Everybody boycott Monster Cable!

[derekwwww]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&qs=monster%20cable%20products&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable

[derekwwww]

here is a URL for protest against moster cable:

http://www.stopthemonster.com/

[jaguars_fan]

I have no problem with that! I have been using other cables for years just so I didn't have to give them any of my money! I am still passing the word!

[Resident Loser]

...Boris Karloff's role in "Frankenstein( The Monster) is in jeopardy as is Mary W. Shelly's book of the same title...and then there is "Monsters Inc." and every DJ who has ever referred to something as a "monster hit" while on air...Although since "Monster Mash" predates the company's existence by a few decades they have some "set" to attempt court action...and then there is Bigfoot, the Undertaker and all the Monster Trucks...

Probably all for the press quotient...there is only one thing worse than being talked about...and that is not being talked about...ooops! that was one of Wilde's...

jimHJJ(...and after all it's only wire...)

[jaguars_fan]

Let's not forget Cookie Monster from Sesame Street could be in danger of becoming extinct in the wake of Monster's (can I write their name without the registered trademark symbol and their expressed permission?) lawsuits. And what about Monster.com? Sureley there's an infringement if ever there was one!

[Rycher]

Noel Lee of Monster Cable has already replied to the accusations of them sueing other companies that use the word "Monster". He says it is simply not true. Monster is NOT sueing anyone. These are all just rumors. His response can be read somewhere on this forum, as well as in several other forums. Again, Monster Cable has not sued, or has no intentions of sueing anyone. They are all just rumors. :mad:

[Pat D]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&qs=monster%20cable%20products&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable
I've been boycotting all the exotic cable manufacturers! I don't need that sort of audio jewellery. Monster, Kimber, Nordost, etc.

[Resident Loser]

...if you visit the site ref'd to in the original post, you'll see the words defendent and plaintiff...now I ain't claimin' to be no legal-eagle, but dem sounds like adversarial terms where I come from...even if it's only some sort of objection to trademark/copyright cr@pola...

jimHJJ(...where is Phil Tower when you actually need him...)

[woodman]

Noel Lee of Monster Cable has already replied to the accusations of them sueing other companies that use the word "Monster". He says it is simply not true. Monster is NOT sueing anyone. These are all just rumors. His response can be read somewhere on this forum, as well as in several other forums. Again, Monster Cable has not sued, or has no intentions of sueing anyone. They are all just rumors. :mad:

So you think that his denial is all that's needed to dispel all of those horrid rumours? The day that I would believe anything that Mr. Lee says, is the very same day that I'd sit myself down to write a letter to dear old Santa Claus! The man is sorely lacking in ethics, scruples, and morals, IMO.

[musicoverall]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&qs=monster%20cable%20products&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable

I boycotted them years ago when I found their product to be crappy sounding. This is just another reason to do so.

[Rycher]

I don't know the man personaly, but I've never been one to believe in rumors. Fact is Monster makes a decent product, albeit a pricey one - but so are many other things in our commerce. I choose to stand at the sidelines and with hold my judgement until I know for a fact that these rumors are true. Until that happens I won't waste my time trying to "boycott" or "fight" the Monster. SONY is another big company that ADMITTEDLY does things to detract and screw-over the consumer. They put out a new product (SACD) targeted to replace the aging CD, yet produce a handful of "converted" PCM remasters, and then use scare-tactics and put out false (?) rumors of them pulling out of the SACD market. They also try to stronghold the flash memory market by introducing their own memory stick that can only be used on their products. They did the same thing with the VHS vs. Beta thing, and countless other technologies. If anyone needs to be boycotted, it should be SONY.

[markw]

Actually, Sony had beta on the market for quite some time before VHS hit. Sony sat on Beta technology and, I think the licensing fees were exhorbatent.

VHS technology was the result of several other companies getting together and rather than play Sony's game, in unison, developed and released several players that used this new format to compete with Sony AND had greater playing time than Beta.

Then Sony came out with better sound and this bought them a little time.

I'll forgive the VHS camp for their short lived, stop gap solution of having the linear sound tracks Dolby encoded. Then ALL the VHS manufacturers came out with VHS Hi-Fi. Vhs Hi-Fi rocked! ...and, with DPLs it still does for intents and purposes.

Some still swear that Beta was a better format but, by this time, it worked itself into a marketing corner. Eventually, it dies a quiet, barely mourned death.

Now, had Sony chose to license their Beta technology to other companies at workable figures, I'm sure it would still be around and may well have kicked VHS's butt. Licensing is good. Just ask Ray Dolby and George Lucas.

[risabet]

Actually, Sony had beta on the market for quite some time before VHS hit. Sony sat on Beta technology and, I think the licensing fees were exhorbatent.

VHS technology was the result of several other companies getting together and rather than play Sony's game, in unison, developed and released several players that used this new format to compete with Sony AND had greater playing time than Beta.

