Moderators MrKnobs Posted April 16, 2008 Moderators Share Posted April 16, 2008 Holy crap: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+products&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn= Defendants include: Children's Television Workshop, The Boston Red Sox, The Chicago Bears, etc. Good Lord, they've clearly lost their minds! They're suing the CocaCola Co! They're also suing a relative of mine. Thanks for that link. Terry D. P.S. Soon the word "monster" may be sued out of the dictionary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members oldman2 Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 I have never purchased any of the Monster products. Every review/compairson I ever read on them has been pretty much the same. The products are over hyped and over priced. After reading this thread I damned sure Will Not buy their products. Thanks for the post . One of the best things about these forums is the the info some great folks pass along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 It is really unbelieveable. Protecting your trademark is one thing, but I really don't think anyone is going to confuse "Booby Monster" with an allegedly audiophile cable. Stay tuned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spokenward Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 Billster has a good catch in the finely tuned threats. I think Mr. Blue Jean also did a wise overall attack. If Monster is going to try to play bully boy in every segment of the market - you know the Monster I, II, etc. and the subgrades - they weaken their claim to distinctive trade dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cry Logic Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 Obviously Monster Cable is in the business of litigationwith the cables being merely a starting point... They couldn't care less what people think of their cables.What they care about is how many $ they can make bystanding over people..... Gangsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RupertB Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 Good Lord, they've clearly lost their minds! They're suing the CocaCola Co! They're also suing a relative of mine. Thanks for that link. Terry D. P.S. Soon the word "monster" may be sued out of the dictionary! I passed the link on to my uncle who is a lawyer & musician. He tells me that the actions listed on the Patent & Trademark Office web-site aren't "lawsuits" in the classic sense but rather PTO "administrative actions" claiming brand dilution. Not that it makes them any less ridiculous; just a point for clarity. BTW, the fact that HC is owned by a major vendor of Monster's products makes me wonder if this thread's days are numbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Richard King Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 A case quite some time ago gave Monster Cables the reputation as a litigious company who would sue just about anyone. That case was Monster Cables vs. Monster.com, an on line employment service. I don't see the relation between an on line employment service and "high end" (that I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole) audio/video cables, but they seemed to think there was a connection in some way. A great article on the issues: http://www.monstergreed.com/DevnerPostArticle.pdf She thought someone was joking with her two years ago when she got a licensing agreement package from Monster Cable suggesting that she pay the wire-maker $1,000 a year and 1 percent of gross sales in exchange for use of the word "monster."She threw the packet out, thinking it was junk mail. Now she has an attorney who estimates legal fees could reach $50,000 in a trademark fight.Low life scums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 Yeah... I would definitely rate the products of theirs that I have bought as generally below normal standards of durability, Bruce Swedien sure seems to like them as I recall. I think he was even endorsing them. Of course I don't think he's ever actually had to pay for them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 It is really unbelieveable. Protecting your trademark is one thing, but I really don't think anyone is going to confuse "Booby Monster" with an allegedly audiophile cable.Stay tuned... I wonder if the stadium electronics at Fenway are wired with Green Monster cable, or if they went with a different product because of frivolous lawsuits?:poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dap99 Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 I don't spend time over in this neck of the woods, but this was a great post. I don't think I've ever bought Monster, and now I never will. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted April 16, 2008 Members Share Posted April 16, 2008 BTW, the fact that HC is owned by a major vendor of Monster's products makes me wonder if this thread's days are numbered. Not a chance. MF exerts zero influence over editorial. They promised me that on day one, and have kept their word 100%. Besides, don't forget that MF also sells cables from Planet Waves and other companies. If you need a cable, they don't care what you buy...they just prefer you'd buy it from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Bruce Swedien sure seems to them as I recall. I think he was even endorsing them. Of course I don't think he's ever actually had to pay for them either. I don't know about Bruce, and can't speak for him, but I can tell you my experiences with Monster products. I've purchased a few things from them - some cables that I bought before I was aware of some of the litigation stuff, and two Monster Power 2500's and two Monster Power PC 800 HC's very recently. The cables have been more miss than hit IMO. The heavy duty speaker cables I have hooked up to my JBL's has been fine. However, I had a couple of lightpipe cables from them, and they had MASSIVE ends - ends that were so large that you couldn't use two of them side by side on some products because the cable ends were too wide for both of them to fit into the jacks simultaneously. Both also broke fairly early on (in a low stress, permanent installation situation), so that kind of soured me on their cables. However, Gearmike had brought by a Monster Power 2500 and (IIRC) 3500 a couple of years ago, and I was impressed with their EMI / RFI filtering - they're pretty darned effective. Since I did my Pro Tools HD upgrade recently, I started