I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe


"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe

You could cut them up and mail them to the Monster home office with a letter
to leave the poor hippy lady alone. But it would be an expensive way to
make a statement.

If this thing goes the way it could, I look for either K-Mart or Wal-Mart to
sue the other one's pants off. Whoever grabbed it first. I'm not quite
sure. Wal-Mart seems new to me because we didn't have one anywhere around
here until 1989, but they've been around since the '70s. I'm not sure how
old K-Mart is. Rather older, I think.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Silvan wrote:

Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have
all over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money,
the bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe

You could cut them up and mail them to the Monster home office with a
letter to leave the poor hippy lady alone. But it would be an
expensive way to make a statement.

If this thing goes the way it could, I look for either K-Mart or
Wal-Mart to sue the other one's pants off. Whoever grabbed it first.
I'm not quite sure. Wal-Mart seems new to me because we didn't have
one anywhere around here until 1989, but they've been around since the
'70s. I'm not sure how old K-Mart is. Rather older, I think.

K-Mart morphed out of Kresge's and Kresge's was old in the 50s.

WalMart started as one store in the 50s or 60s in Arkansas. Harrisonvile,
IIRC.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

WalMart started as one store in the 50s or 60s in Arkansas. Harrisonvile,
IIRC.

1962. Rogers. My bad. I was exactly 10 years off.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Silvan wrote:

Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe

You could cut them up and mail them to the Monster home office with a
letter
to leave the poor hippy lady alone. But it would be an expensive way to
make a statement.

Not really, it's sunk cost and replacing them would cost about 20 bucks for
a roll of zip cord at Home Depot.

If this thing goes the way it could, I look for either K-Mart or Wal-Mart
to
sue the other one's pants off. Whoever grabbed it first. I'm not quite
sure. Wal-Mart seems new to me because we didn't have one anywhere around
here until 1989, but they've been around since the '70s. I'm not sure how
old K-Mart is. Rather older, I think.

That would be interesting--K-Mart's claim would be more legitimate than
Monster's, but I suspect the courts would toss it out on the basis that
"mart" is a well established synonym for "store" and that both are in fact
stores.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe


There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows
or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.

Pella Windows and Anderson Windows probably are not loosing any sleep.


"Eugene" wrote in message
...
Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe


There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows
or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.

"Eugene" wrote in message
...
Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe


There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows
or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.


A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are
restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a
trademark infringement.
--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:


"Eugene" wrote in message
...
Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money,
the bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe


There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows
or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.


A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are
restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a
trademark infringement.
That doesn't stop them from trying.

"Eugene" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


"Eugene" wrote in message
...
Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have
all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money,
the bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe


There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
example, if your company or product, software or not has the word
Windows
or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.


A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are
restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a
trademark infringement.
That doesn't stop them from trying.


Please provide the examples of Microsoft having gone after any company with
the word Windows in their name. You are correct in principle though -
that's how Monster is doing what they are - the laws allow them to sue
regardless of merit. The courts sort out the cases but the right to sue is
available to anyone for any reason.
--

-Mike-

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:06:59 +0000, Eugene wrote:

Mike in Mystic wrote:

man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
over
my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe


There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows
or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.

Hmmm, wonder how well paid Anderson's lawyers are? They've been around
selling "Anderson Windows" for what, a couple millenia before Billy G was
even a gleam in IBM's eyes?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 20:55:57 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Hmmm, wonder how well paid Anderson's lawyers are? They've been around
selling "Anderson Windows" for what, a couple millenia before Billy G was
even a gleam in IBM's eyes?

Seems like they were made to change from their original name of,
"Andersen".

http://www.andersenwindows.com/



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

It can be a fine line. Monster Cable has to protect their trademark, but
they don't have to shut down businesses to do so. They could license the
use of the name for $1/year and everyone would be happy.

todd

"leonard" wrote in message
...
I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

Todd Fatheree wrote:

It can be a fine line. Monster Cable has to protect their trademark, but
they don't have to shut down businesses to do so. They could license the
use of the name for $1/year and everyone would be happy.

Yeah, they have to protect their trademark, but their trademark is "Monster
Cable". If somebody started selling cable as "Monsters Cable" or "Mobster
Cable" or "Monster Wire" or something else that could be easily confused
with their trademark then they'd have a legitimate case, but no sane person
is going to confuse snowboarding videos or an animated feature film with
overpriced glorified lamp cord.

