Boycott Monster Cable - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 09:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Works for me and my Apple. :D

John
Alimentall is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 09:26 AM
Member
 
AustPwrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"The Bose argument is valid in that if it were a more commonly used word, it would have to be protected as aggressively. Monster has been in business for (I think) 30 years or so. Someone argued earlier whoever has the trademark first should win, well in most cases, if the law agreed that there is infringement, Monster has had the trademark first. Again, it's not wether or not you agrre with their practices." - Stryf3

By this line of thought/argument, then General Electric should be protecting its mark as aggressively. No company can use the word "Electric" in describing its products or in their company name. Hey, what about "General." That would be a good battle to watch, General Electric vs General Motors. Bose is a name, it isn't a noun, adverb, adjective, or pronoun. Whereas monster is a commonly used word.

There is no problem in protecting one's mark in a field that you are in or intend to enter. But going after a food company is a little far. What about protecting the mark from the Red Sox for using "Monster Seats" in left field. I think the Green Monster has been around much longer than Monster Cable. Maybe it wasn't trademarked, but how is one going to confuse seats at a Red Socks game with the AV cable company? Is the public to believe that the seats are specially wired with Monster Cables? Last I checked, stadium seats didn't have complicated electronics.

How about sparring with Disney over the movie, "Monster's Inc." Is the public going to think it's a movie about the rise and fall of Monster Cables the company? I think the fact that they scare little kids into screaming will tarnish the good name of Monster Cable. Ok, with that argument, I think Monster Cable has a legitimate filing for trademark infringement. Again, I would love to hear the results of this one. Wonder if Disney is considering (or filed) a counter suit.

If Monster Vintage was using logo and font similar to Monster Cable's font and logo, then Monster Vintage was in violation the other's mark. And the fact that Monster Cable has trademarks in the clothing industry gives them legitimacy in stopping Monster Vintage from using the "Monster" name. However, this is a small internet company that poses no threat to Monster Cable nor is it related to its industry. But you do need to protect your turf.

With that said, I don't agree with filing against Monster.com. How is a job site at odds with Monster Cable? What, are they going into the HR industry too? From a previous poster, I didn't recall Monster filing any marks in this industry? So why go after Monster.com to protect the "Monster" name? I think this is similar to a hypothetical lawsuit between General Motors and General Electric over the use of "General."

Darling or not, I call it the way I see it. This company is going overboard with their trademark protection. And their "bullying" tactics leave a bad taste in my mouth. To go into these other fields just looks like extortion and greed on the part of Noel and Monster Cable.

Just my 2 cents. :)
AustPwrs is offline  
post #183 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 10:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The point is not that Bose is someone's name, It's the nature of the name Monster. Much in the same way a cafe' can't have exclusive rights to the word cafe', General Electric can't have exclusive rights to either of those words used separately. The Monster seats issue makes a little more sense after Monster bought the naming rights to Monster Park. As far as the food thing, that is a reach, but I’m not privy to Monster’s legal strategy and I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal. I don’t understand the argument that Monster is going after little guys, but is going to make big money from them. 1% of Monster Vintage sales? How much does that amount to? $10,000 annulally? That’s chump change to a company like Monster. You can’t argue that these “little†guys have no money to defend themselves, but also that Monster stands to make some real money through their actions. Monster is a commonly used word, but no to the extent electric, general, or many others that have been used to reduce this issue to the ridiculous to support various arguments here. As far as boycotters (is that a made up word?) views being silly, if that’s the strongest word that’s been used throughout this thread, than you need a little thicker skin Randybes. Opinions in more threads than I care to count have been called much worse, and your analogy doesn’t make any sense. I don’t go out onto the sales floor and talk about my political beliefs, religion, or anything else that might be controversial, and cost me a sale, or worse, a continued relationship with a customer. I’m not mad at anyone in this thread. Your entitled to your opinion, and I think it’s been an interesting discussion, but there’s nothing personal about it, and I haven’t seen any personal attacks, with the slight possibility of many questioning Jake’s motives. Do you really think Jake’s opinions on here are going to help or hurt his personal business in any way? Even if Monster were his biggest selling accessory products, he could come on here and say the suck and so does the company that manufactures them and it wouldn’t make any difference to what he sells tomorrow, next week, or next year. Also no one seems to want to question the motive’s behind the owner of the other cable company which have been expressed here I apologize for not remembering the name). Not that his motives change my opinion of his views. They are intelligent and well thought out, and are worth reading and considering.