Then Sony came out with better sound and this bought them a little time.

I'll forgive the VHS camp for their short lived, stop gap solution of having the linear sound tracks Dolby encoded. Then ALL the VHS manufacturers came out with VHS Hi-Fi. Vhs Hi-Fi rocked! ...and, with DPLs it still does for intents and purposes.

Some still swear that Beta was a better format but, by this time, it worked itself into a marketing corner. Eventually, it dies a quiet, barely mourned death.

Now, had Sony chose to license their Beta technology to other companies at workable figures, I'm sure it would still be around and may well have kicked VHS's butt. Licensing is good. Just ask Ray Dolby and George Lucas.

Absolutely right, I sold both Beta and VHS machines and one day we decided to compare them side by side. We used 2 25' Proton monitors which were set up to look identical and compared two copies of the same film. The fact that everyone agreed that the Beta picture was better simply reinforces the poor marketing and decision making of Sony. The other issue was recording time VHS had more and that's what people wanted. I owned both for years until the Beta died. Unfortunately we are being presented with the same silliness in both video formats Blu-Ray vs DVD-HD and audio formats SACD vs DVD-A. When will they ever learn.

[jaguars_fan]

Sony, Cisco, Monster...They are all guilty of the same thing...appealing to the masses and gaining market share based on name recognition. Yes, each respective company has good, if not great great products (in some respects) but the simple fact is you can get the same quality at lower prices andmost of us know this.

Whether Monster is sueing other companies/people or not, we will never make a dent in their sales when they are all over Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Best Buy, Tweeters, Magnolia Hi Fi, and millions of other A/V stores out there and the masses recognize that name.

Add to that this real scientific test reported in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-01-16-monster-sidebar_x.htm

We are nothing more than a flea on an enormous dog butt!

Still...I don't buy Monster, never have, never will and I will never recommend them to anyone!

[gonefishin]

Don't forget to view all 10 pages in This Link (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+products&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=). I know the initial list only shows 5 pages...but just keep viewing them and you'll bring up page 6...then 7...then 8...and so on. Like I said...10 in all.


Heck, they even went after Da Bears for its MONSTERS OF THE MIDWAY phrase...MONSTER TRUCK MANIA is another favorite.


Since the above link only deals with trademark issues...you can also go here (http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/) and search their civil lawsuits.


dan

[Mork From Ork]

Okay, I am down with the boycott. Do I have to pull and discard Monster Cables I purchased and installed several years ago in order to support the boycott?

Thanks!

[umapet97]

Someone from Metallica get on Monsters board of directors?

[Geoffcin]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=64593&item=5751314472&rd=1

[Arc45]

Ok I'll add them to the list along with anything French.

[evil__betty]

Buy Acoustic Research cables and accessories instead. They make fantastic A/V accessories in a variety of lines from entry level to their Master Series.

[Florian]

So you think that his denial is all that's needed to dispel all of those horrid rumours? The day that I would believe anything that Mr. Lee says, is the very same day that I'd sit myself down to write a letter to dear old Santa Claus! The man is sorely lacking in ethics, scruples, and morals, IMO.


Now while i agree that sueing people over silly crap like that is ridiculous. I have to say "more power to him". He makes tons of money selling products that are average for a high price. Hell, people badmouth BOSE too (incl. me) but they are in the bizz of making money. And it works. I would give almost anything to be in that position.

[Jack N]

I havent visited this site since last summer sometime so this is the first that I have heard of this. I am certainly no legal expert, so Im wondering if somebody can clarify this. The cases listed in the original link are listed under the patent office web site. So are these actual lawsuits to the extent the common person such as myself thinks of them ? Or is it simply an attempt to monopolize the Monster name to gain royalties ? Or is it one in the same?

Regardless of which one, it sounds like a seriously misguided and inappropriate way to conduct a business. It certainly isnt going to win them any fans thats for sure. Its obvious that Monster is aware of this and reads the various A/V forums as the link to www.stopthemonster.com has literally been hijacked. You now get a letter defending Monster Cables actions. This in itself makes me suspicious.

With the A/V cable industry being viewed largely as a snake oil industry praying on the uninformed and/or the gullible, the last thing it needs is lawsuits that sound like something from the National Enquirer or the Jerry Springer Show.

Personally I dont like seeing this type of thing hurting our beloved past time. I think we as A/V enthusiasts owe it to ourselves to find out just what these actions by Monster really mean from a legal perspective, and put them into lay terms that we can understand. Then we will be able to turn this into a much more meaningful forum, and then decide whether a boycott is appropriate. Is there someone out there who can shed some light on this for us ? Or, if you know of someone who can, please have him/her contribute. Are there any volunteers?