They're not suing to protect their trademark, they're doing it to make a
profit off of those who won't fight them to the end.

todd

"leonard" wrote in message
...
I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity
for his business.


Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:31:33 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yeah, they have to protect their trademark, but their trademark is "Monster
Cable". If somebody started selling cable as "Monsters Cable" or "Mobster
Cable" or "Monster Wire" or something else that could be easily confused
with their trademark then they'd have a legitimate case, but no sane person
is going to confuse snowboarding videos or an animated feature film with
overpriced glorified lamp cord.

Sure, but how the hell is Disney's "Monsters Inc." going to be
confused with Monster Cable? Or Monster.com? Or any of the other
companies they are throwin frivilous lawsuits at? How are they
protecting their trademark?

You are aware that in order for the suit to be valid, there has to be
a chance that an individual would MISTAKE one company or their
products for another, right?

It'll get thrown out.

It'll get thrown out.

But the sad thing is, before half of these cases even get to court the
accused are giving in and paying Monster Cable to avoid the legal fees
and hassles of a court case. It happens all the time; it's often
cheaper to settle than to stand your ground for what you know is right.

I think it is B.S.!
Maybe he should go after Porter Cable, after all the name of his company
also uses the word "cable"!
He should be able to protect the combination of words, "Monster Cable", but
not the individual words!
By the way, I don't need to boycott them, never have bought any of their
over priced lampcord!
Greg


"leonard" wrote in message
...
I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

You'll need a better example. Porter Cable has been trademarked long
before Monster was even a dream. Still B.S., though!

Greg O wrote:

I think it is B.S.!
Maybe he should go after Porter Cable, after all the name of his company
also uses the word "cable"!
He should be able to protect the combination of words, "Monster Cable", but
not the individual words!
By the way, I don't need to boycott them, never have bought any of their
over priced lampcord!
Greg


"leonard" wrote in message
...


I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect


to


looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...


I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
You'll need a better example. Porter Cable has been trademarked long
before Monster was even a dream. Still B.S., though!


Monster was a word long before Monster Cable existed. Maybe Paramount Studios
ought to sue those assholes.

Personally, I don't use their crap either. I was using cheap RCA cables WAY
back with success and see no reason to switch. To me using their stuff is like
buying USB cables from CompUSA for $40 when I can buy perfectly good ones on the
internet for $2.50. Companies like Monster Cable depend on people's ignorance
for their continued success.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

I was using cheap RCA cables WAY
back with success and see no reason to switch.

Well, there are legitimate reasons to use quality cables for audio and
video, just no legitimate reason to charge what Monster Cable and
similar companies charge. Radio Shack cables are junk and *do* degrade
your sound/picture, but interconects at an equal or similar quality
level to Monster, et al., are readily available for half the price or
less.

Companies like Monster Cable depend on people's
ignorance
for their continued success.

or, to put it another way, Monster Cable is to cabling as Bose is to
speakers.
8^)

On 08 Jan 2005 01:25:04 EST, Mark and Kim Smith
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You'll need a better example. Porter Cable has been trademarked long
before Monster was even a dream. Still B.S., though!

So Porter Cable should sue Moster Cable then! As you say. BS.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:18:23 -0500, "leonard"
wrote:

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


Leonard,

I have filed for a trademark on the letter "L", anyone else's use
of that letter would be a violation of a mark that would devalue my
trademark. I expect $1000 per year and 1% of your gross sales or income
for the continued use of my trademarked letter "L". Please respond with
your certified funds or discontinue the use of my letter "L". Is that
clear _eonard?

