http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/monster-call-to-arms

Didn't even look at the article, But They Suck!!

Monster, it is so easy to dislike them.

Interesting read. I hope that the Monster Mini Golf folks win!

I am tired of Monster and their antics, it would be nice if they just disappeared.

Guys, what do you expect from a company who’s ads are so fictitious George Lucus would be proud!!

Monster uses midi-chlorians in their products? Sounds like a winner.

How ridiculous!

Check out their CEO's response. It's even worse! All throughout he says "we've never brought suits against company x/y/z"

However, this appears to be a very carefully worded truth that avoids what they have done... send threatening letters (threatening lawsuits, if not actually suing companies) demanding royalty payments from anyone under the sun with the gall to use the word monster in their name.

Before reading this, I thought I couldn't possibly dislike Monster any more than I already did... wrong!

And dislike them even more!

They're just living up to their name?

Hey, I work for Monster. Monster.ca that is (the on line job board). We are a 2 Billion dollar software company and the industry leader. I'd like to to see the little cable company come after us???

pn

maybe you should sue them?

This is heating up nicely. BJC is offering to donate a portion of some profits over the next few days to help out the golf company.

Need to buy some cables for yourself, or as gifts?

Yeah, now there's a good idea! I hadn't thought of that. I'll send our legal team an email on Monday.

You'd be amazed how many people think I work for that cable company when I tell them I work for Monster. I tell them we help people find jobs, not sell them snake oil.

pn

i thought monster.ca did get a letter from monster cable, or maybe that was rumour given they had not gone after them yet though they had the most obvious internet website for a lawsuit attack.

I've been making it a point to go out of my way to tell future audio/videophiles how much Monster Sucks. Now I think I'll start telling strangers, too!

I've been telling anyone and everyone the same thing Mark, but now I'll take your advice and add a little audio/video word of advice to the early Sunday morning door knockers after I have a healthy debate

Yeah my sister thinks "montser cables are awesome"... I had to teach her why they aren't

some updates at audioholics:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/monster

And a blog about the whole thing from monster's point of view (at monster cable website:)

http://www.monstercable.com/monster_truth/

Noel Lee on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljEelGaB3bE

"They're a small company". "They don't have the money to sue anyone".

Yeah, they're just a mom and pop business who sells $100 cables that cost %4 to manufacture. I feel really sorry for them.

One of these days somebody should organize a class action lawsuit against Monster for ripping off the consumer....
My .2cents

You would have to go after a lot more companies than just Monster.

Charles, you're killing our buzz against Monster.

Oops. *redistributes pitchforks and torches*

FYI, in the Garmin commercials, the mall is called "Monster Mall." Another opportunity for Monster Cable to bring the litigation rain.

Ow, my eye!

I'm no good at mob rioting.

Honest to God, the man said "profitize."

This doesn't make me feel sorry for Noel Lee. The guy has the charisma of a sewer rat, so I don't even feel good about being shovelled the BS.

We're a small company, we don't have a lot of money... that makes you a bad businessman if you can't operate a grey-area legal business with an 8000% markup

We have many different varieties of trademarks, from monster audio cable to power cable, to ethernet cable to mints... Yes, you run the gamut between wire and mints. How diverse.

Bren R.

That gamut is known as the taint, right?

I'm going to copyright "Douche Bag" and then sue Noel Lee because he epitomizes one.

I don't want him giving Douche Bag a bad rap. We have standards.

Douché.

Careful, Charles, you don't want my lawyers coming after you!

Are they inflatable lawyers? I think I can handle them if they are.

*ding ding ding*

A cross-thread reference!!


They are akin to Otto the Autopilot.

Cute inflatable lawers? Maybe he can pitchfork two birds with one, um, pointy thing?

I love how monster tries to look like the nice guy, and agrees to charge monster mini golf a royalty fee of $100 per month to use the name "monster". And then just to show how nice they are they agree to use that $100 and match it with their own money and donate it to some charity that they probably own as well.

David, that's $100 per month, per franchise . Monster mini-golf currently has 24 franchises = $2400 per month to Monster Cable.

What I don't understand is, Monster Cable says "This lawsuit was never about the money.....It’s about the protection of our trademarks." YET, for a fee (ahem), they are willing to let Monster Mini Golf use that trademark they wish to "protect." Hmmm?

Monster Cable says:

"Monster Mini Golf is not small Mom-and-Pop business. In fact it is seemingly well funded national organization selling franchises with the Monster trademark that currently goes across 10 states..." [sarcasm]WOW! 24 golf courses in 10 states out of 50. They really are HUGE aren't they?[/sarcasm]

"...we are not a faceless corporate giant out to squash legitimate business concerns and rising entrepreneurs. We are in fact, a family-owned company..." OK, you're a family owned faceless corporate giant out to squash legitimate business concerns and rising entrepreneurs."

"We have always tried to provide our customers with the highest performance products at an affordable price."

I agree with Mark. If Monster Cable sold their product at reasonable prices, the public reaction to all this wouldn't be nearly as vociferous.

I love that Jack agrees with me.