[MARTINLOGAN123]

I encourage everyone to stop buying moster cable products. They are sueing other companies for the reason of them having the word 'monster' in their company name. How stupid is that. Such as: discovery channel for 'monster garage', the band monster magnet, plus many more. Check out:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&qs=monster%20cable%20products&page=1

Maybe I should start a company with a commonly used word then sue anyone else using the word????

i know i wont be buying any monster cable

While you are at the library learning good punctuation, you should also pick up one of the thousands of books on laws and rights that a company has on copyrights. If Noel Lee copyrighted MONSTER than he has legal rights to not allow it's use for profit from third parties. Are you honestly telling me that you would not buy Sony, Lexus, or Rolex products if they ever sue someone for illegal use of their copyrighted names. What next? Allow them to use their patents, ideas, or even products without their consent? From the company who made the trailer you live in to the wal-mart clothes you wear, THEY ALL PROTECT THEIR NAME WITH COPYRIGHTS.
In addition, this is an audio review forum. People discuss the quality of products here, not their own petty personal agenda to bash corporate America. If you want to do that go join a Greenpeace or Adbusters. But beware, their names are copyrighted.

[jocko_nc]

Is this thread real???

Rolex, Sony, Sears, et all are unique names. I don't know about Rolex, but the two other were actual people.

Problem is, the word "monster" and its various uses have been in common language for centuries. To claim such a common thing as your own and try to use the courts to eliminate all other use thereof is lunacy. The Courts should be disbanded for even allowing such a claim. There is nothing unique or creative about using "monster" to describe something. It is a word. It commonly used as an adjective to modify a noun. Same goes for "mega", "super", and "mondo,". All are common in language. May as well include "big" and "large".

&^$% it, I am going to claim copyright on the word "cable" and sue his butt off in return. Better yet, how about "the" or "and", that ought to be a hoot. Or the comma. That idea was mine too!

When do I get my money?

jocko

[thepogue]

Send me all your Monster EQ...thats right....ever lil peice...and I'll heap it all up...call the news boys...and put the gas to her!!...yeaaaa!!....



oh..would it be cool...if I...ah.....kinda sift through the demonic stuff and...well...ya know...I mean...it's all the devils work anyways...and...well...ah...ya know


SEND ALL MONSTER PRODUCTS TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS-


ThePogue
6674 IlltakewhatIcan get Lane
Forfree, Virginia 23072

[trollgirl]

...as Monster Cable products are on my personal "no buy" list, and have been for some time. I like to keep ahead of the curve, having given up beef years ago, before anyone had heard of prions...CJD is not a nice way to go out.

Laz

[MARTINLOGAN123]

Is this thread real???

Rolex, Sony, Sears, et all are unique names. I don't know about Rolex, but the two other were actual people.

Problem is, the word "monster" and its various uses have been in common language for centuries. To claim such a common thing as your own and try to use the courts to eliminate all other use thereof is lunacy. The Courts should be disbanded for even allowing such a claim. There is nothing unique or creative about using "monster" to describe something. It is a word. It commonly used as an adjective to modify a noun. Same goes for "mega", "super", and "mondo,". All are common in language. May as well include "big" and "large".

&^$% it, I am going to claim copyright on the word "cable" and sue his butt off in return. Better yet, how about "the" or "and", that ought to be a hoot. Or the comma. That idea was mine too!

When do I get my money?

jocko

Yes this thread is real. If you make a profit from a third party's copyrighted name then you are breaking the law. Don't waste your breath on me telling you for a third time that it is the law. Go read a book on it. If you have an issue with it, either take it up with congress, or leave the country and go to vanuatu where copyright issues aren't enforced.
And by the way, here are some common words that are copyrighted........

Monopoly. Clue. Kleenex. Boston. Alpine. ASK. Viper. Cobra. Mustang. Avalanche. Escalade. Pilot. Odyssey. Sharp. Aqua. Borders. DONUT. Camel. Winston. Parliament. CALIFORNIA. Citizen. Eclipse. M. Liberty. Fidelity. Colonial. Titan. Halo. APPLE. Auto. Yellow. Brown. Instruments. Health. Olive Garden. The Card. Visa. Weekly. Foreign Policy. The Review. The Economist. Ebony. Black. Muslim. Dubs. Truckin. Trucks. Travel. Tourist. Typist. The Traveller. Trader. Cost. Candy. Monarch. Caesars. Wild Wild West. Surge. Elite. Premeir. Prodigy. Wizard. Jaguars. Indians. Yankees. Blue Jays. Mariners. Eagles. Cardinals. Redskins. Cowboys. Giants. And Many More.

Another point, In your quote you said the following....

"Common Language" is a copyrighted trademark of Speak Easy, which teaches languages to students in middle school.

"The Courts" is a copyrighted trademark of FOX Network, Which was a 2 season show that aired in the fall months of 97 and 98.

and "Big" already is copyrighted by Blue Sky's Ent. Which was a hit movie ( so they say) starring Tom Hanks a few years back.