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #184 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:09 AM
KOA
Advanced Member
 
KOA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally posted by AustPwrs

By this line of thought/argument, then General Electric should be protecting its mark as aggressively. No company can use the word "Electric" in describing its products or in their company name. Hey, what about "General." That would be a good battle to watch, General Electric vs General Motors. Bose is a name, it isn't a noun, adverb, adjective, or pronoun. Whereas monster is a commonly used word.


Just my 2 cents. :) [/b]
Isn't Bose a noun, a proper noun? I think there's more of a problem when a company uses monster in their name and it becomes a noun rather than an adjective. The name becomes a brand, which becomes very important to the company. The name Monster Cables is probably one of it's biggest assets. You seem to think it's reasonable for Apple to defend the ieverything because the i has become basically a trademark for things Apple. When Monster does it they are bad guys. Monster develop the word monster into a trademarked brand name similar to what Apple did with the letter i. Were there any companies using monster in their name 30 years ago? I remember it as unique and innovative at the time.

If I recall correctly, Xerox had just the opposite thing happen to them. They had a unique made up name that became the generic default for copying. The market place eventually sorted it out. Probably will sort this one out too.
KOA is offline  
post #185 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:13 AM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
The market place eventually sorted it out. Probably will sort this one out too.
And meanwhile, more than a few very small companies are being forced to pay monster cable even though they are in entirely different industries!

Or try to fight the deep legal pockets of Monster in court!
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #186 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:17 AM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If this action by Monster is so obviously wrong, why would any of these small companies need to spend much in legal fees. Any reasonable judge would just throw out these cases right?

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #187 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by KOA
You seem to think it's reasonable for Apple to defend the ieverything because the i has become basically a trademark for things Apple.
Actually, Apple has been sued several times by "Apple Music" (or something) because any association of music, such as iTunes music store, is seen as a violation.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #188 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
what does Apple have to do with music? Everyone knows they make computers. Who does Apple Music think they are?? I'm boycotting Apple Music, and I'm urging all of you to do the same......(tongue firmly in cheek:))

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #189 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Grooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Villages, Fl
Posts: 2,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Quote:
Originally posted by fredanderson21
And meanwhile, more than a few very small companies are being forced to pay monster cable even though they are in entirely different industries!

Or try to fight the deep legal pockets of Monster in court!
Come on Fred, nobody is being "FORCED" to pay anything. If you want to use the name, fight it out in court, come to an agreement with the licensee or rename your business. These are choices small "Monster" businesses can make. btw, I bet MonsterCable puts out more clothes than monstervintage.

Hear me now, Listen to me later....
Tom Grooms is offline  
post #190 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TjMV3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is the way I see it.

Are any of these other products, companies, teams in direct competition with the "Monster Cable Co. " , for the same market niche...consumer ????

Will someone going to see the Chicago Bears play football, be confused by the "Monsters Of The Midway" title? Will one be led astray when seeking audio/video cables or Power Supplies, because of the "Monsters Of Midway" ?

Will the act of buying an Energy Drink cause Monster Cable to lose money/customers? Will someone try to drink Monster Cables and hook their Energy Drink between an Amp and Pre Amp?

Will someone searching for A/V cables settle for a few seats at Fenway, as their solution to interconnects?

Will someone choose the Monsters Inc DVD, by mistake, instead of a Monster Power Supply?

Will I accidently purchase a sweater, when in fact I need a Surge Protector?

These are the questions I ask myself.


This whole thing is ridiculous, on Monster Cables part.
TjMV3 is offline  
post #191 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Will anyone go into a music store to buy the Beatles White album, only to come out with an iMac?

Does Monster Park have something in common with Monsters Of The Midway?

Does Monster Energy Drink sound like something that could be manufactured by a company that makes Monster Mints?