Now to Google "vociferous" to see if I agree with HIM agreeing with me!

One more point. I'm not a lawyer so I don't pretend to understand how the law works in a case like this. Thus, what follows is just my opinion.

I don't think anyone should be able to co-opt a word already in the public domain, such as "monster." If one DOES choose to use a word already in the public domain, then you should be prepared for others to use the same word. If you want exclusivity, then make up a name that is not a word already in use, or combine a common word with another word(s) to create a unique name.

Lee, should have all rights to the name "Monster Cable." If a company starts manufacturing bridge cables, they cannot use the name "Monster Cable." If Monster Cable wishes to start a new company that manufactures Monster Mints, once registered, that name is theirs. But, if someone wants to have a miniature golf company, they should be free to call themselves Monster Mini Golf. I don't know about you, but, because the word monster is in the public domain, I would not automatically assume that Monster Cable and Monster Mini Golf are owned by the same people.

I realize that you are probably merely joking, but just in case:

vociferous = marked by noisy and vehement outcry

No... I wasn't joking. I Googled it and I approve your message!

Sigh! The English language, as I have known and loved it, is an endangered species.

Yo.... I ain't wit dat.

One word... Umbrage!

You are probably right. However, to prove you are right means going to court. While Monster [Cable] my not be Sony or Microsoft, I'm guessing their litigation war chest is much larger than Monster [the Golf course]. Thus, it becomes an easy business decision for Monster [golf] to just pay them $2,400 a month.
We lawyers can't feed our pet dragons for $2,400 a month, much less conduct the full-scale war that is business litigation. Litigating this to the end would cost Monster Golf millions, and a victory does not give Golf their legal fees back; it just lets you keep the name and their $2,400.

That is the reality of big business. Some (i.e., large companies) see it as the purest form of capitalism, others (i.e., everybody else) see it as an anticompetitive abuse of capitalism. But trademarks and patents are presumed valid until you prove them invalid. So Monster [Cable] can continue to attack every golf course, arcade, and lemonade stand that uses the unique phrase "monster" or any image associated therewith until someone stands up and defeats the trademark.

Not going to happen I’m afraid. Not until Microsoft designs Windows Monster, at which point Monster Cable will get hit with a suit from Mr. Gates, and Monster will cry that the bigger fish is abusing its monopoly power. Circle of life…

I saw some toy named "Monster ______" at wallgreens while last minute shopping. I laughed and wondered if monster was going to sue them too.

Wait...does this mean that Disney needs to put Monster Cable ads in every Monsters Inc. DVD? Or they could just make the DVD not playable through anything but Monster Cables.

I seem to recall Monster having an issue with the title of the movie.........found it:

"San Jose, California, Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Walt Disney
Co.'s upcoming movie, ``Monsters, Inc.,'' violates the trademark
of Monster Cable Products Inc., the audio and video products
company claims in a lawsuit.
Monster Cable Products sued Disney today, saying it has used
the name since 1978 and seeks to stop Disney from using the title
in sequels or other products. In addition to seeking unspecified
damages, the company wants to restrict Disney's use of the name to
the original movie and prohibit its use in any subsequent products
such as television shows, video games or toys.
Disney is teaming with Pixar Inc., the producers of ``Toy
Story'' and ``A Bug's Life'' to produce the movie about a ``scare
factory in the monster world,'' according to a Disney press
release. The movie is scheduled for release in November.
Brisbane, California-based Monster Cable fears Disney's
``business practice of producing sequels or a series of titles
stemming from an original title'' will be applied to ``Monsters,
Inc.'' and cause confusion with its own audio, sound and video
products, according to a complaint filed in San Jose federal
court.
Disney shares fell to their lowest in six and a half years
after Goldman, Sachs & Co. bought 135 million shares of the
entertainment company at an estimated 22 percent discount to
Wednesday's closing price.
Officials at Disney did not immediately return calls seeking
comment on the lawsuit."

Another link to another article where they mention some of the other companies Monster has sued and apprently won or settled with

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...L&type=business

Makes me hate Monster products even more.

Here is a fun Rant to read:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/monster-monsters.php

the day I go to their corporate offices and learn if a molotov cocktail with a Monster USB fuse burns faster than a normal one.

If Monster Cable played chicken with Disney, they must have a huge litigation war chest. I'm guessing that case settled for some deal to use Monster Cable at Disney on some project. Got to give them credit, Monster is not just barking at the little dogs, although I suspect Disney laughed at them when they tried to flex the "we invented the trade name Monster" muscle.

A few other sites mention there was a good chance Monster dropped the suit with Disney as long as it was left in the news as "settled out of court"

Wow, I thought I was giving an extreme, hypothetical example. Good grief.

Even better.

Maybe Monster Cables should also be suing people for other words that they should copyright like for instance...."overpriced", "scam", "junk" ect....

Having just watched wall-e, I kept thinking Ian could be suing Disney for use of the word Axiom, then I thought RCA should sue Monster for using RCA to describe their cable ends.

You have to admit, that logo kinda looks like the Monster Cable logo