You are missing the point completely.

Almost every word is copyrighted, But you have to be using the word SOLELY to make a profit for yourself or others you represent.

[MARTINLOGAN123]

Is this thread real???

.
To claim such a common thing as your own and try to use the courts to eliminate all other use thereof is lunacy. The Courts should be disbanded for even allowing such a claim. There is nothing unique or creative about using "monster" to describe something. It is a word.
jocko

And by the way. If your grudge is with the court systems and the judicial society, then take it up with them. I'm sure they will agree with you and not blow you off.

Good luck.

[jocko_nc]

Nice try, MARTINLOGAN. You put up a nice list of common words that have been trademarked, but you miss the point completely.

Obviously, one can copyright a trademark name, image, or device. However, one cannot exclude that word from commercial use wholly unrelated to your business, especially if it is a common word used widely used in language. Here is how this will go down. "Monster" is an adjective. Here it is used to describe the unique characteristics of a cable and, now, electrical products used in home electronic applications. Therefore, a trademark is claimed on the term "Monster" to describe the same. The trademark owner does not have a trademark on the word "Monster" itself or the right to exclude all other commercial use of the word. He cannot strike it from the language. He cannot preclude others from using it to describe their unrelated products, be it a shrimp, a hamburger, or a children's book. Others must not copy his font or stylistic device in a manner that might be construed as an attempt to imply that the two are related, as though the publisher of a children's book would want to imply the book was the product of Monster Cables. The trademark exists to protect his commercial interests and nothing more.

Jeez, is the nuance here so difficult to see? Apple is a trademark name for Apple Computer. They also have a nice stylized logo of an apple. That does not mean they own the word apple. There are thousands of companies in the apple business who no doubt use the work apple in their business names, trademarked or otherwise. There may even be a trademarked variety of apple known as a monster apple. There is no conflict, however, they are not in the computer business and cannot be reasonably considered passing themselves off as related to Apple Computer. Apple computer cannot strike the word "apple" from the language nor deny that it is the name of a fruit.

Bottom line, this whole deal is heavyhanded and wrong. I agree with those who say the actions of this company are an embarrassment to free enterprise. I bet the lawyers who brought the complaints know as much and realize they would lose these cases. What the heck, they are getting paid. Their hope is to shake out some suckers who don't want to match legal fees, flex their muscles, and attempt to broaden their brand name. We can argue this here to no conclusion. The proof will come when these idiots lose one or more of these complaints. They may ultimately pay. I think we have an individual who has mucho money, a huge ego, and little brains.

Take another look at your books and see the past the black and white.

jocko

[vinylphile]

No problem in not buying Monster Cable products. Never did like them.

Their lawsuit(s), if true, make about as much sense as Spike Lee did when he sought an injunction against Spike TV using the word "Spike" in their name. Megalomania run rampant...

[thepogue]

good job laddy.,...Peace Pogue



Nice try, MARTINLOGAN. You put up a nice list of common words that have been trademarked, but you miss the point completely.

Obviously, one can copyright a trademark name, image, or device. However, one cannot exclude that word from commercial use wholly unrelated to your business, especially if it is a common word used widely used in language. Here is how this will go down. "Monster" is an adjective. Here it is used to describe the unique characteristics of a cable and, now, electrical products used in home electronic applications. Therefore, a trademark is claimed on the term "Monster" to describe the same. The trademark owner does not have a trademark on the word "Monster" itself or the right to exclude all other commercial use of the word. He cannot strike it from the language. He cannot preclude others from using it to describe their unrelated products, be it a shrimp, a hamburger, or a children's book. Others must not copy his font or stylistic device in a manner that might be construed as an attempt to imply that the two are related, as though the publisher of a children's book would want to imply the book was the product of Monster Cables. The trademark exists to protect his commercial interests and nothing more.

Jeez, is the nuance here so difficult to see? Apple is a trademark name for Apple Computer. They also have a nice stylized logo of an apple. That does not mean they own the word apple. There are thousands of companies in the apple business who no doubt use the work apple in their business names, trademarked or otherwise. There may even be a trademarked variety of apple known as a monster apple. There is no conflict, however, they are not in the computer business and cannot be reasonably considered passing themselves off as related to Apple Computer. Apple computer cannot strike the word "apple" from the language nor deny that it is the name of a fruit.

Bottom line, this whole deal is heavyhanded and wrong. I agree with those who say the actions of this company are an embarrassment to free enterprise. I bet the lawyers who brought the complaints know as much and realize they would lose these cases. What the heck, they are getting paid. Their hope is to shake out some suckers who don't want to match legal fees, flex their muscles, and attempt to broaden their brand name. We can argue this here to no conclusion. The proof will come when these idiots lose one or more of these complaints. They may ultimately pay. I think we have an individual who has mucho money, a huge ego, and little brains.