For monster to claim that they have a business interest in the area
of educational ski training videos for children and that Mr. Turners use of
the English word "monster" in his business name for that business niche
thus infringes their business interests is ludicrous. The current state of
affairs with various companies and corporations attempting to copyright
and/or trademark the use of common English names or phrases is a very
dangerous trend. Building a brand and trademark is certainly something
that needs to be protected; attempting to assert that they have the
exclusive use of a common word or phrase and actually successfully having
legal actions assert that is going to lead to severe problems as our
ability to use our language becomes more and more restricted. If all
businesses behaved as monster, using the same rationale, think of the
business names and descriptions that would either require paying extortion
to some corporate entity or denied from use: (just a few words just from
various businesses I could think of in about 60 seconds):
Home, Toys, Depot, Basement, Burgers, Office, Max, Red, Black, Best,
Circuit, Buy, City, Fry, Dollar, New York, Times, Fox, Cable, News,
Broadcasting, King, King's, White, White's, Quick
Each and everyone of the previous words is associated with a business
name and branding of some sort and thus someone like Joe's Home Repair
could ostensibly be sued by Home Depot since Joe's Home Repair is using one
of Home Depot's names in a business area in which "Home" Depot has a
presence (darned sight more logical argument BTW, than monster's ludicrous
claim regarding the educational videos market segment). IMHO, a branding
or trademark should apply *only* to the entire brand and trade mark of a
particular company.



Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:55:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

For monster to claim that they have a business interest in the area
of educational ski training videos for children and that Mr. Turners use of
the English word "monster" in his business name for that business niche
thus infringes their business interests is ludicrous. The current state of
affairs with various companies and corporations attempting to copyright
and/or trademark the use of common English names or phrases is a very
dangerous trend. Building a brand and trademark is certainly something
that needs to be protected; attempting to assert that they have the
exclusive use of a common word or phrase and actually successfully having
legal actions assert that is going to lead to severe problems as our
ability to use our language becomes more and more restricted.

(unfortunately, i couldn't read the original story,
the link was broken, or taken down or something...)

agree agree agree

copyright/trademark law is a personal pet
peeve of mine, for a number of reasons...

i have done *some* amount of esearch, legal
readings, and even consulted a trademark/
copyright lawyer several years ago...

besides being *quite* the tangled web of
regional, national and international laws and
legal precedents, it generally protects only
those big korporations who have the resources
to have teams of parasites, er, lawyers on
retainer...

while *supposedly* it offers protection to
the originator/creator/artist, in reality, li'l
peeps can not generally afford :

1. the protection officially registering trademarks
and copyrights can provide if/when legal action
is contemplated/necessary...

(yes, don't tell me how easy it is to copyright
stuff *FORMALLY*/'legally', it is *still* a pain
in the patootie that many/most independent
artists don't have the time to do assiduously...
trademarking is even more of a pain, in that it
costs a chunk of change, has to searched and
approved, has to be renewed regularly, etc...)

2. don't have the resources and manpower to
'police' their trademarks/copyrights...

(in a knockdown drag out legal brawl, it WILL
NOT metaphysically matter if you ARE the
creator of art/widget 'X'; if BigCo, Inc. steals
your idea/art, files the paperwork, and then
sics a team of lawyers on you, you WILL lose...)

3. don't have the lawyers on retainer looking
for something to justify their existence...

(trademarks in particular, are *supposed* to
be 'policed' on a constant, consistent basis
-even if you live in key west and the 'violation'
of your trademark occurs in walla walla- or
you will lose the 'right' to 'own' that trademark...)

4. most creations are done as 'work for hire'
FOR a korporation, such that -once again-
korporate interests are paramount, not
granma moses scraping out a living selling
pieces of her talent/soul...

further, korporate kreeps like disney are THE
prime copyright/trademark nazis when it comes
to 'enforcing' their 'rights' in this area...

they have and will go after people as 'innocent'
and as a nursery school who had crude
pics of goofy, mickey rat, etc painted on their
walls... (needless to say, the kids lost... *how*
this is supposed to be a feather in the cap for
dizzyworld is beyond me...)

(for the kamper who *seemed* to be saying
that disney 'deserves' their agressive protection
because of their 'creativity', i should remind him
that ALL the crap that disney (nike, whoever)
puts out that is popular and sells a zillion units of
mickey mouse crap, are popular *because* of US
MAKING IT POPULAR, not some inherent,
incredible artistic value... ULTIMATELY, disney/etc
are parasitizing OUR popular culture that WE made
popular...)

not only that, but disney has snuck through
kongress a number of extensions to the terms
that copyrights/trademarks are good for, SOLELY
to 'protect' 'their' ownership of mickey rat, donald
duck, goofy, etc, when their trademarks/copyrights
*SHOULD* have expired in the last couple years...