noticing an intermittent buzz, but only in my monitors; not on my tracks. I checked and rechecked all my wiring, and everything looked good. It was driving me crazy, and it sounded like AC line noise, so I went ahead and put in the Monster Power units... they did improve the overall noise floor, but that intermittent buzz was still there. Turns out there was an issue of some sort with a new Mackie Big Knob I had installed at around the same time as the HD Accel system. As soon as I replaced it with a Presonus Central Station that I have in for a Keyboard magazine review, the buzzing stopped completely. So while they didn't "cure" the issue I was having, I'm happy with the Monster Power products. They did help lower the noise floor, and I assume, due to their warranty, that my gear is well protected from surges. I'm not crazy about Monster's over-enthusiastic (IMHO) litigation practices, but if they have a product that solves a problem for me, I will still buy it... but I'd be more inclined to be willing to look elsewhere for other options because of my past experiences with some of their products and due to their developing reputation concerning litigation. I don't mind someone protecting their brand / products, but OTOH, it's not like they invented the word "monster", and I don't see how they can prevent others from using it, even in a musical content, as long as that use doesn't conflict with or cause folks to confuse that thing with their products. I doubt anyone's going to confuse an energy drink for a speaker cable or power conditioner. Glenn Frey's 1982 solo album - "No Fun Aloud" - features the "Monstertones" on BGV's, and the word "monster" in the lyrics for the song "Party Town". I'm surprised Monster Cable hasn't sued him over that. Heck, I wonder if I have to stop using the expression I've been using for ages for great musicians, engineers, etc. - you know, "Bruce is a great engineer - he's a MONSTER." Actually, since I think he's on their "Famous Monsters" list, I don't think they could go after me for saying Bruce is a "monster", but if I use the term to describe my opinion about someone who isn't.... In the (understandable IMO) effort to protect their brand name, IMO, they've gone too far and are now actually hurting their company reputation. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cooterbrown Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 When I was working music retail, the Monster rep came in with a product demo, and after he was finished, he asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand, and asked "...does it bother you that you are basically a snake-oil salesman, and your company's success is built upon bull{censored}ting the ignorant? I almost got fired. The owner assuaged the rep by saying I had a "neurological disorder" and I had "probably forgot my meds,that day." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members D Charles Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 You can't copyright the title of a novel or a movie, how can you copyright one word in the name of a product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Richard King Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 Not a chance. MF exerts zero influence over editorial. They promised me that on day one, and have kept their word 100%. Besides, don't forget that MF also sells cables from Planet Waves and other companies. If you need a cable, they don't care what you buy...they just prefer you'd buy it from them Maybe MF should talk to Blue Jeans cables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members js1 Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 Made my day. js Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duddits Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 You can't copyright the title of a novel or a movie, how can you copyright one word in the name of a product? It wouldn't count as a copyright, it would count as a trademark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FSR Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 That was brilliant! based in Bermuda, eh? Outstanding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 It's nice to hear. Monster Cable is just a bit below pond slime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators MarkGifford-1 Posted April 17, 2008 Moderators Share Posted April 17, 2008 What I found the most interesting is that there must be more money in cable-making than there is in lawyering, for this guy to be a "former" lawyer. No wonder Monster tries so hard to protect their Golden Goose. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Richard King Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 I would love to see a breakdown on how much money the pond scums make in producing product vs. "licensing fees". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alan Roberts Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 What I found the most interesting is that there must be more money in cable-making than there is in lawyering, for this guy to be a "former" lawyer.No wonder Monster tries so hard to protect their Golden Goose.MG It's more like he made enough money in lawyering to have a cable company for a hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted April 17, 2008 Members Share Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not crazy about Monster's over-enthusiastic (IMHO) litigation practices, but if they have a product that solves a problem for me, I will still buy it... Yeah, I'd probably do the same. But I can tell you the next time I'm in need of some cable I'll certainly be checking out Blue Jean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members D Charles Posted April 18, 2008 Members Share Posted April 18, 2008 It wouldn't count as a copyright, it would count as a trademark. Hear what I mean, not what I say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ShakaCthulu Posted April 18, 2008 Members Share Posted April 18, 2008 Holy crap: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=&qs=monster+cable+products&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn= Defendants include: Children's Television Workshop, The Boston Red Sox, The Chicago Bears, etc. JESUS! They're worse than Disney! When are they going to sue the bands Monster Magnet and Monster Voodoo Machine, as well as the Cookie Monster? I hope this latest action blows up in their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.