Another reason not to buy Monster Cables

[Guest]

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

oscargrouch wrote:

> no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
>

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

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


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10u2rogdq6n9be7@corp.supernews.com...
> oscargrouch wrote:
>
> > no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
> >
>
> Please don't top post.
>
> No. I'm not singling you out.
>
> >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> >>> quoting.
> >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
> >>>> mean?
> >>>>> A: Top posters.
> >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
> 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?)

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> 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?

Yes, they might.

Lawsuits that have *some* merit are often disposed of quite quickly by
settling, even when the target has very deep pockets and a history of
litigation of their own.

That's one of the problems with the law today...a company is often already
paying for lawyers whether they do anything or not, so why not take a chance
of making some money with a "silly" lawsuit.

--
Jeff Rife | "My God, what if the secret ingredient is people?"
| "No, there's already a soda like that: Soylent Cola."
| "Oh. How is it?"
| "It varies from person to person."
| -- Fry and Leela, "Futurama"

 

[Guest]

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

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> 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.

No, the jury *awarded* it. The judge doesn't have to change the number,
and quite often doesn't.

> > 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.

At that point, the judge is merely there to make sure that the rules of law
had been followed. He correctly determined they had not, so changed the
number. But, if they had, he is just a rubber-stamp at that point, so,
yeah, technically nothing was "over" but that's like saying when a jury
comes back with "guilty" in a criminal case, that trial isn't really over
until the judge accepts the verdict.

Stupid multi-million dollar awards are often accepted by judges and later
overturned on appeal. Until they are overturned, though, the loser is
considered liable for the award.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: How's life, Norm?
|
| Norm: Not for the squeamish, Coach.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <MPG.1c4b4ae5883cf18d989a6c@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.
>
> No, the jury *awarded* it. The judge doesn't have to change the
> number, and quite often doesn't.

And until the judge maked that decision, it was not awarded; the
plaintiff had no claim on the money.

> > No; the trial wasn't over yet, so McDonald's wasn't liable for
> > anything.
>
> At that point, the judge is merely there to make sure that the rules
> of law had been followed. He correctly determined they had not, so
> changed the number. But, if they had, he is just a rubber-stamp at
> that point, so, yeah, technically nothing was "over" but that's like
> saying when a jury comes back with "guilty" in a criminal case, that
> trial isn't really over until the judge accepts the verdict.

By George, you got it! And there have been criminal cases where the
judge did exactly that.

> Stupid multi-million dollar awards are often accepted by judges and
> later overturned on appeal. Until they are overturned, though, the
> loser is considered liable for the award.

That's right, but that has nothing to do with this case, since there
wasn't any award in the million-dollar range to be appealed. The amount
that could have been appealed was less than a half million, but it
didn't go to appeal because the parties settled in private.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Matthhew,

You appear to be too lazy to delete an excessively long post before you
bottom post, and to stupid to be able to read a top post.

I feel sorry for you.

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> oscargrouch wrote:
>
>> no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
>>
>
> Please don't top post.
>
> No. I'm not singling you out.
>
> >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> >>> quoting.
> >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
> >>>> mean?
> >>>>> A: Top posters.
> >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
> Matthew

 

[Guest]

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

wbertram wrote:

> Matthhew,
>
> You appear to be too lazy to delete an excessively long post before you
> bottom post, and to stupid to be able to read a top post.

Oddly enough, the post to which you made this response was completely
trimmed to the relevant content. Since it wasn't top posted, you must
not have seen that.

> I feel sorry for you.

I feel sorry for you, since it appears you would rather call people
names (inappropriately, in this case) than address the issue at hand.

HANL.

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

 

[Badger]

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

I prefer to read top posts. Please top post from now on.
Thanks.

"oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34d9lpF48pe9jU11@individual.net...
> no
>
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10u2rogdq6n9be7@corp.supernews.com...
> > oscargrouch wrote:
> >
> > > no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
> > >
> >
> > Please don't top post.
> >
> > No. I'm not singling you out.
> >
> > >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting
for me!
> > > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> > >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> > >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> > >>> quoting.
> > >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does
that
> > >>>> mean?
> > >>>>> A: Top posters.
> > >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> >
> > 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 problem


"Badger" <cferriola@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uqeEd.14422$dt3.575307@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I prefer to read top posts. Please top post from now on.
> Thanks.
>
> "oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34d9lpF48pe9jU11@individual.net...
> > no
> >
> >
> > "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> > news:10u2rogdq6n9be7@corp.supernews.com...
> > > oscargrouch wrote:
> > >
> > > > no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please don't top post.
> > >
> > > No. I'm not singling you out.
> > >
> > > >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting
> for me!
> > > > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > > > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> > > >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> > > >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> > > >>> quoting.
> > > >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does
> that
> > > >>>> mean?
> > > >>>>> A: Top posters.
> > > >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> > >
> > > 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?)

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > At that point, the judge is merely there to make sure that the rules
> > of law had been followed. He correctly determined they had not, so
> > changed the number. But, if they had, he is just a rubber-stamp at
> > that point, so, yeah, technically nothing was "over" but that's like
> > saying when a jury comes back with "guilty" in a criminal case, that
> > trial isn't really over until the judge accepts the verdict.
>
> By George, you got it! And there have been criminal cases where the
> judge did exactly that.

Yes, both of them.

Seriously, on criminal cases, the judge is usually a rubber stamp on the
actual verdict unless something grossly wrong has already happened in the
trial.

*Most* civil cases are the same way, and although the "hot coffee" case
is an exception, there are many, many times that multi-million dollar
awards are rubber-stamped by the judge...even though they are just as
silly. They usually get overturned on appeal, but that still leaves
somebody on the hook for that money for at least a while, which usually
requires they place that sum in an escrow account during the appeal
process.

So, we are right back to "trials are risky, and to be avoided if at all
possible".

> That's right, but that has nothing to do with this case, since there
> wasn't any award in the million-dollar range to be appealed. The amount
> that could have been appealed was less than a half million

This isn't true.

The appeal can be for *anything* procedural in the previous case, including
actions by the judge. The judge may not have had any valid legal reason
for reducing the award, thus the original award could be re-instated at
appeal.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/BrokenInternet02.gif

 

[Guest]

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

Lazarus Long wrote:
> Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
> themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
> a product, that like beer (for example)

Theyy're not just protecting their trademark. Suing another wire or
stereo component company calling itself "Monster" would be protecting
their trademark. They're going WAY beyond that. What they're doing is
tantamount to trying to remove the word "Monster" from the English
language.

> no one really needs or could
> get by with something much less expensive than the premium brand.
There we can agree.

-Eric

 

[Guest]

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

>>This is why there are courts and judges.<<

Yeah, if you have tens of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to
defend yourself before one.

-Eric

 

[THUMPer]

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

On 10 Jan 2005 10:38:41 -0800, elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:

>Lazarus Long wrote:
>> Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
>> themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
>> a product, that like beer (for example)
>
>Theyy're not just protecting their trademark. Suing another wire or
>stereo component company calling itself "Monster" would be protecting
>their trademark. They're going WAY beyond that. What they're doing is
>tantamount to trying to remove the word "Monster" from the English
>language.
>
>> no one really needs or could
>> get by with something much less expensive than the premium brand.
>There we can agree.
>
>-Eric

Maybe they're just using the suits as advertising material.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Guest]

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

On 10 Jan 2005 10:38:41 -0800, elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:

>> Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
>> themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
>> a product, that like beer (for example)
>
> Theyy're not just protecting their trademark. Suing another wire or
> stereo component company calling itself "Monster" would be protecting
> their trademark. They're going WAY beyond that. What they're doing is
> tantamount to trying to remove the word "Monster" from the English
> language.

Not unlike Microsoft's lawsuit against Lindows for using a name that sounds
like "windows".

 

[Marty]

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

Somewhere around Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:03:13 -0600, while reading
alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from Lazarus Long
<lazarus@removethiswi.rr.com>:

>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:56:38 GMT, "C what I mean" <no
>spam@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't buy their products anyway, but now I can see just how malicious
>>they are. Don't know how else to read it.. The legal trademark system was
>>not meant to do this type of reckless damage.
>>
>
>This is why there are courts and judges.

Not sure which way you meant that, but the courts and judges are the ones
responsible for the mess in the first place.

Monster cable made a bad decision on choosing their name in the first place;
they should never be allowed to copyright a name like Monster by itself.

