Seen the Monster boycott stuff?

Here is an email that I sent to them:


From: Dr. Spike

Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:21 AM

To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Cc: '[email protected]'

Subject: Monster Cable trademark

Importance: High


Dear Monster Cable:

Noel Lee, Founder-Owner

Irene Baran, Chief Operating Officer

Daniel Graham, PR Monster

David Tognotti, General Counsel

Taylor Norrish, Internet Marketing Group Manager


I used to be a believer in Monster Cable, I even recommended Monster Cable to everyone I know. But no longer will I do this, I will in fact discourage anyone and everyone from purchasing or using your products due to your ridiculous conduct on your law suits on the name Monster. This is just ridiculous and outrageous for you to strong arm and demand a percent of profits from small companies such as Monster vintage clothing and many others. I see this as pure greed and nothing else. I look down upon this petty and greed driven pursuit that you are engaged in.


You have a product that sells. Are you hurting that bad that you need to pursue small companies to get that extra percent from them?


No one confuses any of these other business with yours. This appears as a greed issue with your company.


Stop this ridiculous action that you are taking and get back to making and selling your products.


I will do my best to advocate against the use of any of your products, both on the internet and verbally. I will also start many websites with the name monster in it with all of you law suits and what you are doing to small companies. I will heavily promote these sites on all major and minor search engines to gain as much public viewing as possible so people will know what your company is really all about, that being greed and strong arming small companies for a name ‘monster’ that has been around longer than your company was even a thought. I will continue my pursuit to inform the public and discourage them of the use of your products until you stop your actions.



Thank you for your time.


Michael Skeway

Wow. That makes me sad.


Years ago I used to be a fan of Monster products. Just about every interconnect I had carried a Monster label, and that was when I was making less than I am today.


Not because of the hype surrounding their products, but because they were (generally) well-made, and quite easy to find at a time when the only interconnects that were on the shelves were their products next to the 18 gauge zip cord on a roll, and the spider-wire RCA patch cords that looked worse than the stock cables that came with a lot of components.


Sigh.


Seems like absolute wealth corrupts as readily as absolute power.


Makes me glad that I ordered the bulk roll of 10 gauge speaker wire for my new setup instead of shelling out the extra bucks for Monster.


Anybody want to buy a box of Monster patch cords? (Just kidding!)


Take care,


Karl

Nice letter Dr.Spike I agree with you 100%, monster is being ridiculous Though I've always thought there product was way overpriced and overrated kinda like a bose thing to me. Also their warranty is a huge pain in the ass, A friend of mine bought a power conditioner from bb for $300 (yikes) and actually had lightning hit his house and short out everything in his HT that was connected to his power center, he sent the unit back to monster. They wouldn't even give him a new unit!!!!! let alone fix the gear that was fried,they said it wasn't designed for what happened to it, just gave him the run around for 6 months until finally he just gave up because the court fees would have been way too much to bother. You want to know whats funny the only thing in his house that was safe was his computer stuff(also his washer and dryer and some other appliances) connected to a belkin surgemaster home series(1045 joules, 45,000 amps) So naturally now he is a belkin fan as well as myself. just my little story i thought i'd share with you all.

I also email. I learned of this from another forum.


I have been in touch with their legal representative and he is preparing a response to a very pointed email I sent him:


Earlier in the week you received an email of protest from me and quickly returned the email with a personal phone call. I commend this quick, personal response. Not what a consumer has grown to expect from a large company like Monster Cable.


Earlier today I returned your call and left a voice mail that pretty much says drop me a line at this email address. The purpose of this email was to clear up the direction that I would like this conversation to take.


I have seen on the internet, the list of companies that Monster Cable has sought to stop trademark registration that include, but is definitely not limited to Monster Vintage, an energy drink maker, and even Monster Seats... Which are the seats atop the 'Green Monster' wall at Fenway park. Said park is only a few miles from where I sit. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, however.


I have failed to see why there is call to seek injunction against these companies that seemingly (correct me if I am wrong) could not hurt your cable and power sales. There are many reasons that the modern consumer dislikes this... First is the growing distrust in large corporations and their tactics and ethics. We're just more wary. Second is the fact that all the legal fees that Monster Cable must be paying are passed right onto the consumer (however the price of monster cables really isn't in debate right now). Third is that the lawsuits against small or inconsequential companies is a detriment to these companies. They also have to pay legal fee, perhaps halt the printing of labels or products.


Any way, we, the consumers, look at it, we see a large corporation hurting smaller, harmless corporations and the consumers that you're supposed to be striving to give the best value to.


Please respond with the reasons that you find to justify these actions, I will pass them on to the other people that have had similar reactions as myself. Many people on internet forums are starting a grass roots boycott of Monster. These are influential people, they are in the small percentage of people that care about and research their audio products. Because they are armed with this knowledge, their friends and relatives rely on them to suggest or even buy audio products for them. Not a single person on the forum I visit had a favorable reaction to the post regarding Monster Cable.


I look forward to your response.


***********


The only response I have is one saying that he's preparing his response but does intend to address the issue with me.

I doubt that Monster is being greedy.


They hold a trademark on their name. They are required to aggressively defend against anyone else using their name, or they risk losing the very valuable property that the brand represents.


Their corporate attorneys are just doing their jobs.


Sony does the same thing. They once sued a Phillipine woman whose own name was Sony and who opened a restaurant here in the US in her own name. She was required to change the restaurant name.


It doesn't matter how many people write emails or letters. Monster and Sony will always defend their trademarks.

Bose is a guy's name. The word has no other other meaning than the company or Dr. Bose. The trademarks "windows" and "monster" are IMO improper as exclusive trademarks as they have a common meaning that pre-dates the use by Microsoft and Monster Cable. If in fact the trademarks are held to be proper, then they should be restricted to reference the products marketed under that trademark. Someone other than Monster Cable that tries to sell cable labeled "Monster" should be prevented from doing so as it infringes Monster's trademark. Same with operating systems called "Windows".


What we have here is the same distortion of the intellectual property framework that we see with "software patents" and the "copyright of ideas". A brand, just like a monopoly, can be leveraged into previously unrelated markets. There is thus financial incentive for the strong pressure to expand the coverage of trademarks outside the markets in which they apply. So long as legislation and regulatory practice permit it, the courts will have to resolve it, expense and all.