Take another look at your books and see the past the black and white.

jocko

[hermanv]

Not far from my home is a place called "The Peter Rabbit Chocolate Factory". They got sued by Beatrix Potter the author of Peter Rabbit for copyright infringement.

The court said "...there is no relation between Peter Rabbit books and Peter Rabbit chocolate, the consumer is unlikely to be confused..." and threw out the suit.

Of course there is no real guarantee that any given judge has the necessary mental accumen to spot the difference.

[MARTINLOGAN123]

Nice try, MARTINLOGAN. You put up a nice list of common words that have been trademarked, but you miss the point completely.

Obviously, one can copyright a trademark name, image, or device. However, one cannot exclude that word from commercial use wholly unrelated to your business, especially if it is a common word used widely used in language. Here is how this will go down. "Monster" is an adjective. Here it is used to describe the unique characteristics of a cable and, now, electrical products used in home electronic applications. Therefore, a trademark is claimed on the term "Monster" to describe the same. The trademark owner does not have a trademark on the word "Monster" itself or the right to exclude all other commercial use of the word. He cannot strike it from the language. He cannot preclude others from using it to describe their unrelated products, be it a shrimp, a hamburger, or a children's book. Others must not copy his font or stylistic device in a manner that might be construed as an attempt to imply that the two are related, as though the publisher of a children's book would want to imply the book was the product of Monster Cables. The trademark exists to protect his commercial interests and nothing more.

Jeez, is the nuance here so difficult to see? Apple is a trademark name for Apple Computer. They also have a nice stylized logo of an apple. That does not mean they own the word apple. There are thousands of companies in the apple business who no doubt use the work apple in their business names, trademarked or otherwise. There may even be a trademarked variety of apple known as a monster apple. There is no conflict, however, they are not in the computer business and cannot be reasonably considered passing themselves off as related to Apple Computer. Apple computer cannot strike the word "apple" from the language nor deny that it is the name of a fruit.

Bottom line, this whole deal is heavyhanded and wrong. I agree with those who say the actions of this company are an embarrassment to free enterprise. I bet the lawyers who brought the complaints know as much and realize they would lose these cases. What the heck, they are getting paid. Their hope is to shake out some suckers who don't want to match legal fees, flex their muscles, and attempt to broaden their brand name. We can argue this here to no conclusion. The proof will come when these idiots lose one or more of these complaints. They may ultimately pay. I think we have an individual who has mucho money, a huge ego, and little brains.

Take another look at your books and see the past the black and white.

jocko

I feel as if there is two different jockos. One that argued a very light subject and only skimmed the top with little knoweledge on that actual point of the conversation, and the other takng it very deep and explaining to me the same point I was trying to explain to him.
Although you (from what it seems) and I understand the same point I still will take the side of Lee with his rights.

He is allowed to sue anybody he wants for almost any reason he wants, whether it is Monster Garage, The Cookie Monster, or even Apple Electronics, he has the right.

He can sue me, or even you Jocko for anything he has legal rights to, (and here's the kicker) OR DOESN'T HAVE legal rights to. IT DOES NOT MEAN HE WILL WIN.

In the USA, we are allowed to sue anybody for any type of infringement on our rights. Let it be serious or not the rules still apply. I am not saying I am taking Noel Lee's side and that I hope he wins, or that I am going to boycott his products BECAUSE he is doing something he has the right to do. All I am saying that it seems awfully shallow of people to try to hang Lee over something everyone in the country can do LEGALLY and without question.

Now if you choose to not buy his stuff because his wires are too expensive, because they are purple, because they use plastic, or even because he chooses to sue someone... that is all OK. I would still make the following arguement. That it would be a stupid reason to try to pawn off on people to stop buying his cable. That is all. If people do choose to not buy Monster for any reason and they join that little inner circle that shares the same reasoning behind it, GREAT. But I will try to look a little deeper into a reason to not buy something

. OR in this case, join a cult.

[hermanv]

He is allowed to sue anybody he wants for almost any reason he wants, whether it is Monster Garage, The Cookie Monster, or even Apple Electronics, he has the right.

He can sue me, or even you Jocko for anything he has legal rights to, (and here's the kicker) OR DOESN'T HAVE legal rights to. IT DOES NOT MEAN HE WILL WIN.

In the USA, we are allowed to sue anybody for any type of infringement on our rights. All this would be fine and proper if the courts were a level playing field: They are not. Money provides amazing leverage in todays courts system. Teams of lawyers can win cases that individulas couldn't hope to win. Using corporate money to take on smaller players is part of the complaint in this thread. Legal or not, it is bullying plain and simple, contemptable, I think this kind of behavior should be condemned not defended.