(Fenway argument, see Monster Park above)

If Monster wanted to put out a AV system tuning DVD (like Avia) could they then be sued by Disney/Pixar? (Sillier things have happened!...oh my did I say silly...oops sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone:))

oh and btw, If I want to go to Monsters Web site, what is the URL I'm most likely to type into the address bar of my browser? www.monster.com......but this doesn't seem right. Where are the cables!?!?!?

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #192 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally posted by Stryf3
The point is not that Bose is someone's name, It's the nature of the name Monster. Much in the same way a cafe' can't have exclusive rights to the word cafe', General Electric can't have exclusive rights to either of those words used separately. The Monster seats issue makes a little more sense after Monster bought the naming rights to Monster Park. As far as the food thing, that is a reach, but I’m not privy to Monster’s legal strategy and I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal. I don’t understand the argument that Monster is going after little guys, but is going to make big money from them. 1% of Monster Vintage sales? How much does that amount to? $10,000 annulally? That’s chump change to a company like Monster. You can’t argue that these “little†guys have no money to defend themselves, but also that Monster stands to make some real money through their actions. Monster is a commonly used word, but no to the extent electric, general, or many others that have been used to reduce this issue to the ridiculous to support various arguments here. As far as boycotters (is that a made up word?) views being silly, if that’s the strongest word that’s been used throughout this thread, than you need a little thicker skin Randybes. Opinions in more threads than I care to count have been called much worse, and your analogy doesn’t make any sense. I don’t go out onto the sales floor and talk about my political beliefs, religion, or anything else that might be controversial, and cost me a sale, or worse, a continued relationship with a customer. I’m not mad at anyone in this thread. Your entitled to your opinion, and I think it’s been an interesting discussion, but there’s nothing personal about it, and I haven’t seen any personal attacks, with the slight possibility of many questioning Jake’s motives. Do you really think Jake’s opinions on here are going to help or hurt his personal business in any way? Even if Monster were his biggest selling accessory products, he could come on here and say the suck and so does the company that manufactures them and it wouldn’t make any difference to what he sells tomorrow, next week, or next year. Also no one seems to want to question the motive’s behind the owner of the other cable company which have been expressed here I apologize for not remembering the name). Not that his motives change my opinion of his views. They are intelligent and well thought out, and are worth reading and considering.
I have very thick skin-but I also try to show respect in my posts-I think it helps not hurts my arguments-Now here is the challenge-

You should be the one challenging Ray Kimber--


Ray Kimber of Kimber cable is who you are trying to think of and here is his email address-challenge him-he responds to emails-he did mine-

ray@kimber.com
Randybes is offline  
post #193 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:46 AM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You know what? This thread has inspired me to create my own line of high end AV cables. I'm gonna name them Blockbuster AV cables, or maybe Pepsi AV, on the other hand I could go with Target Cables. You think anyone would mind?

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #194 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:46 AM
KOA
Advanced Member
 
KOA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 36
iGiveup
KOA is offline  
post #195 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't want to challenge Ray's motives. They are his own and have no bearing on my opinion of his thoughts or ideas on this subject.

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #196 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Don't challenge his motives then-challenge his arguments!
Randybes is offline  
post #197 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:55 AM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Randybes
Don't challenge his motives then-challenge his arguments!
He won't challenge Ray's arguments because he can't!
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #198 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Grooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Villages, Fl
Posts: 2,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 185
self-serving at best. I own some Kimber cables. I have the KCAGs and also got my hands on the Heros when they were all the rage. Good Stuff!

Hear me now, Listen to me later....
Tom Grooms is offline  
post #199 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I will close and this will be my last post on the subject. I think that individuals have the right to vote with thier pocketbook. Each has to make up thier own mind whether they want to purchase Monster or not. I don't know if Ray Kimber is speaking the truth, but enough facts have been brought out to make me think that Monster is not playing fair (even if it is legal). That is my decision and others may differ and I respect that. I do not respect some of the attitudes shown in the posts.

I will admit that part of my position on this has to do with the whole cable area. I think it can be summed up in the really great "announcement" I linked earlier. I think that the whole high end cable industry is somewhat suspect especially when backing up "scientific claims" and being around a long time (as in old), I think Monster had a fair amount to do with starting the trend of "high end" wire.

