. It's up to both parties to honor the terms of that contract, and CAP's suit against The Hock Shop is part of that process, whether you like it or not. Ranting on here serves no useful purposes, and, like teaching a pig to sing, is annoying and a waste of time.

Quote from: C/Caldwell on March 07, 2010, 05:54:35 AMBut yet still, it can not make me buy a specific thing from a specific place, unless the regs tell otherwise... but in this case its just a guideline. If 52-16 told me I had to buy from BK and no other restaurant for the rest of my life, I would not have joined.... simple as that

You are missing the point Mr. Caldwell.

CAP is not saying you have to buy from BK or Vanguard.......but it gave Vanguard the sole rights to sell certain item.  Items that CAP controls.   CAP does not control shoulder cords....so they only tell you to buy one like the one Vanguard sells.  CAP does not control BDU's so they can't tell you to buy from Vanguard.

But CAP controls the hat cookie, and CAP cut outs and rank insignia.  They are not telling you you can't buy them from the Hock shop.....they are telling the Hock shop they can't sell them.

Get it straight.

Ding.