Everybody boycott Monster Cable!

[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

[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/conta...ail_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, and
Blue Jeans Cable.

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.

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