Oh yea, STRYF3, don't use the word "Glob" for your AV cables-that is trademarked:)

By the way Tom Grooms, I grew up in St. Louis and now live in Kansas City, do you work at or own one of the high end AV stores there?
Randybes is offline  
post #200 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:04 PM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The following are Ray Kimber's UNEDITED comments regarding Monster Cable:

Dear All, (Permission to copy and/or cross post this, without editing, is granted)

There have been some murmurs that my opposition and criticism of Monster Cable is self serving. I would like to respond and give a more complete reason and response for my opposition to Monster Cable

I didn't jump to any conclusions about Monster Cable's behavior toward Snow Monsters until after I had called and talked to both parties, and challenged them both. The result was that I looked at postings of "real" documents on the web that, in my opinion, leave Monster Cable trying to now float a public relations “cover story†that is increasingly difficult for anyone to swallow.

I wonder how many who are reading this will have seen the 1999 article from Forbes Magazine? (If not, send me your mailing address by private email and I will send you one, it is copyrighted, so it shouldn’t be PDF’d but I have some authorized reprints from Forbes) In it, Kimber Kable and Straight Wire were both splattered by the same paint as Monster Cable. While the article was from a few years ago, it is STILL being referenced by current postings and I recently had a reporter call me, out of the blue, regarding the re-naming of Candlestick Park, due to the linking of Kimber Kable and Monster Cable in the Forbes article.

Since my name and company and industry continue to be linked to Monster Cable I have an interest in what is being said, along with worry of how all AV cable companies might be tarnished by industry association with Monster Cable. The Snow Monsters issue came to my attention via someone who thought we and Monster Cable were the same thing! Until a few days ago I didn’t have ANY knowledge of the very existence of Monster Vintage, The Sesame Street Monster Workshop or Monster Away. Nor did it EVER cross my mind that Monster Garage, Monsters Inc, Monster.com or Monster Trucks had anything to do with each other OR with Monster Cable. Certainly I didn’t form negative opinions about any of the above entities by name association with each other, or mistake one for the other

There are many, no, make that VERY many things that Noel as a person and Monster Cable as a company have accomplished in a very positive way, but..., now I have both heartbreak and heartburn over what is happening, I don't understand, Noel's/Monster Cable’s tactics, it "looks" bad and I worry that folks will decide that the whole darn specialty cable business is the same. Monster Cable is, by my reckoning, larger than ALL of us competitors COMBINED! That gives Noel a "bully pulpit", but his apparent behavior as a bully is doing terrible harm to him, his company and my/our industry.

Monster Cable makes some great products, no question and no argument from me. But HOW they are selling them pisses me off, not because it cuts into Kimber Kable sales, it doesn't (explained below). It pisses me off because I think it is just flat wrong. One example: Using the driving of Noel's sports cars as an incentive to sell more Monster Cable. The result has been two-fold. More cable was sold. And! There were folks who likely had NEVER driven a high performance car that were turned loose in an unfamiliar car, on unfamiliar PUBLIC roads with a "just met" MC employee as co-pilot/chaperone. I hope/suppose that there were “ground rulesâ€, but sheesh! what could anyone expect?, that these sales folks were motivated to sell more Monster Cable with the goal of driving a dream performance car like Aunt Mable drives her Buick? Uh huh?!? Well, the Forbes article talks about an incident that went wrong, very wrong. When does a sales incentive, by amount and extent, go from "compensating" to "corrupting"?

The reason that Monster Cable doesn't much compete with Kimber Kable is that we don't sell in the same stores, and wouldn't even try. The folks that go to Radio Shack (now selling Monster Cable, BTW) to buy a VCR don't need, and don't deserve to be pitched on, special wire of any kind. That customer’s needs and expectations are COMPLETELY met with ordinary products. If the compensation and pressure to sell that customer "special wires" is high enough then sales WILL certainly be made. But I won't pay that extent of incentive AND won't apply that kind of pressure to Kimber Kable dealers to make THAT kind of sale. I wouldn't be able to explain such sales to my mom and I wouldn't want such sales methods directed at my mom. Sometimes it is good to apply the “mommy test†to situations to see if it is OK.