Besides, copyrights are designed to prevent confusion by the public, so if
they go to the store to by a Xerox brand copier, they won't end up with a
Ricoh brand Xerox machine. Was anyone confused into going to see Monsters,
Inc. and finding out it wasn't made by Monster Cable? I doubt it.

--
Marty - mjf at leftcoast-usa.com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

 

[THUMPer]

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:41:29 GMT, Marty <this.address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Somewhere around Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:03:13 -0600, while reading
>alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from Lazarus Long
><lazarus@removethiswi.rr.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:56:38 GMT, "C what I mean" <no
>>spam@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I wouldn't buy their products anyway, but now I can see just how malicious
>>>they are. Don't know how else to read it.. The legal trademark system was
>>>not meant to do this type of reckless damage.
>>>
>>
>>This is why there are courts and judges.
>
>Not sure which way you meant that, but the courts and judges are the ones
>responsible for the mess in the first place.
>
>Monster cable made a bad decision on choosing their name in the first place;
>they should never be allowed to copyright a name like Monster by itself.
>
>Besides, copyrights are designed to prevent confusion by the public,
Copyrights are designed to protect the creator of the work or product.
Confusion by the public is only a consideration in so far as lost
sales or value by the creator or copyright holder is concerned. It's
primary purpose is to prevent others from copying and reproducing work
that they did not create.

I think you are talking about Trademark.
Thumper
>so if
>they go to the store to by a Xerox brand copier, they won't end up with a
>Ricoh brand Xerox machine. Was anyone confused into going to see Monsters,
>Inc. and finding out it wasn't made by Monster Cable? I doubt it.


To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Marty]

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

Somewhere around Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:25:32 GMT, while reading
alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from AximGuy
<aximguy@no.ipaqs>:

>Not unlike Microsoft's lawsuit against Lindows for using a name that sounds
>like "windows".

Not at all. There is a lot of similarity between "Windows Operating System"
and "Lindows Operating System". There is very little similarity between the
"Monsters, Inc" the movie, and "Monster Cable", the wiring. Cheap shot.

--
Marty - mjf at leftcoast-usa.com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

 

[user]

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

In article <p616u09o9c642ij2449uhkp5catf19q3b9@4ax.com>,
this.address@is.invalid says...
> Somewhere around Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:25:32 GMT, while reading
> alt.tv.tech.hdtv, I think I thought I saw this post from AximGuy
> <aximguy@no.ipaqs>:
>
> >Not unlike Microsoft's lawsuit against Lindows for using a name that sounds
> >like "windows".
>
> Not at all. There is a lot of similarity between "Windows Operating System"
> and "Lindows Operating System". There is very little similarity between the
> "Monsters, Inc" the movie, and "Monster Cable", the wiring. Cheap shot.

More importantly, Lindows is LINux winDOWS, and they were deliberately
trying to capitalize on its 'similiarities' with and to Microsoft
Windows.

In fact Lindows defence strategy in that lawsuit was not to argue that
it wasn't infringing on "Windows" but that Microsoft should never have
been awarded a trademark on the word "Windows" in the first place,
arguing 'windows' was a generic term describing a whole class of
operating systems/shell applications, that presented data in
GUI/Windowed format.

 

[Guest]

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

In alt.video.ptv.tivo Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:

> Monster cable made a bad decision on choosing their name in the first place;
> they should never be allowed to copyright a name like Monster by itself.

> Besides, copyrights are designed to prevent confusion by the public, so if
> they go to the store to by a Xerox brand copier, they won't end up with a
> Ricoh brand Xerox machine. Was anyone confused into going to see Monsters,
> Inc. and finding out it wasn't made by Monster Cable? I doubt it.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of copyrights.

"Monster Cable" is the copyright - not "monster" by itself because it's a
common noun. This is why you see drug manufacturers coming up with new
"words" that can immediatly copyright when introducing a new product.
Likewise, it's "Microsoft Windows" not just "Windows" even though that's how
many refer to the product. Otherwise, you'd have stupid things like
Microsoft suing every company that makes "wood or metal enclsures for glass
aperatures" if you get my drift...

Furthermore, even if you copyrighted the name "Monster" does not mean that
NO ONE can ever use that word again. For instance, "Monsters Inc" the
movie is not a copyright infringement because it's in a different industry
and context. The only time this would be a problem is if the studio
decided to call their movie "Monster Cable". However, this isn't the case.