[jocko_nc]

Obviously, any person can bring almost any complaint against any other person for any reason. It is his right to do so. Such complaints can be absolutely absurd, yet a court likely would allow them to procede. Personally, I think there needs to be more of a filter or some sort of gatekeeper to keep the absurd out. However, that is our system.

The right to sue becomes sinister when it is abused by filing complaints that a reasonable person in the profession would consider weak or even absurd. The threat of legal action is a tool, a weapon that can be wielded against others to great effect. The beauty is that the process itself becomes the punishment, your opponent loses no matter what. You can destroy someone regardless of the circumstances, or merely for the sport. I do not think our system was conceived this way. Unfortunately, the courts have become less interested in cautious reason and judicious application of the law, favoring more activist agendas. It is a high stakes free-for-all where anything can and will happen.

Does this company have the right to bring these cheesy complaints? Yes. I also have the right to criticize what I see as a malicious attempt by an egomaniac to misuse the legal system as his personal hired thugs. Boudroux's Cajun Kitchen "Home of the Monster Shrimp" never did anything to him and never would. They never could, even if they wanted to. This is greed, ego, and vanity at its worst.

Just because something is technicaly legal does not mean it is right. If I find your wallet on the sidewalk, it is perfectly legal for me to keep it. I can take the cash out of it. I can call you up and hold it for ransom. Does that make it right? I can shoot your dog in front of your nose if it strays onto my property. Does that make it right? If society at large starts operating on the fringes of what is legal, civilization is doomed. That is a fact. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans, and people in general, are inherently good and tend to do what is right. That fact, not law, is what makes our society work. Please do not so quick to justify someone's actions merely because they are legal.

jocko

[MARTINLOGAN123]

Such complaints can be absolutely absurd, yet a court likely would allow them to procede. Personally, I think there needs to be more of a filter or some sort of gatekeeper to keep the absurd out. However, that is our system.

Don't worry Jocko. There is a gatekeeper in place. I think a more accurate name in today's society would be called a Judge, and the filter could also be known as a jury. And they are solely responsible for what is absurd and what is not. Whether you agree with them or not is totally your choice


Just because something is technicaly legal does not mean it is right.

That could be correct for anyone.For example...
What do you think of praying in school?
What do you think of Capital Punishment?
What about Abortion?
What about War?
Churches not paying taxes?
Government loans for Casinos?

When something is "technically legal" IT IS RIGHT. It is right for our society and can not be punishable, if a dispute comes from uncertainties then they go see the gatekeeper.

Now if your definition of right is more "to the right" as it seems, then you are arguing that it is not morally correct for you to follow the laws set by our government. Having morals is fine but watch out for when "Right" crosses into the realm of "LEGAL" Morals usually lose.


If I find your wallet on the sidewalk, it is perfectly legal for me to keep it. I can take the cash out of it. I can call you up and hold it for ransom. Does that make it right? I can shoot your dog in front of your nose if it strays onto my property. Does that make it right? If society at large starts operating on the fringes of what is legal, civilization is doomed. That is a fact. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans, and people in general, are inherently good and tend to do what is right. That fact, not law, is what makes our society work. Please do not so quick to justify someone's actions merely because they are legal.

jocko

Just a reminder. It is illegal to hold things ransom and shoot dogs for a first offense of trespassing (unless they are attacking). However, you are allowed to not like the law, and myself for "justifying someone's actions merely because they are legal"

I feel like we're both on the left side of the scale Jocko. It just seems that you are a little too extreme for me. I believe that a society could work on just morals just fine. That is, until this fictional society's population surpasses three. Then we'll have to set morals aside and be governed by a certain amount of laws. Whether those laws agree totally with your morals completely or not. The thing to remember is that a person's morals could vary, and do, from person to person. It's finding that common ground that allows us to survive.

Joshua

[jocko_nc]

No, were not too far off, Joshua. We just disagree on precise meaning of what is legal and what is morally right. Should we call it "ethics" instead? Admittedly, the difference is slight, but I feel it is profound. And an interesting topic, too...

Laws cannot govern the actions of a society, morals do. Laws exist to manage the small percentage of citizens who would act immorally. Laws act as both a deterrent and as a punishment. Laws cannot possibly be 100% enforced without creating a 100% police state. Every single action of our every day cannot be subject to court review. It is not possible. Society works because the vast majority of people live their lives within the moral constraints of society, that is, they generally do the right things. Taken further, no laws can exist that violate the consensus morality. Or, conversely, if a large group of people decide to violate a law, that law ceases to exist. In the end, only consensus morality can govern a society.