My anger and opposition to Monster Cable has nuthin' to do with Monster Cable products and everything to do with how pissed I am at overselling and the corrupting influence of incentives and pressure that are WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. Not to mention the ridiculous trademark actions. You don’t see Mother’s Car Wax going after Mother Teresa, now do ya?

Most electronics consumers don't need fancy cables, mine or anyone else’s!!! It is only when the natural interest and knowledge of the consumer correlates with equipment that will compliment the fancy cable that such a sale should be considered. The rewards and pressure to sell Monster Cable are evidently so high as to override the good sense of the seller as to which customer REALLY should be EVER be pitched.

I have NEVER!!! bought a power protection bar, Monster Cable’s or otherwise to go with my consumer electronics hardware purchases. My knowledge of the usual good power line quality and that hardware (even the cheap stuff) is pretty resilient to a little power junk AND!

my knowledge that if I REALLY TRULY did need some protection that I couldn't buy it for $100.00

makes me NOT a target for such sales. I have the knowledge that if I'm buying a $199.00 VCR I won't gain (and shouldn't expect) any useful increase in performance from any power bar or fancy cables. Without that knowledge I don’t want to be a target, like an unaware fish, to be hooked with some bait.

I don't like the idea of having my family and friends sold something/anything because they didn't know enough to form a sensible purchase decision. I don't want any Kimber Kable dealer to make such a sale of my product. I would be kidding myself if I laid out huge incentives to sell Kimber Kable and then imagined that ONLY folks who understood and appreciated fancy cables would be sold Uh Huh ?!? Well, EVERY customer is someone’s friend or family, they deserve to be treated as such.

So, will a boycott of Monster Cable shift all those sales to Kimber Kable, nope, cuz, my mom wouldn't "get it" if I tried to explain why it should. What would/should happen is that just-as-good-for-the-application less expensive product, like Belkin, Panamax, WestPenn or Carol, will be sold instead, at a much lower price. AND by eliminating the high pressure and high rewards the sales will drop to levels that more closely match the needs and expectations of the customer. So a boycott of Monster Cable, in my opinion, won't and shouldn't shift “real†sales to me or any other fancy cable company. What it will do is STOP the over-selling of, albeit fine, products. Remove the artificial props of, what looks to me like, PAYOLA!, and the over-reaching sales will evaporate and not be “shifted†to me or anyone else.

If Monster Cable's tactics are as bad as they appear regarding Snow Monsters, Monster Vintage and Monster Away, then I think they should stop it now AND go back and un-do some stuff, give back previous arm-twisted trademarks and agreements, and make amends to all others that were beat up. (BTW, Monster Away was a water pistol to be sold to children so they could give a little Monster Away squirt under the bed before they went to sleep. Monster Cable opposed the trademark application?!? I looked at the list of actions in the Trademark office, seems to me like Monster Cable just flat wore them out of money and/or will and/or spirit)

Noel/Monster Cable seems not to have learned much from the damning 1998 Forbes article. It won't be enough for me to just have Monster Cable just say "sorry" to Snow Monsters, because I truly believe that they will just continue on their merry way and view an occasional "sorry" as a cost of business. I want to see a "righting" of past "wrongs" and a removal of either Monster Cable's will or means to mount future over-reaching sales tactics and over-reaching trademark tactics.

So, I am going to ask Monster Cable folks some questions. I have already sent Dave Tognotti (Monster Cable’s Attorney) an email on 12/28/2004, no answer yet. I have been, and am going to be further, alerting friends and family to the www.stopthemonster.com site. I will say something, and why, to folks in the stores that are selling Monster Cable.

I am super uncomfortable with taking a stand against Monster Cable, not my style, and it would be perfectly logical for someone to view my opposition as self serving. But I can’t stand by quietly any longer and still be able to explain to my mom why I didn’t speak up.

It sucks that good products need to boycotted in order to stop the overselling and to choke off the profits that finance attacks on Snow Monsters and such.

