Everybody boycott Monster Cable!

[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]

[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.

It just makes me feel better.

[LandoSemtex]

ahhhh. this is america. The hate never dies.

[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.