(in other words, the big guys change the rules of
the game when it suits their purposes... surprise...)

now, the point about this that makes me mad, is
that we STARTED out with trademark/copyright
laws that had something like 16-17 years for
'protection' (even patents on inventions have
less time protection than stupid freaking
mickey rat-type crapola ! ! ! ); then it was increased
to the lifetime of the 'artist'; then it was increased
to the lifetime of the 'artist' plus X years, now it is
lifetime plus 75 years, etc...

anyone want to guess the 'lifetime' of immortal,
fictitious legal entities we call korporations ? ? ?

(THE root of all evil, by the way; not corporations
per se, their immortal immoral status as super-citizens
who are more important than impotent li'l peeps...)

how is it that when we depended upon a
fragmented society, with (relatively) crappy,
ineffecient communications where it could take
years for ideas, inventions, text, artwork, etc
to be reproduced (if it even could be), and
spread from one end of a relatively small country
to the other, we had 'protection' periods which
are a fraction of what we have in a huge, relatively
homogenous, instant-communication, xeroxed,
pop-culture society ? ? ?

*shouldn't* the periods of protection be
DECREASING as our society speeds up and
pieces/parts of our culture are fragmented,
sampled, re-mixed, and assimilated at an
incredible pace ? ? ?

the nike swooshtika hasn't sold a gazillion
tee shirts/etc because of the inherent artfulness,
creativity, and appeal of that design; it has
sold a gazillion because THE PEOPLE MADE
IT POPULAR, IT 'BELONGS' to US...

on top of it all, greedy rat *******s in
corporations -and other public figures-
are trying mightily to remove any and
all usage for 'fair use', so that they can't be
made fun of with their own useless crap...

my two centavos...

eof

(unfortunately, i couldn't read the original story,
the link was broken, or taken down or something...)

It's still there, but here's the text:


The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html


Monsters battle it out
A California firm has tried to keep scores of U.S. companies from using
the word "monster." Now a Durango entrepreneur has launched a
pre-emptive strike.
By Jason Blevins
Denver Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 -

Monster Cable, a company that makes high-performance audio and visual
cables, is at war.

The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery
Channel has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally
Gaming is under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine.
Monster sued Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters,
Inc." Even the Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once
were eyed by Monster.

But Jack Turner is taking the offensive. The Durango businessman, who
six years ago started a video company called Snow Monsters, aiming to
get kids on skis, said Monster Cable has filed formal opposition to his
2-year-old trademark application. So he's suing Monster Cable.

"I run the most clean-cut business in the country," said Turner, whose
videos feature costumed skiers such as Powder Pig and Snow Snake
teaching kids how to be safe and have fun on the ski hill.

"I mean, why don't you go beat up on the March of Dimes?"

Assuming he will one day be sued by Monster Cable, Turner is asking a
Colorado district court judge to rule that Snow Monsters does not
infringe on Monster Cable's trademark. It's a pre-emptive move to foil
what could be years of legal wrangling that would break Turner's bank.

Monster Cable, which makes cables and wires for home, car and computer
audio and video equipment, has filed more than 250 oppositions to
trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Most
of the filings were simply requests for additional time so Monster
Cable attorneys could study various trademark applications. Others were
formal oppositions. Some ended in lawsuits.

Monster Cable sued Monster.com, the online résumé site. It sued Disney
and Discovery Channel. In all three suits, Monster reached a
confidential settlement. The company's general counsel, David Tognotti,
said the company is now involved in "great partnerships" with all three
companies.

Monster got its first trademark in 1978. It now has more than 300 marks
in categories from computer and audio equipment to marine electronic
equipment to educational and training services.

Tognotti said Monster Cable is simply doing what many "premium" brand
companies do: protecting a hard-earned image.

"We have spent millions of dollars and countless hours trying to build
a quality premium brand in the marketplace, and there are individuals
trying to leverage off that for their own gain," said Tognotti, noting
that Turner's trademark applications are in categories in which Monster
Cable has business interests. "It would be harmful to us for him to
have a "monster" trademark in those classes. We have a duty to protect
our trademark."

Like Turner, Cathy West is weathering Monster's glare. Her tiny
MonsterVintage.com in Camas, Wash., sells vintage clothing including
striped bell-bottoms and 1970s-era Grateful Dead concert shirts over
the Net.