The case against "Snow Monsters" should fall into this category.
Different context, different industry. Monster Cable does not own sole
licensing rights to the word "Monster". In fact, Monster Cable CANNOT claim
sole rights to the word "monster" either. This is the other part of copyright
law. If you have a copyright, and fail to enforce it, then it is possible
to LOSE your copyright. That's all fine and dandy, but other people have
been using the word "monster" way before "Monster Cable" was ever
created. You've got "The Green Monster" and "Cookie Monster", for
instance - two copyrights that use "monster" AND predate "Monster Cable."

Now there are valid cases of copyright infringement. Unfortunatly, this
isn't one of them. Personally, I hope the judge smacks Monster Cable
silly for wasting peoples' time with frivilous lawsuits, and seeks the
disbarment of whatever stupid lawyer(s) Monster Cable employed to cause
all this trouble. It's stupid lawsuits like these that not only give the
US corporate and legal system a bad name, but also clog up the courts with
so many stupid cases that real instances of injustice go unheard.

 

[Guest]

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

> "Monster Cable" is the copyright - not "monster" by itself because it's a
> common noun. This is why you see drug manufacturers coming up with new
> "words" that can immediatly copyright when introducing a new product.
> Likewise, it's "Microsoft Windows" not just "Windows" even though that's how
> many refer to the product. Otherwise, you'd have stupid things like
> Microsoft suing every company that makes "wood or metal enclsures for glass
> aperatures" if you get my drift...

I think you're incorrect here, I believe you actually can copyright
"Monster" or "Windows" in the context of your business. However:

>
> Furthermore, even if you copyrighted the name "Monster" does not mean that
> NO ONE can ever use that word again. For instance, "Monsters Inc" the
> movie is not a copyright infringement because it's in a different industry
> and context. The only time this would be a problem is if the studio
> decided to call their movie "Monster Cable". However, this isn't the case.

Here I believe you are totally correct. If a common word is used in a
dfferent context *even* if it is copyrighted, they have the right to use
it, as long as there is little or no chance of confusion w/ the
copyrighted use of the name. Hence "Monster's Inc." has virtually no
chance of confusion w/ Monster cable and is in a totally different
industry and they should have no real case against it.

> The case against "Snow Monsters" should fall into this category.
> Different context, different industry. Monster Cable does not own sole
> licensing rights to the word "Monster". In fact, Monster Cable CANNOT claim
> sole rights to the word "monster" either. This is the other part of copyright
> law. If you have a copyright, and fail to enforce it, then it is possible
> to LOSE your copyright. That's all fine and dandy, but other people have
> been using the word "monster" way before "Monster Cable" was ever
> created. You've got "The Green Monster" and "Cookie Monster", for
> instance - two copyrights that use "monster" AND predate "Monster Cable."

I concur w/ most of this, but I believe it *is* possible to copyright a
previously used name or common word. The previous user of that name can
continue to use it *in their original* market, but cannot expand the
use. Hence if a diner was named "McDonalds" before McDonalds
copyrighted the name, they could continue to use the name, but they
could not open any Diners w/ that name outside of their local market (I
believe this example actually happened, and McDonalds sued and lost, but
my memory may be less than perfect here).

>
> Now there are valid cases of copyright infringement. Unfortunatly, this
> isn't one of them. Personally, I hope the judge smacks Monster Cable
> silly for wasting peoples' time with frivilous lawsuits, and seeks the
> disbarment of whatever stupid lawyer(s) Monster Cable employed to cause
> all this trouble. It's stupid lawsuits like these that not only give the
> US corporate and legal system a bad name, but also clog up the courts with
> so many stupid cases that real instances of injustice go unheard.

I'd agree here. In fact, I'd say many of these cases are pure acts of
intimidation, knowing that the small company being threatened usually
can't afford to go to court. The best thing for these threatened
companies is publicity, like the kid in Canada whose was threatened by
Microsoft about his personal website "Mikerowesoft" (and yes, his name
was Mike Rowe). Microsoft looked like such an a$$hole over it, they
ended up giving him a bunch of free stuff and flying him down for a tour
of the Redmond campus.

Randy S.