Monster cable lawsuits

AdamJayMonster · Post by **AdamJayMonster** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:46 pm

DJ Kage and i are going to call this track we just wrote "Monster".

and i still think Monster cables fielding thousands of cable returns in the course of a month would at the very least piss them off to no end.

suburbanbather · Post by **suburbanbather** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:14 pm

What about REM's album "Monster"

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:18 pm

mcconaghy wrote:
special ed wrote:btw, what are they going to do about the loch ness monster? i bet hes just trembling right now.
he should countersue - prior art

sorry to give a serious response to some light hearted comments, but just to correct you, prior art would be valid in a patent lawsuit. I haven't read much into it, but this would almost definately be considered a trademark suit.

special ed · Post by **special ed** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:00 pm

the thing is you cannot trademark a common term like monster like that. it makes no sense. had they been more creative in the first place than just using one common then maybe they wouldnt have to be such dicks.

i wonder if they tried to monster magnet as well.

i want to start a cable company and call it nomster cable.

mcconaghy · Post by **mcconaghy** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:03 am

sweetjesus wrote:
mcconaghy wrote:
special ed wrote:btw, what are they going to do about the loch ness monster? i bet hes just trembling right now.
he should countersue - prior art
sorry to give a serious response to some light hearted comments, but just to correct you, prior art would be valid in a patent lawsuit. I haven't read much into it, but this would almost definately be considered a trademark suit.

You are correct, although a prior art argument was used back in '99, I think it was, when AOL tried to pull the same thing with the generic term "you got [whatever]." AOL lost.

SimonPHC · Post by **SimonPHC** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:22 am

surely there must be some company out there who has the word "Monster" registered in its trademark before what was the year (1978??) ?

Now all that has to happen is, some buys 'that' company and then puts the trademark on a CC license or GNU or what soever so 'nobody' can use the word monster again ...

basetwo · Post by **basetwo** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:37 am

Maybe I should start trademarking CABLE so I can get at them in 20 years.

Seriously, though, this is just ONE company out of thousands. It's over the top to blame corporations.

Certainly there is greed involved. There's also a lack of common sense in the courts that don't just throw out these lawsuits immediately. The judges should be saying something like "If you wanted to tie your name to something that you wanted to be a strong trademark you shouldn't have picked such a common english word. Now get out of my court."

If that had happened the first time, they probably wouldn't have bothered with the rest.

Komplex · Post by **Komplex** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:37 am

basetwo wrote: The judges should be saying something like "If you wanted to tie your name to something that you wanted to be a strong trademark you shouldn't have picked such a common english word. Now get out of my court."

If that had happened the first time, they probably wouldn't have bothered with the rest.

Yeah but that isn't really going to happen if the company or its lawyers leave a large amount of cash on the judges table...

anonymouse · Post by **anonymouse** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:25 am

Do we really need such irrelevant postings on the forum?

This is total b/s

Komplex · Post by **Komplex** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:43 am

anonymouse wrote:Do we really need such irrelevant postings on the forum?

This is total b/s

Yes. Any company or person, big or small that partakes in these sorts of tactics should be discredited.

It's just not cool and its blatant "fucking people over" for no other reason than to milk money out of them by out of court settlements.

anonymouse · Post by **anonymouse** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:48 am

It has nothing even remotely to do with Ableton Live ...

It might be a good idea to start an Open Discussion forum for such OT threads. This forum is dropping in quality as a useful support resource for users.

Komplex · Post by **Komplex** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:05 am

anonymouse wrote:It has nothing even remotely to do with Ableton Live ...

It does when you use monster cables to connect Ableton Live's output to a mixer

futureproof · Post by **futureproof** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:16 am

anonymouse wrote:It has nothing even remotely to do with Ableton Live ...

It might be a good idea to start an Open Discussion forum for such OT threads. This forum is dropping in quality as a useful support resource for users.

I agree that we need an OT forum...but for now just dont view the thread if your not interested. I started this thread knowing that it was obviously OT but thought that many people would be interested because we all buy audio cables and most of us care if we are buying from conscionable companies.

mindlobster · Post by **mindlobster** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:21 pm

And what about that BT CD 'Monster'? Maybe we can cross over the anti-BT/anti Monster threads here...

16 BIT · Post by **16 BIT** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:20 pm

Noel Lee sees himself as some kind of Bill Gates with visions of corporate domination.

Obviously the man has gone completely crazy and is saturated in GREED.

Monster cable lawsuits

monstrosities