My bottom line and sincere opinion is; I want to see Monster Cable stop the hurtful damage they are doing, apologize and make amends, correct past similar situations and further; to pay some significant Penitence.

Kind regards,

Ray Kimber (Permission to copy and/or cross post this, without editing, is granted)
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #201 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
fred, these comments have been posted numerous times, we didn't need a replay. fredanderson, maybe I can't type as fast as some, sorry for the late reply

Ok Argument #1: Noel uses driving his sports cars as a sales incentive.

All companies have multiple sales incentives. There are incentives, commissions, spiffs, and endless contests to inspire sales people to sell a particular product or service. The fact that these people are inexperienced when it comes to driving exotic cars is a non-issue.

#2: Joe Sixpack, or more specifically Radio Shack customers don’t deserve(his word not mine) to be told about cable and how premium cables can make a difference to their AV experience. Believe in the product or not, the cables that come in the box suck. And more specifically, there are a thousand ways to hook this stuff up, and most customers left to their own devices are getting bad picture and sound (best case scenario) or not able to get the product working at all and bring it back. People have a little more will power than he’s giving them credit for. They can always say no.

#3 You don’t need any kind of power bar. This one makes no sense at all. You don’t see the point in investing $80 in a Monster Power Center? Then don’t, but anyone with equipment that they don’t want to lose to their local electric company’s mishap should have some measure of protection.

#4 He doesn’t want friends/family to be bamboozled by false claims. I’m not sure where to begin on this one. This guy makes premium cables, but is telling us premium cables to make very much difference in our AV experience. That’s like me selling sports cars and telling people the top speed on my competitors vehicle is not important!

The bottom line is people deserve to make their own decisions. I believe in showing a customer the best and working our way down to find the right balance of needs and budget. If I walked into a place of business, and they chose not to show me the best of what they had because they deemed me not worthy, I would never shop there again and would be offended. Even Ray admits that Monster’s products are good products. I’m not sure what all of his arguments have to do with Monster aggressively protecting their name, but you asked for it……

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #202 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:24 PM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Stryf3
fred, these comments have been posted numerous times, we didn't need a replay. fredanderson, maybe I can't type as fast as some, sorry for the late reply

Ok Argument #1: Noel uses driving his sports cars as a sales incentive.

All companies have multiple sales incentives. There are incentives, commissions, spiffs, and endless contests to inspire sales people to sell a particular product or service. The fact that these people are inexperienced when it comes to driving exotic cars is a non-issue.

#2: Joe Sixpack, or more specifically Radio Shack customers don’t deserve(his word not mine) to be told about cable and how premium cables can make a difference to their AV experience. Believe in the product or not, the cables that come in the box suck. And more specifically, there are a thousand ways to hook this stuff up, and most customers left to their own devices are getting bad picture and sound (best case scenario) or not able to get the product working at all and bring it back. People have a little more will power than he’s giving them credit for. They can always say no.

#3 You don’t need any kind of power bar. This one makes no sense at all. You don’t see the point in investing $80 in a Monster Power Center? Then don’t, but anyone with equipment that they don’t want to lose to their local electric company’s mishap should have some measure of protection.

#4 He doesn’t want friends/family to be bamboozled by false claims. I’m not sure where to begin on this one. This guy makes premium cables, but is telling us premium cables to make very much difference in our AV experience. That’s like me selling sports cars and telling people the top speed on my competitors vehicle is not important!

The bottom line is people deserve to make their own decisions. I believe in showing a customer the best and working our way down to find the right balance of needs and budget. If I walked into a place of business, and they chose not to show me the best of what they had because they deemed me not worthy, I would never shop there again and would be offended. Even Ray admits that Monster’s products are good products. I’m not sure what all of his arguments have to do with Monster aggressively protecting their name, but you asked for it……
LOL

That's right - just ignore Ray's comments on Monster Cables actions against a childrens snowboarding organization! :rolleyes:

And all the other issues that Ray brings up as to Monster Cables actions that are reflecting negatively on the high end cable industry!

