ORIGINAL: aaronk
...I haven't researched Monster Cable's record of success, but I strongly doubt they could actually win a lawsuit against any company using "Monster" to designate non-audio goods or services...

...It's certainly true that paying a nuisance settlement may make more economic sense than fighting a legal battle. But our system actually has good protections in place. E.g., when a lawsuit really is frivolous, there is a basic rule ("Rule 11") that allows both the frivolous party, and its lawyers, to be financially penalized -- courts definitely do impose these penalties, and they are often huge.

Monster's record of success in the courts in essentially non-existant because they have been very adept at keeping these cases *out* of court.

It seems their MO is basically to delay court proceedings as long as possible by filing for extensions (of their own complaints) and then ultimately paying off defendants who refuse to settle-- in other words, Monster sues, does their best to keep it out of court, delay proceedings, and to try to extract a settlement, typically involving an ongoing portion of revenues, then ultimately offers to drop the suit, and failing that, to their own defendent a cash payout if they insist on going to court.

I can't think of a better example of pure shakedown lawsuits.

Cheers.

It seems their MO is basically to delay court proceedings as long as possible by filing for extensions (of their own complaints) and then ultimately paying off defendants who refuse to settle-- in other words, Monster sues, does their best to keep it out of court, delay proceedings, and to try to extract a settlement, typically involving an ongoing portion of revenues, then ultimately offers to drop the suit, and failing that, to their own defendent a cash payout if they insist on going to court.

I can't think of a better example of pure shakedown lawsuits.

Well said. One hopes word gets around well enough so that small business defendants can figure this out. This is an example where paying a reasonably competent lawyer a few hundred dollars would probably net a decent savings for the targeted company in the long run.

At my company, when we are targeted by frivolous lawsuits, I get an aggressive defense lawyer who will set the case for trial ASAP. We've never paid a single cent in tribute or settlement, and the biggest claim against us resulted in the plaintiff paying us, not vice versa.

I will join your boycott bit.

Partly on it's merits, and partly to support keeping the gear forum vital.

What do you know...it works.

(Making Cables I mean, check earlier in the topic).

I bought some bulk Canare Star Quad at $.40 a foot, a pair of XX series Neutrik XLR connectors, and some good solder...and presto!

The Neutrik solder stop connectors make assembly a no brainer, and the finished product performs wonderfully. It cost all of $9.00 in material for a 20' cable. I doubt I will ever buy a pre made cable again.

Thanks for the tips....and Boycott Monster Cable.

But did you oxygenate your wire first? Or was that DE-oxygenate, I forget which ridiculous claim justifies Monster's pricing. We'll be looking for the RumleyMusic brand cables at our local GC!

I will join your boycott bit.

Partly on it's merits, and partly to support keeping the gear forum vital.

You're on the side of truth and justice, Dale!

I just googled "boycott monster cable" and got 401,000 results. Power to the people!

(Jeez, one of those links was some white-supremist neo-Nazi wingnut site that wants to boycott Monster Cable because they believe the company is owned by Jews. I can understand their confusion, Lee is such a common Jewish name, up there with Chan and Huang. Oh well, power to all the OTHER people who AREN'T whackjobs.)

ORIGINAL: bitflipper
But did you oxygenate your wire first? Or was that DE-oxygenate, I forget which ridiculous claim justifies Monster's pricing. We'll be looking for the RumleyMusic brand cables at our local GC!

Everyone realizes, don't they, that Monster Cable is to audiophile cables what Taco Bell is to Mexican food? Cheap, ubiquitous, and profoundly not very good.

Anyway, it's pretty easy for me not to buy Monster Cable. I love cables and power conditioners, but I've spent the last few years learning to like MIT and TrippLite. Sure, I've got the odd power strip or mic cable, but if the entire Monster empire suddenly vanished into thin air, no tears would be shed by this ChiTown girl.

Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee defended these actions by saying "We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it"

He is correct. And whether they win or loose doesn't matter. It's not about winning, it's about protecting their trademark, and it's basically required of them by trademark law.

ORIGINAL: Catphish

Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee defended these actions by saying "We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it"

He is correct. And whether they win or loose doesn't matter. It's not about winning, it's about protecting their trademark, and it's basically required of them by trademark law.

Please read what we are talking about before posting rubbish like this.

Monster is not protecting their trademark. They are filing extortionate shakedown lawsuits. Suing Cookie Monster is not required of them by law.

Really, truly-- this is not some hippy-crunchy anti-corporate thing or loony left conspiracy theory. This is not people over-reacting to a legal campaign that accidentally crossed the line or overshot the mark in a few isolated cases. This is a deliberate and orchestrated effort to extort money from legitimate businesses, large and small, who have done nothing wrong and who have never threatened nor infringed upon Monster's trademarks.

Follow the links to the trademark office website. Take a look at the actual documents. The offense is egregious.

Cheers.

Seriously. Monster Cable makes ambulance chasers look like Albert Schweitzer.