Another reason not to buy Monster Cables

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In alt.video.ptv.tivo Dr. Personality <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote:
> The Snow Monsters pre-emptive suit is not a publicity stunt (although I
> hope it does him some good nevertheless). It's a brilliant and gutsy
> move that few small companies can afford to make.

But their web page is under construction.
http/www.snowmonsters.com/MonsterCable/index.html
You think they'd be ready before the story came out.

McDonald's goes after people making frivolous use of "Mc" on a name.
IIRC, they won against a coffee shop that was owned by a Mr. McDonald for
use of "McCoffee Shop" in Santa Cruz, CA.

I dislike Monster Cables products and marketing, so I should recuse myself
from comments on their lawsuits.

I recall that "frivolous" is an important part of a trademarked name.
I don't see how "monster" can be considered frivolous.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[wmhjr]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

After reading the Denver article, and then doing a bit more research,
I'm astounded. This really ticks me off. I won't be purchasing ANY
more products from Monster. I really detest this kind of practice, and
don't believe Monster is acting ethically. I realize they want to
protect their brand recognition, but they're being far too
opportunistic and taking unfair advantage of completely unrelated
circumstances. I'd like to see them get forced to pay huge for what I
am convinced is unethical business practice.


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http/www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not smart'...why
> would it be confidential?

The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000 for
annoying us".

Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.

--
Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
| animal for some silly superstition?"
| "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
| a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
| -- "Cybill"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> if they're the party that brought the suit and they didn't win (and that
> would include a settlement that is favorable to their side), then why would
> the defendant agree to keeping the settlement confidential?

Because it never went to trial.

Lawyers are trained not to risk anything, and trials are *always* risky.

Even the "winner" in a settlement will keep quiet about it simply because
it doesn't hurt them in any way.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place, it
doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
settlement...i think it's more likely that disney agreed to buy x amount of
cables from monster over the next 3 years at significantly reduced prices,
but prices at which monster still makes a nice chunk of change and disney
saves some...the bottom line is that, if the case has no merit, there's no
settlement, let alone any confidentiality agreement


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not
smart'...why
> > would it be confidential?
>
> The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
> competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
> lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000
for
> annoying us".
>
> Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
> | animal for some silly superstition?"
> | "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
> | a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
> | -- "Cybill"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

like i said in my other post, if the case had no merit, i don't see disney
settling it...and if disney wasn't willing to give monster anything of any
value, then i don't see monster settling it


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49112df7d936d0989a5e@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > if they're the party that brought the suit and they didn't win (and that
> > would include a settlement that is favorable to their side), then why
would
> > the defendant agree to keeping the settlement confidential?
>
> Because it never went to trial.
>
> Lawyers are trained not to risk anything, and trials are *always* risky.
>
> Even the "winner" in a settlement will keep quiet about it simply because
> it doesn't hurt them in any way.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place, it
> doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
> settlement...

If they sued expecting Disney to give in quickly with no fight and ended
up with a real fight...yeah, Monster would settle in just about any way they
could, as long as they feel they got *something* from Disney.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> like i said in my other post, if the case had no merit, i don't see disney
> settling it...

This is why you aren't a lawyer.

McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee too hot"
had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just what I said:
trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.

Some brain-dead jury could award Monster a lot of money in one of these
cases, and even if they only get a small sum, they will probably get legal
fees if they win. This makes it *very* risky to lose, so you often settle
even if you are "right".

But, if Monster's case was weak, a settlement might result in Monster being
out cash for some basically worthless concession (Disney has no desire to get
into the audio cable business) from the other party.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Olympics.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c49527f3b4aee93989a64@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee
> too hot" had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just
> what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.

Um, there was no multi-million dollar award. Here's what actually
happened:

While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount
was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20
percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She
was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later
reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages
that were awarded.

But...
The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's
entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal.
The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!

http/www.truestellaawards.com/stella.html

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote in
news:UhiDd.9649$75.6229@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

> Not to be defending Monster.... but if you don't file suits you can lose
> the right to the name..
> It's common practice for big companies to file every infringement suit
> they can to keep their copyrights.

Yeah, for a brand *name* like Kleenex or Jell-o. But "Monster"?

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:51:47 -0500, "oscargrouch"
<leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place, it
>doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
>settlement...i think it's more likely that disney agreed to buy x amount of
>cables from monster over the next 3 years at significantly reduced prices,
>but prices at which monster still makes a nice chunk of change and disney
>saves some...the bottom line is that, if the case has no merit, there's no
>settlement, let alone any confidentiality agreement
>
>

Confidentiality is almost always granted in return for dropping a
suit.
Thumper
>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net...
>> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
>alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not
>smart'...why
>> > would it be confidential?
>>
>> The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
>> competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
>> lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000
>for
>> annoying us".
>>
>> Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
>> | animal for some silly superstition?"
>> | "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
>> | a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
>> | -- "Cybill"
>

To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In article <MPG.1c49527f3b4aee93989a64@news.nabs.net>,
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee
> > too hot" had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just
> > what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.
>
> Um, there was no multi-million dollar award.