She thought someone was joking with her two years ago when she got a
licensing agreement package from Monster Cable suggesting that she pay
the wire-maker $1,000 a year and 1 percent of gross sales in exchange
for use of the word "monster."

She threw the packet out, thinking it was junk mail. Now she has an
attorney who estimates legal fees could reach $50,000 in a trademark
fight.

"We don't have the money to fight this," said West, who named the
company after her cat, Monster. "We tried to negotiate with them, but
let me tell you, these guys are not nice characters. It's just bizarre.

"All we are doing is turning old rags into a decent way to pay the
bills. I'd never even heard of Monster Cable before."

Turner said he is shouldering the load for the little guys, much as he
has done for the next generation of skiers with his videos. He is
asking visitors to his website, snowmonsters.com, to boycott Monster
Cable products. He calls his fight a battle against "corporate
bullies."

Earlier this year, he told Monster Cable attorneys he would never
dabble in the speaker- and stereo-wire business. The company countered
with its own idea for Turner's company: give up all rights to the word
'monster,' sign a licensing agreement and give Monster Cable the right
to approve or reject Turner's marketing plan.

So now Turner is paying $500 an hour to two law firms - one in Boulder
and one in New York. He thinks Monster, with a stable of lawyers on
staff, would happily wile away months in court. That's not an option
for him. He said a favorable ruling in his Denver lawsuit would
eliminate the potential of a protracted legal fight.

"They say they own the name 'monster,"' Turner said. "They are big.
They are mean. They play dirty. It's time for someone to stand up to
the bullies and say enough is enough."

Staff writer Jason Blevins can be reached at 303-820-1374 or
.

Scare tactics: Other companies Monster Cable has targeted

Disney

Settled a trademark- infringement suit over the animated movie

"Monsters, Inc."

Monster.com

The online résumé service settled; like Disney and Discovery Channel,
deal is confidential

MonsterVintage.com

The online seller of Grateful Dead and other concert T-shirts faces a
$50,000 battle.

Chicago Bears

Football's "Monsters of the Midway" were a potential target for a
Monster suit.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:55:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

|On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:18:23 -0500, "leonard"
|wrote:
|
|I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
|protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
|looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
|this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
|his business.
|
|
|Leonard,
|
| I have filed for a trademark on the letter "L", anyone else's use
|of that letter would be a violation of a mark that would devalue my
|trademark. I expect $1000 per year and 1% of your gross sales or income
|for the continued use of my trademarked letter "L". Please respond with
|your certified funds or discontinue the use of my letter "L". Is that
|clear _eonard?

Actually, the University of Arizona has a trademark on the letter "A".
I should hope so after the silly *******s spent a ton of my tax money
having some company design the new "A" logo.

http://policy.web.arizona.edu/~policy/trademark.shtml

Also, I believe it was "60 Minutes" that did a piece on some poor soul
in Scotland or Ireland, named McDonald, who had the nerve to use
his/her own name on a restaurant. McDonald's was suing to protect
their good name. I'm surprised they haven't sued the U of A too,
after all, "McDonald's" has an "a" in its name.

What a Kroc.

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message

What a Kroc.

LOL!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

leonard wrote:

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...

I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.



First of all nice troll. Second, if you're going to troll, at least get
the facts straight...this is a trademark case, not a copyright case.

bkr

leonard wrote:

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.

Uh, did you read the damned article? He's launching a preemptive
strike--they sued Disney and some woman who named her little hole in the
wall store after her cat. Since nobody in their right mind buys their
overpriced lamp cord they seem to be trying to salvage their dying company
by profiting on lawsuits.

Further, it's not copyright, it's trademark, and the general legal situation
is that you only have a legitimate claim if there is a reasonable
possibility that the use of the word might create confusion. There is no
possibility that someone is going to confuse, say, "Monsters, Inc", with a
cable manufacturer, but they sue anyway knowing that most folks will cave
rather than fighting it out. Unfortunately, Disney caved when Monster
Cable went after them--they would have done the world a real service by
smashing that outfit flat and forcing it into bankruptcy then buying up the
scraps and shipping them to Japan to be melted down and turned into
something useful.

Len
"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Read on, and spread the word...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.

snip

BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp

I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
done with printing.allready...
I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).

Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
rather than fighting it out. Unfortunately, Disney caved when Monster
Cable went after them--they would have done the world a real service by
smashing that outfit flat and forcing it into bankruptcy then buying up the
scraps and shipping them to Japan to be melted down and turned into
something useful.

Ah, but Disney would not want a sensible decision on trademarks on
the books. They spend a lot of time and effort threatening people
in a similar fashion, and they have a lot more trademarks to "protect."
It is clearly cheaper for Disney to pay the upstart a few pennies
than to face some *other* upstart in court somewhere using Disney's
own arguments against it.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.

I think you're out of your mind. How does "Monsters Inc." or "Monster
Garage" in any way confuse you as to their relation (or lack thereof,
which is the reality of the situation) to Monster Cable?

"Monster" is a general-purpose word in the English language that far
predates Monster Cable; so I guess in your eyes Apple Computer has a
right to trademark the word "apple" and then sue or extort the pants
off of every apple farmer or supplier in the land?

And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
supports that claim?

"Brian" wrote in message

And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
supports that claim?

And more to the claim of MC, and reasons for trademarks ... how is their
advertising going to benefit Monster Anything else?

That, IMO, should be the VERY basis for this type of frivolous, make-work
for the legal profession.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" wrote in news:-OSdnSuyVvDoiX3cRVn-
:


"Brian" wrote in message

And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
supports that claim?

And more to the claim of MC, and reasons for trademarks ... how is
their
advertising going to benefit Monster Anything else?


Well it might not benefit most of the defendants, but it could pretty
easily benefit MOnster.com . While Monster.com is a very well known
website, it is not difficult to imagine that a number of consumers
looking for the monster cable site would simple type monster.com


That, IMO, should be the VERY basis for this type of frivolous, make-
work
for the legal profession.

Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:04:53 -0500, Brian wrote:

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.

Hum...I think he is doing it for exactly the reason he
states...to try and avoid getting smashed by a big, non-related
company, with too many lawyers.

I think you're out of your mind. How does "Monsters Inc." or "Monster
Garage" in any way confuse you as to their relation (or lack thereof,
which is the reality of the situation) to Monster Cable?

Not the point for Monster Cable.

"Monster" is a general-purpose word in the English language that far
predates Monster Cable; so I guess in your eyes Apple Computer has a
right to trademark the word "apple" and then sue or extort the pants
off of every apple farmer or supplier in the land?

As a matter of fact, Apple computer DID get sued...by Apple
Records (the Beatle's recording company) quite some years ago, for
exactly this sort of trademark violation. As part of the settlement,
Apply Computer had to agree to NOT go into the music publishing
industry. Of course, recent events have caused some upset at
Apple Records and some renegotiation.
However, this sort of thing has happened before and
will happen again.

And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
supports that claim?

Again...does not matter. The fact of the matter is that
the way the laws are interpreted these days, a given company can
acquire exclusive ownership for the use of a word. This is far
too broad a net, and, I think should be addressed by the courts.
However, this is another case of the golden rule...i.e. the man
with the gold makes the rules.
It is akin to the intellectual property suit that SCO
has been chasing for years over Linux. The fact of the matter
is that they have not proven they have a leg to stand on. yet...
the lawyers continue to make millions, and, the stockholders
make big bucks off selling the SCO stock (artificially pumped
by the heavily spun news of the progress of the suit).

Regards
Dave Mundt

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:18:23 -0500, "leonard" wrote:

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


monster is not exactly a uncommon work. what your going to sue any parent that
tells their kids about the monster under the bed?
these companies have nothing to do with audio cables. they will get no benefit
from the name association.
in the long run monster cables will suffer from stupidity.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:59:28 -0800, Steve Knight
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:18:23 -0500, "leonard" wrote:

I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
his business.


monster is not exactly a uncommon work. what your going to sue any parent that
tells their kids about the monster under the bed?
these companies have nothing to do with audio cables. they will get no benefit
from the name association.
in the long run monster cables will suffer from stupidity.

So Steve, you thinking of coming out with a "Monster Plane"?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

So Steve, you thinking of coming out with a "Monster Plane"?

only if I can afford the court fee's (G) hey will they go after monster trucks
too???

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

"Brian" wrote in message
...
I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html

What a bunch of greedy assholes.


I've boycotted them for years. Their cables are very over-priced wire.

I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable, other
high priced brands, and lamp cord.