Another reason not to buy Monster Cables

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

<URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>

--
Stein

.... and the answer is 'none'. None more black.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Not to be defending Monster.... but if you don't file suits you can lose
the right to the name..
It's common practice for big companies to file every infringement suit
they can to keep their copyrights.

Stein Hals wrote:

><URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Can you say "p-u-b-l-i-c-i-t-y s-t-u-n-t"?????

"Stein Hals" <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D6A9923D47elvisisking@130.133.1.4...
>
> <URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>
> --
> Stein
>
> ... and the answer is 'none'. None more black.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

So how did R.E.M. get away with their "Monster" album? Look out, Loch Ness!
"Stein Hals" <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D6A9923D47elvisisking@130.133.1.4...
>
> <URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>
> --
> Stein
>
> ... and the answer is 'none'. None more black.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

RicSeyler wrote:

> Not to be defending Monster.... but if you don't file suits you can lose
> the right to the name..
> It's common practice for big companies to file every infringement suit
> they can to keep their copyrights.

I would think that "Monster Cable" could be trademarked, but not the
vocabulary word "monster". It seems quite a stretch to claim exclusive
rights to use a word.

> Stein Hals wrote:
>
>> <URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>>
>>
>>
>


--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <tQiDd.15151$0y4.11940@read1.cgocable.net>, edee em
<emarano@cogeco.ca> wrote:

> Can you say "p-u-b-l-i-c-i-t-y s-t-u-n-t"?????

The Snow Monsters pre-emptive suit is not a publicity stunt (although I
hope it does him some good nevertheless). It's a brilliant and gutsy
move that few small companies can afford to make.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Seems quite a stretch to me also....
They going to sue MGM for producing Frankenstein's Monster? LOL

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
>
> RicSeyler wrote:
>
>> Not to be defending Monster.... but if you don't file suits you can
>> lose the right to the name..
>> It's common practice for big companies to file every infringement
>> suit they can to keep their copyrights.
>
>
> I would think that "Monster Cable" could be trademarked, but not the
> vocabulary word "monster". It seems quite a stretch to claim exclusive
> rights to use a word.
>
>> Stein Hals wrote:
>>
>>> <URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> done wrote:

> Seems quite a stretch to me also....
> They going to sue MGM for producing Frankenstein's Monster? LOL

Wouldn't be surprised if they will or already have, since they _did_ sue
Disney/Pixar for "Monsters Inc.", and the Discovery Channel for "Monster
Garage", and Monster.com and many others as well.

--
Stein

.... and the answer is 'none'. None more black.

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 6 Jan 2005 22:23:21 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:

>RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> done wrote:
>
>> Seems quite a stretch to me also....
>> They going to sue MGM for producing Frankenstein's Monster? LOL
>
>Wouldn't be surprised if they will or already have, since they _did_ sue
>Disney/Pixar for "Monsters Inc.", and the Discovery Channel for "Monster
>Garage", and Monster.com and many others as well.

They didn't win

To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

they didn't lose, either
they've obviously got all those companies giving them something


"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:stnrt018p4n6uqe7ogofdtt2nnjluqg8or@4ax.com...
> On 6 Jan 2005 22:23:21 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> done wrote:
> >
> >> Seems quite a stretch to me also....
> >> They going to sue MGM for producing Frankenstein's Monster? LOL
> >
> >Wouldn't be surprised if they will or already have, since they _did_ sue
> >Disney/Pixar for "Monsters Inc.", and the Discovery Channel for "Monster
> >Garage", and Monster.com and many others as well.
>
> They didn't win
>
> To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:52:00 -0500, "oscargrouch"
<leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>they didn't lose, either
>they've obviously got all those companies giving them something
>
>
cite.
Thumper
>"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:stnrt018p4n6uqe7ogofdtt2nnjluqg8or@4ax.com...
>> On 6 Jan 2005 22:23:21 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> done wrote:
>> >
>> >> Seems quite a stretch to me also....
>> >> They going to sue MGM for producing Frankenstein's Monster? LOL
>> >
>> >Wouldn't be surprised if they will or already have, since they _did_ sue
>> >Disney/Pixar for "Monsters Inc.", and the Discovery Channel for "Monster
>> >Garage", and Monster.com and many others as well.
>>
>> They didn't win
>>
>> To reply drop XYZ in address
>

To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Stein Hals wrote:
> <URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>

No danger of that here.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 6 Jan 2005 21:40:10 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:

>
><URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>

If there's a reason to not buy Monster Cable's product, this isn't it.

Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
a product, that like beer (for example) no one really needs or could
get by with something much less expensive than the premium brand.

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:19:47 -0600, RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net>
wrote:

>Disney has always been the most ruthless in pursuing those suits.
>

They have also been probably the most knocked off company in the
world.
Thumper
>Lazarus Long wrote:
>
>>On 6 Jan 2005 21:40:10 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If there's a reason to not buy Monster Cable's product, this isn't it.
>>
>>Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
>>themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
>>a product, that like beer (for example) no one really needs or could
>>get by with something much less expensive than the premium brand.
>>
>>

To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> I would think that "Monster Cable" could be trademarked, but not the
> vocabulary word "monster". It seems quite a stretch to claim exclusive
> rights to use a word.

There's a lot of factors in play. I think Monster is going overboard,
but use of the word Monster in connection with electronics or
interconnection is likely fair game.



--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, oscargrouch <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote:
> they didn't lose, either
> they've obviously got all those companies giving them something

Likely they got an agreement not to use the word in a manner which might
confuse consumers, and nothing more.


--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:10:30 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:

>In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, oscargrouch <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> they didn't lose, either
>> they've obviously got all those companies giving them something
>
>Likely they got an agreement not to use the word in a manner which might
>confuse consumers, and nothing more.

That's the usual agreement. They cannot own the word "Monster."
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <uq7tt0lb00d2o0h48i3mmcipqcu1qr4m0b@4ax.com>,
Lazarus Long <lazarus@removethiswi.rr.com> wrote:

> On 6 Jan 2005 21:40:10 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>
> If there's a reason to not buy Monster Cable's product, this isn't it.
>
> Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
> themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
> a product, that like beer (for example) no one really needs or could
> get by with something much less expensive than the premium brand.

Even TiVo works to protect their trademark:

<http/www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CING
UL1&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Lazarus Long" <lazarus@removethiswi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uq7tt0lb00d2o0h48i3mmcipqcu1qr4m0b@4ax.com...
> On 6 Jan 2005 21:40:10 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>
> If there's a reason to not buy Monster Cable's product, this isn't it.
>
> Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
> themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
> a product, that like beer (for example) no one really needs or could
> get by with something much less expensive than the premium brand.

I certainly disagree with your statement that they are simply protecting
their trademark. "Monster" as a word with a meaning has been around since
way before them. Using the word Monster depicts something Big or Big and
Bad.. or.. you get the picture. It would be like trademarking the work
Dollar or Money or Ring.. and so on.. I agree they should defend against
anyone using the work Monster in a connotation that would compete with
Monster Cable or lead people to believe they are affiliated.. But to sue
over the word Monster when it has nothing to do with the product being sold
and the word is used in the context that Monster has come to mean over the
last several hundred years or so, is just plain mean and malicious.

I wouldn't buy their products anyway, but now I can see just how malicious
they are. Don't know how else to read it.. The legal trademark system was
not meant to do this type of reckless damage.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:56:38 GMT, "C what I mean" <no
spam@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
>"Lazarus Long" <lazarus@removethiswi.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:uq7tt0lb00d2o0h48i3mmcipqcu1qr4m0b@4ax.com...
>> On 6 Jan 2005 21:40:10 GMT, Stein Hals <stein.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><URL:http/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html>
>>
>> If there's a reason to not buy Monster Cable's product, this isn't it.
>>
>> Monster's doing what many other companies do/have done. Disney
>> themselves to name one. They're simply protecting their trademark on
>> a product, that like beer (for example) no one really needs or could
>> get by with something much less expensive than the premium brand.
>
>I certainly disagree with your statement that they are simply protecting
>their trademark. "Monster" as a word with a meaning has been around since
>way before them. Using the word Monster depicts something Big or Big and
>Bad.. or.. you get the picture. It would be like trademarking the work
>Dollar or Money or Ring.. and so on.. I agree they should defend against
>anyone using the work Monster in a connotation that would compete with
>Monster Cable or lead people to believe they are affiliated.. But to sue
>over the word Monster when it has nothing to do with the product being sold
>and the word is used in the context that Monster has come to mean over the
>last several hundred years or so, is just plain mean and malicious.
>
>I wouldn't buy their products anyway, but now I can see just how malicious
>they are. Don't know how else to read it.. The legal trademark system was
>not meant to do this type of reckless damage.
>

This is why there are courts and judges.