Yes, there was.

> While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount
> was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20
> percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She
> was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later
> reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages
> that were awarded.

The jury awarded $2.9 million. That's "multi-million" in my book.

The fact that a semi-intelligent judge reduced the number doesn't change
the fact that until that point, McDonald's was liable for $2.9 million. If
the judge had been dumber (even $480,000 shows he wasn't all there), that
$2.9 million would have been the number.

> But...
> The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's
> entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal.
> The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!

This nicely proves what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if at
all possible.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LoveRanking.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c49ead8b608c16d989a66@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> The jury awarded $2.9 million. That's "multi-million" in my book.

The jury recommended it; they did not award it. The outcome of the
trial was that she was awarded $480,000.

> The fact that a semi-intelligent judge reduced the number doesn't
> change the fact that until that point, McDonald's was liable for $2.9
> million.

No; the trial wasn't over yet, so McDonald's wasn't liable for anything.

> This nicely proves what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if
> at all possible.

I never said otherwise. I was attempting to clear up the misconception
about the "Stella award."

In that suit, 12 jurors unanimously found that McDonald's was eighty
percent at fault. 25% of the final award was for damages suffered, and
the other 75% was for punishment for negligence.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

despite the disdain everyone has for monster cables, does anyone honestly
think (especially given their success) that anyone there thought disney
would give in quickly? would anyone here expect that? would anyone
ANYWHERE expect that?

i appreciate everyone's efforts to come up with scenarios within which the
position that there's a confidential settlement, even though monster 'lost',
is a reasonable one, however, none of them are reasonable


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49511d9bdd7d41989a63@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place,
it
> > doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
> > settlement...
>
> If they sued expecting Disney to give in quickly with no fight and ended
> up with a real fight...yeah, Monster would settle in just about any way
they
> could, as long as they feel they got *something* from Disney.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

if that were the case, then the whole issue makes no sense...monster is
suing companies for trademark infringement who are nowhere near their
business...so, in the spirit of the main reason that companies pursue this
action relentlessly (that, if they don't, when there is a real infringement
and they're shown not to have cared in the past, the judge throws it out),
allowing disney to use the word monster, not gaining anything monetarily
from disney, and just getting them to agree to not enter the cable business,
doesn't seem to me to do anything to further that cause...it's going to
appear to any judge later on that monster wasn't really concerned with
people using the word monster, which will hurt their cause

i understand the concept of risk and avoiding juries...i just don't see
disney making that decision in this case


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49527f3b4aee93989a64@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > like i said in my other post, if the case had no merit, i don't see
disney
> > settling it...
>
> This is why you aren't a lawyer.
>
> McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee too
hot"
> had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just what I said:
> trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.
>
> Some brain-dead jury could award Monster a lot of money in one of these
> cases, and even if they only get a small sum, they will probably get legal
> fees if they win. This makes it *very* risky to lose, so you often settle
> even if you are "right".
>
> But, if Monster's case was weak, a settlement might result in Monster
being
> out cash for some basically worthless concession (Disney has no desire to
get
> into the audio cable business) from the other party.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Olympics.gif

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not smart'...why
> > would it be confidential?
>
> The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
> competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
> lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000 for
> annoying us".
>
> Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.

And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

42 wrote:

> And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
> court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
> has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
> the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.

Going to court would be the last thing either party would want. It
drives up costs and you can't predict what a jury might do.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

exactly


"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49eaf9cf8af8e989986@shawnews...
> In article <MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
> says...
> > oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not
smart'...why
> > > would it be confidential?
> >
> > The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
> > competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
> > lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000
for
> > annoying us".
> >
> > Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.
>
> And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
> court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
> has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
> the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

oscargrouch wrote:

>"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
>>court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
>>has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
>>the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.
>

Top postig fixed.

> exactly

What part of "trials are unpredictable and to be avoided" do you not
understand? Going to court is very expensive and the outcome can't be
predicted.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

no need to fix my top posting, numbnut


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10u2es63r3putfd@corp.supernews.com...
> oscargrouch wrote:
>
> >"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >>And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
> >>court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
> >>has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
> >>the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.
> >
>
> Top postig fixed.
>
> > exactly
>
> What part of "trials are unpredictable and to be avoided" do you not
> understand? Going to court is very expensive and the outcome can't be
> predicted.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the game