You guys don't need to defend Monster Cable - they have a ton of lawyers to do that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if David Bott gets a call asking him to shut down this thread or be threatened by legal action!!!
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #203 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
SVonhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manteca, Ca, USA
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally posted by fredanderson21
....In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if David Bott gets a call asking him to shut down this thread or be threatened by legal action!!!
I have been hoping the whole time this thread has been going that this scenario would not happen!
SVonhof is offline  
post #204 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
SVonhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manteca, Ca, USA
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Oh, BTW, I was thinking, if anything, maybe this thread would get Noel to join the forum and start talking directly to all of us about this matter.
SVonhof is offline  
post #205 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TjMV3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don't hold your breath. Very unlikely.

What could he possibly say in his (and Monster Cables') defense?





Their actions are shameful and absurd.
TjMV3 is offline  
post #206 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 12:51 PM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
He could say:

"Yeah - we were very concerned that a children's snowboarding organization was going to dilute our trademark and hurt our bottom line. And ya know - those monster shrimp.... they could confuse people into buying different branded cables."

;)
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #207 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bpape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: St. Louis(Wildwood), MO
Posts: 7,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
But I want him to make the Fridgidaire argument or the Kleenex argument that if they don't protect it, ALL cables will be called Monsters instead ;).

Seriously, if they are REALLY worried about protecting their name and it is NOT about payola but they need to license the word Monster in order to be seeming to enforce it and keep it, how about $1. That's all it would take. Everybody is happy. If someone is REALLY infringing on them, then that's another matter. This will never happen as it IS about money - no matter who gets hurt, how illogical or disconnected it seems for a given business, etc. I'm amazed they haven't tried to do the same for the word cable!

I'm waiting to see if they go after Hardee's for their 'Monster' ThickBurger being blasted all over national TV during football games.

I am serious...and don't call me Shirley.
Bryan Pape - Lead Acoustician
GIK Acoustics

bpape is offline  
post #208 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 01:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Stryf3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm not ignoring his comments, I'm challenging his arguments. A children’s snowboarding school has money to pay Monster and subsidize their multimillion dollar cable business?? Probably not. So we are to assume then that Monster wants to drive them out of business? To what end? Also, these actions make all premium cable companies look bad? To who? People on this and other forums like it already discount any real benefits from premium cables, and definitely know the difference between brands. Of course there’s the average consumer who doesn’t know anything, so how are they going to connect the companies?? That doesn’t really make sense either.

I think we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree, pick up our marbles, and go find something else to argue about. It’s clear, You’re not swaying my opinion and I’m not swaying yours. So, this discussion has just become a rehash of the same points and counter points. Thanks for the interesting discussion, see you in another (non Monster) thread!!

I just made you up to hurt myself....
Stryf3 is offline  
post #209 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 01:23 PM
 
fredanderson21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Stryf3
I'm not ignoring his comments, I'm challenging his arguments. A children’s snowboarding school has money to pay Monster and subsidize their multimillion dollar cable business?? Probably not. So we are to assume then that Monster wants to drive them out of business? To what end? Also, these actions make all premium cable companies look bad? To who? People on this and other forums like it already discount any real benefits from premium cables, and definitely know the difference between brands. Of course there’s the average consumer who doesn’t know anything, so how are they going to connect the companies?? That doesn’t really make sense either.

I think we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree, pick up our marbles, and go find something else to argue about. It’s clear, You’re not swaying my opinion and I’m not swaying yours. So, this discussion has just become a rehash of the same points and counter points. Thanks for the interesting discussion, see you in another (non Monster) thread!!
You can pickup your marbles and leave the discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that Monster Cable DID go after a children's snowboarding group.

It is a FACT that is on multiple news websites. If everything else on this thread is bogus (and it's not), that FACT alone says volumes about Monster Cable and their business ethics.

And THAT is what this entire thread is about!
fredanderson21 is offline  
post #210 of 515 Old 01-06-2005, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
SVonhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manteca, Ca, USA
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 19
BTW, Snowmonsters has taken the majority of their site down and supposedly was on their way to CES in a motorhome to spread the word about what was happening. They are now driving without a large sign on the motorhome and the site is down. What happened? I don't know yet.

I will report back if I hear anything.
SVonhof is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off