Monster Boycott
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,802
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
boycottmonstercableproducts.com is open
Cthree, this has (almost) nothing to do with the three large companies targeted here. They settled to reduce risk to shareholders. They aren't concerned with doing what's right, they want to maximize profits -- it's their duty to their shareholders.
The problem is that trademarks are granted by us, you and I, the public. Trademarks are designed to encourage competition by allowing original ideas to remain profitable for companies and encourage new original ideas. Originally, trademarks were not used to protect a concept of a brand. That is a fairly new concept.
The problem here is that Monster Cable Products, Inc. is using trademark law as a form of warfare, and is likely anticipating that they will make a profit from doing this. This abuse of our courts (remember MCP is wasting tons of tax dollars here) and this gross abuse of trademark law is what bothers me. In addition, MCP, inc. is hurting real people whose businesses are their lifeblood. See the case study of Monster Vintage below who sell vintage clothing. There is no possibilty of financial harm through confusion or degradation of the (shudder) "Monster" brand from this small business. MCP's lawsuit here can only be thought of legal warfare or aggressive trademark defense, depending on how you see it.
http://www.monstervintage.com/#monstercable
Cthree, this has (almost) nothing to do with the three large companies targeted here. They settled to reduce risk to shareholders. They aren't concerned with doing what's right, they want to maximize profits -- it's their duty to their shareholders.
The problem is that trademarks are granted by us, you and I, the public. Trademarks are designed to encourage competition by allowing original ideas to remain profitable for companies and encourage new original ideas. Originally, trademarks were not used to protect a concept of a brand. That is a fairly new concept.
The problem here is that Monster Cable Products, Inc. is using trademark law as a form of warfare, and is likely anticipating that they will make a profit from doing this. This abuse of our courts (remember MCP is wasting tons of tax dollars here) and this gross abuse of trademark law is what bothers me. In addition, MCP, inc. is hurting real people whose businesses are their lifeblood. See the case study of Monster Vintage below who sell vintage clothing. There is no possibilty of financial harm through confusion or degradation of the (shudder) "Monster" brand from this small business. MCP's lawsuit here can only be thought of legal warfare or aggressive trademark defense, depending on how you see it.
http://www.monstervintage.com/#monstercable
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 1
From: Baton Rouge, LA
EMI shielded fiber-optic....I don't think so.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: So. Cal
Posted by PJK3
"you do know that light (visible and not) is a form of ElectroMagnetic waves.... right?"
Yes, but...
How would EMI or other changing magnetic field couple over onto the non-electrical conducting fiber.
Edit: I can't seem to figure out the Quote button....o well
"you do know that light (visible and not) is a form of ElectroMagnetic waves.... right?"
Yes, but...
How would EMI or other changing magnetic field couple over onto the non-electrical conducting fiber.
Edit: I can't seem to figure out the Quote button....o well
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,809
Likes: 15
From: Sydney
Damn, I thought their marketing sucked, now I know their business ethics do too.
These people sell overpriced snake oil. If anything perhaps the 'Monster' companies should all get together in a class action against Monster Cable for bring the name 'monster' into disrepute.
These people sell overpriced snake oil. If anything perhaps the 'Monster' companies should all get together in a class action against Monster Cable for bring the name 'monster' into disrepute.
MOSNTER!!! <~~~ I don't wanna get sued. 
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
<disclaimer>
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
I'm no fan of stupid lawsuits and the stupid lawyers who file them.
</dislcaimer>
What I've been told by a lawyer is that a company is required, by law, to defend their trademark. If they do not, they run the risk of losing it (allowing it to lapse into the public domain).
So this may simply be a case of Monster [Cable] doing that.
Let's remember, lawyers write our laws and then people have to hire lawyers to help them navigate said laws.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
I'm no fan of stupid lawsuits and the stupid lawyers who file them.
</dislcaimer>
What I've been told by a lawyer is that a company is required, by law, to defend their trademark. If they do not, they run the risk of losing it (allowing it to lapse into the public domain).
So this may simply be a case of Monster [Cable] doing that.
Let's remember, lawyers write our laws and then people have to hire lawyers to help them navigate said laws.