# How do you feel about Monster Cable's Legal Practices



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

*BEFORE POSTING, READ THE RULES!!

NO bashing of manufacturers and/or products will be tolerated. You may explain that you prefer product A over product B and justify your differences, but do not deliberately bash a product just because you do not like it or just because you had a bad experience with it. Others may own that product and may be offended that you are bashing and trashing their choice of products. *

This thread is to discuss the recent legal battles that Monster Cable has engaged. We can also discuss Monster Cable products here, but please be clear, no bashing allowed. If you have a criticism of Monster Cable, it must be backed up with rationale and/or fact, stated in the post as support. Simply screaming "M0nstor is the sux0r" will get you a polite pm'd reminder of the rules, and multiple offenses will get you banned.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I decided to start this thread based on the angle the discussion was taking here: http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...cessories/18188-rca-y-adapter.html#post163218

Feel free to reference http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/monster/ or just google search for more info


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I think that their legal challenges have been unreasonable in several cases. I do not like their tactics and many of their products are over priced and poor values. That said, there are many worse offenders in terms of making claims that are not supported by facts and far more outrageously priced products. Had MC never been involved in some of the more silly lawsuits, I would not find much fault with what they market, at least in the context of the rest of the industry.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

lcaillo said:


> That said, there are many worse offenders in terms of making claims that are not supported by facts and far more outrageously priced products.


Without a doubt, we could start a separate thread on the Voodoo that is Hi-Fi.

How about these for $250-2000 in USD: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/acousticsystem/resonators.html

"They're anything but a joke. They're the most eye-friendly effective room treatments we've come across yet and highly recommended."

...and a ton more here: http://www.avrant.com/?p=79

I actually saw many of these little voodoo dolls at the HES show a couple years ago, but, once again, that's capitalism in the free market. You can sell anything you want for any price and, short of downright lying about your product, people can choose whether to buy it or not (hopefully not in these cases).

But, that's not where I take issue with Monster Cables. MC is taking the giant bankroll they've amassed on the ignorance of their customer base, and using it to threaten the livelihood of anyone with less money and lawyers than they have. In the case of Blue Jeans cable, they seek to stomp out the competition. In the case of anyone with "Monster" in their name, they see not to protect or build their own brand, but to, in many cases, license the word Monster in a shakedown that would make any common thug or patent troll proud.

I take no issue with MC's overhyped, under performing (relative to their claims) products other than from a performance/value perspective. I will assert that they have the right to sell these products in the fashion that they do until the day that I die. However, they do not have the right to engage in frivolous lawsuits as a means of bullying and anti-competitive practices.

To be frank, someone needs to stop them.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Actually, they do ave the right to pursue these lawsuits. They may not be wise, and they may generate ill will, and they may eventually be santioned legally, but they do have the right. Personally, I think it has harmed them more than helped them. The pursuit of BJC gave that company a real boost as Kurt has played the underdog role very well.

Hey, it is business and Monster Cable plays rough. Like I said, I think it has hurt their business by making them a target.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

You're right, of course. My moral compass was overpowering my legal compass as they DO certainly have the right to work towards destroying the livelihood of others using our legal system. However, I don't think they should. Judges should be throwing these lawsuits out as frivolous the minute they hit the clerks desk (In My Humble Opinion, of course).

Signed,
Marshall J Guthrie, Non-Esq.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

eugovector said:


> You're right, of course. My moral compass was overpowering my legal compass as they DO certainly have the right to work towards destroying the livelihood of others using our legal system. However, I don't think they should. Judges should be throwing these lawsuits out as frivolous the minute they hit the clerks desk (In My Humble Opinion, of course).
> 
> Signed,
> Marshall J Guthrie, Non-Esq.


My opinion is not so humble, and I mostly agree, but I have seen so much of the shady side of the business that I have a hard time getting excited about MC. 
That nonsense will work out in the courts. There are much less obvious bad actors who never have to face a judge nor jury.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

That assume the companies will make it to the courts. Many cant afford to and therefore have to settle out of court.


----------