We can give-and-take around the fringes of "morality" and the working definitions of such can vary. However, we cannot stray from a basic moral framework. Just imagine if a large segment of a society were to genuinely believe that theft and murder are morally correct or merely morally justified. No amount of law could rule the day. The very police, judges, and juries would be thieves and murderers themselves. (I can think of several instances if this right off hand) Even in a "civil" society, laws can be unlawful, immoral, abusive, or merely abused. To take the approach that anything not specifically illegal is therefore legal and right (dare we say "moral"?) is destructive to society. It is not a problem if only a handful of hyper-aggressive persons choose to push the limits of legality and tread in the realm of immorality. We have courts and judges to (hopefully) sort these things out. However, if the bulk of society decides to do the same, society will break down. We cannot all push to the limit of the law. We cannot possibly litigate our every action.

If a society can ever get to a point where it cannot define its morals, then that society ceases to exist for the reasons above.

FWIW, as far a political beliefs, I am probably more of a libertarian than anything. I do, however, recognize the importance of Society. I distrust excesses of both free enterprise and government, though between the two, free enterprise wins out easily. I am not a big fan of organized religions, but recognize that most of them are 90% correct. Societies (and religions) that have flourished seem to share a common set of basic universal morals. I do not think this has happened by mistake.

Peace.

jocko

[thepogue]

I mean come on....money influance the courts?....you sure??? ;)
Pogue




[QUOTE=hermanv]. Money provides amazing leverage in todays courts system. Teams of lawyers can win cases that individulas couldn't hope to win. QUOTE]

[squeegy200]

I've been boycotting all the exotic cable manufacturers! I don't need that sort of audio jewellery. Monster, Kimber, Nordost, etc.

Same here, Made my own speaker cables using instructions on DIY sites.

[GMichael]

Just because you have a right to do something, that does not mean that it's the right thing to do. It's not that hard to understand. No examples are given, or should be needed.

[swicken]

It's okay, the cables suck anyway.

Audioquest FTW.

[SammyMac]

Hi,
I got jumbo cable instead of monster, at Jaycar electronics out here in australia. Pretty cheap cable with OFC copper, and for my other speaks i got Jamo cable, which appears to be all silver, but both sound great. I think there is better cable out there than Monster, maybe even the Jamo cable i have:D

[RICKY009]

i've experimented with quite a few cables and found that monster cables, although relatively inexpensive, are inferior to others. i found that "TRIBUTARY" makes a good, inexpensive cable. so does AUDIOQUEST.

[RICKY009]

nordost cables are superb, although very expensive. their VALHALLA LINE OF I/C's + SPEAKER CABLES are among the worlds' finest. PRICE: FOR A PAIR OF VALHALLA INTERCONNECT=$4000 PER METER. SPEAKER CABLES=$5995/1.5 METER PER PAIR!! BUT IF ONE CAN AFFORD THEM, BUY THEM. OR, AT LEAST AUDITION THEM. OBVIOUSLY FOR VERY HIGH-END SYSTEMS= GREATER THAN $30,000.

[jmnormand]

from what i can see monster cable is not "sueing" over trade mark infingment. what they are doing is filing opposition to every company that tries to trade mark any thing with the word monster in it. basicaly they seem to think they should have exclusive rights to use the term monster in all marketing. just another instance of ip abuse.

all in all id say this is pretty low on the list of reasons to boycott monster cable. presonaly i would stick to the over pricing and brutish marketing/sales techniques.

[ToddL]

from what i can see monster cable is not "sueing" over trade mark infingment. what they are doing is filing opposition to every company that tries to trade mark any thing with the word monster in it. basicaly they seem to think they should have exclusive rights to use the term monster in all marketing. just another instance of ip abuse.

all in all id say this is pretty low on the list of reasons to boycott monster cable. presonaly i would stick to the over pricing and brutish marketing/sales techniques.

This is hillarious and true. You sir, have your head on the right way.

[Naam]

Smoke some dope.

[LandoSemtex]

The Boycott is on. Here are some places I think we should contact and let them know that we're not going to be buying the monster cable product any more.

Best Buy Public Relations Department
> Email: NewsCenter@bestbuy.com
> Phone: 612-292-NEWS (6397)
> After Hours Pager: 612-618-6703

--------

Radio Shack Customer Care

Riverfront Campus
Mail Stop #CF3-311
300 RadioShack Circle
Fort Worth, TX 76102-1964
Phone: 1-800-THE-SHACK (1-800-843-7422)
Email: RadioShack.Customer.Care@RadioShack.com

---------

And Circuit City has some contact/email page under help that goes to their corporate office.

http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/contactUs.do?mail_type=other

[hermanv]

Holy thread revival.

How about a Bose boycott too?

[Feanor]

Holy thread revival.

How about a Bose boycott too?

Yeah, but Monster Cable/Noel Lee have been up to their shenanigans all the while since '05. Viz. actions against:

Monster Mini Golf (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/53/533398.html), and
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm).
The latter case isn't about the "Monster" name, (for a change), but about generic designs that vaguely resemble Monster Cable patents. By the way, if you want to see list of frivolous patents presumably intented to harass actual or potential compeditors, check out Dell's patent page (http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/about_dell/company/patents/enus_online?~ck=ln&c=ca&l=en&lnki=0&s=corp).

As for Bose, I have never bought, nor can I conceive of ever buying, any of their products.

[LandoSemtex]

Yeah I can't believe the amount of bs that monster cable has pulled over the years, not to mention getting away with a lot of it. I think it's a fresh truckload of holiday cheer that they're getting all this bad rap just before CES. I'm going to the show with a few of my other production friends and I guess that monster mini golf has something big planned about all this lawsuit crap there. anyone else going to this?

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

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3/chuckhatesnoelii7.jpg

[nightflier]

In the USA, we are allowed to sue anybody for any type of infringement on our rights. Let it be serious or not the rules still apply. I am not saying I am taking Noel Lee's side and that I hope he wins, or that I am going to boycott his products BECAUSE he is doing something he has the right to do. All I am saying that it seems awfully shallow of people to try to hang Lee over something everyone in the country can do LEGALLY and without question.

OK, I'll bite. Maybe the "right to sue" should be amended. In other Westernized countries, this right is severely curtailed and as a result, the legal system is fairer, more efficient, and less crowded. Maybe our over litigious society needs to rethink its priorities.

And the notion that deep corporate pockets do not influence the the process is ludicrous. For every Erin Brockovitch, there are thousands of poor saps who don't succeed in fighting corporate lawsuits. We dismiss the reality that in the US, corporations have too much power and the legal system, and by extension the government, is not designed to stand in the way. It should, but it doesn't.

Corporations like Monster, Bose, and Sony use the legal system to fight, nay obliterate, competition. This competition is your mom & pop stores, the folks who make a better widget, and the people who are actual capitalists. As long as corporations can continue to buy the legal system, competition will suffer. This is bad for everyone. And when there is no more competition, and the economy reduces sales, then these corporations search for new parties to obliterate. So Monster will next go after Monster's Inc, and the Cookie Monster, because it has to maintain growth and pay dividends to its share-holders. The corporation, by necessity is perpetually growing and destroying.

If at some point, they do run out of expandable options and they need to buy time to find "new markets", then indeed the stock price crumbles. But then they can always go to the government and request a bail-out. After all, the government cannot allow such a large corporation to "fail", right? Since most people who have been elevated to public office did so with their help, there is little reason to believe that these same people won't bail them out - and they do so religiously. After all these public servants will need to find work when they are termed out of office. Don't let that revolving door hit you on your way out! And this process is cyclical and seems to repeat itself every decade or so (does the name Charles Keating sound familiar?)

Just for the record, there is nothing special about Monster cable. At the bottom of their line-up it sounds, and is constructed, just as bad as the cheapest stuff made by child-labor in China. At the high-end it is just as good as the stuff made at any of a number of US mom & pop cable manufacturers who charge a fraction of the cost for exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact, that's all Monster is, just re-branded to sell at a premium - same goes for AudioQuest, Nordost, Kimber and yes, even Tributaries. High end cables sound slightly different from each other over long runs and with very sensitive equipment. But they don't sound better, just different from the other guys. This is therefore no reason to pay for the name. Monster knows this and that is why they are on the prowl for "new markets". In this economy, when people aren't buying into their marketing nonsense, that means Monsters Inc., and the Cookie Monster. And when Sesame Street is dead and buried, they'll sue Blue Jeans for cables that "appear to be violating copyright."

This is the system - it works for a few people, and hurts most. Welcome. Blue pill, anyone?

[Groundbeef]

I can't belive we are commenting on a thread that is 3 years old, and brought back from the dead by a member with 1 post.

[filecat13]

I can't belive we are commenting on a thread that is 3 years old, and brought back from the dead by a member with 1 post.

Me neither, but I love it when the pitchforks and torches come out, and I do detest Noel Lee and his corporate ethics. :dita:

It just makes me feel better.

[LandoSemtex]

ahhhh. this is america. The hate never dies.

[hermanv]

There is this car, it's a nice car. Comes with a Bose Premium sound system, damn I'd sure hate to hear their non-premium version since the premium one sucks big time.

[Ajani]

I can't belive we are commenting on a thread that is 3 years old, and brought back from the dead by a member with 1 post.

I thought the same thing myself at first... but this is actually a fairly interesting topic...

Reviving a 'which amp to buy for $300?' thread from 3 years ago, by a poster with only 1 post, is what usually happens and is pretty stupid...

[LandoSemtex]

I thought the same thing myself at first... but this is actually a fairly interesting topic...

Reviving a 'which amp to buy for $300?' thread from 3 years ago, by a poster with only 1 post, is what usually happens and is pretty stupid...

thanks ajani, and just so it stays entertaining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38CRLVLjOhM

I'm not a purveyor of the L.O.L phenomenon, but i this case it was true.