|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.122.119.241
During the time that Monster Cable had the active lawsuit against Monster Vintage, Monster Vintage was not using any particular “logo” Cathy was just using a large font that said MonsterVintage.Monster Cable withdrew the lawsuit the last few days of December.
Monster Vintage returned their original logo to their website sometime after that.
It was at this time, around the middle of January, that I had my first look at the original Monster Vintage Logo. My thought was that the Monster Vintage logo did have a passing resemblance to the MC logo, but hey! Monster Cable had withdrawn the lawsuit and, seemingly, any objection to the logo.
Then came the exchange of posts between Jim Klar (of Monster Cable), myself and others in about the 3rd week of January. Jim was expressing heartburn about the Monster Vintage site listing $24 million instead of $6 million in connection with the re-naming of Candlestick Park to Monster Park . He also was expressing heartburn about the return of the original Monster Vintage logo.
I called Victor and Cathy to ask them about both items.
Regarding the $24 million; it was essentially a typo. Victor had agreed to change it way back in the 3rd week of Jan, doing so back then slipped his mind, but it is corrected now.
Regarding the logo, I found out that Cathy had paid a local art student a small amount to design the original logo. I am also told that Cathy and Victor are literally too broke to have a new logo designed, the MC lawsuit objecting to the original logo had been withdrawn, so they had put the original logo back up. But given Jim’s posted feelings I thought I would try and heal some wounds on both sides.
I told Victor that I would be willing to have the KK graphics guys design a new logo that would better reflect the “vintage” feel of their business. He was delighted!! I told him that I didn’t want any payment or recognition and that if the new logo didn’t suit him we would give some other designs a couple of tries.
In the meantime I privately contacted Jim to not grind on the logo issue for a few days, so I could get some designs completed and see if Monster Vintage likes them. I also tell Jim I won’t grind him about checking on the sockpuppets. While Jim didn’t agree to check on the sockpuppets I told him I would stop asking, to let any real or imagined internal MC sockpuppet investigation to proceed in peace for a few days.
I send a new Monster Vintage logo to Cathy and Victor Jan 29, this is a Saturday, yes we worked overtime to get it done. I hear back from them the following week that they think it is wonderful, but that they will have to get with the person that helps them with the Monster Vintage web site to get it changed. It would be a few days before that could happen, something about the format or whatever.
I’m not concerned about a few days of delay because Monster Cable has withdrawn their lawsuit, Jim is giving me some breathing space, Monster Vintage likes the new logo. My thought is that in a few days the logo thorn-of-contention will be fixed to everyone’s benefit.
Well as of yesterday it isn’t getting changed so I call Victor to see if they need something more, help with format or anything. Victor informs me that Dave Tognotti had called them a couple of days ago and was re-protesting the use of the original logo. Yes!!?! boys and girls the self same logo that was part-and-parcel of the withdrawn lawsuit?!? Now Victor, madder than a hornet, is of a mind to just leave the original logo, I’m not sure I blame him. WHAT?? On earth was going through Dave Tognotti’s mind to call Monster Vintage and verbally protest the use of the logo after Monster Cable withdrew the lawsuit that was objecting to the use of the logo? Anyway Dave IMHO royally screwed up!
Victor talks about that call from Dave Tognotti on the Monster Vintage web site, link below
BTW. I also won the recent Monster Vintage eBay auction for the Smashed and Destroyed Monster Cable with the piece of Vintage faux fur and with copies of the legal documents surrounding the Monster Cable v Monster Vintage lawsuit and conflict. After skimming through a couple of hundred pages I feel even more sorrow and sympathy for Monster Vintage. Since these documents are public record I will scan them next week and post them somewhere so folks can read them and draw their own conclusions. I also had NO problem figuring out which was Monster Vintage and which was Monster Cable.
Be sure to look at the current eBay auctions of Monster Vintage, my Cat Stevens roadie jacket has 10 bids, Woo Hoo!! makes me happy to help Cathy and Victor
Ray Kimber
Follow Ups:
Ray,I mean where does all this stop? It's me again. The Monster Employee who has enough since to post here without my real e mail address. Since I see that many of our employee's e mails are posted all over the internet.
This really needs to stop. You are just making yourself look to be the fixer of all wrong in our audio world. Please try to spend more time on KK and less time on Monster.
I mean I give you credit for not bashing Monster out right. You just have to keep posting the "information" you have discovered. Everyeone else seems to do the bashing part just fine.
The forums have all been quite for some time now on this subject. Maybe too quite. But hey no fear Ray is to the rescue.
I have held off from writing a long response on this issue but feel that in light of your new attack on Monster. (Yes Ray that is what many people believe it to be)
It seems funny that one side of your mouth says "oh this press is so bad for the high end wire guy's blah blah blah.. It makes us all look like big dirt bags that charge to much for our products and we keep getting linked to the big MC bullies"
Well here is a hint. If the press is bad then STOP bringing it up so often. Seems you really might have an agenda to this. If you really were so worried about the bad press you are smart enough to know that the more you post the more others will post and then links get made to other sites etc.
In regards to the MV issue and their logo. Yea we were upset when we saw it back up. The only reason we even saw it back up was someone posted a link to it on Club PolkAudio like it was bragging rights. We took offense to it the first go around. I mean obviously we did we filed a law suit about it! Then we decided to drop it since they did take the logo down and there was lot's of bad press about it. We do read ya know and know that there is some bashing going on. We tried to address it with a letter to say that we are not some big bully and that 99.999999% of the info that folks are reading is BS and idiots spewing the same wrong info to other idiots.
We kind of just gave up and backed up a few steps. Well that doesn't seem to be working either.
1. MV decides that in spite of our seriousness about the logo (That many including you see a similarity over. I think if it was similar to your KK logo you might see it as more than a simliarity but maybe that's just me thinking you are carefully choosing words) that they will rub it in our nose and re-post it on their site. I mean what did they think would happen?
2. Victor and Cathy both have told so many LIES out right BS lies that we are pissed and damn right going to go back after them. Many of the "truths" they put on the web are wrong and they know it. Like the $24million dollar "typo" i think you called it. I can see how the 2 and 4 keys are so close to the 6 key. They had a chance to take it down and chose to do that. Now that they think there is some kind of victory they put it back up? Who in their right mind would do that other than someone who wants to flip the middle finger salute to you when you turn your back???
You guys are all entitled to write what you want and say what you want. Ray you have known Noel for what 25 plus years? Me and you have even meet many times from a mutual friend of ours! If you were so worried about Noel and his actions and how it impacts our business why wouldn't you call him? I mean if you put 1/10th the effort in to that effort as you have to keeping this alive on the internet then I bet you could have talked Noel in to not protecting his Trademarks and patents. You almost had me talked in to it.
I prefer that the truth gets out often and consistantly, than to read any of your biased observations and statements.Actually I hope this story stays active and viable for as long as possible. It should influence every person's thoughts about buying products from such a morally bankrupt company.
"Well here is a hint. If the press is bad then STOP bringing it up so often. Seems you really might have an agenda to this. If you really were so worried about the bad press you are smart enough to know that the more you post the more others will post and then links get made to other sites etc."All of this would be so much easier if the facts were not presented. Then MC could go about their business any way they see fit. STOP DISCLOSING THE INFO, IT'S BAD FOR MC BUSINESS.
"I have held off from writing a long response on this issue but feel that in light of your new attack on Monster. (Yes Ray that is what many people believe it to be"
I don't understand how disclosure of info is seen as an attack, unless there is shame associated with the disclosed info. For example, if Ray disclosed that MC was donating money to a local College music department, there would be no shame. If Ray announced that MC apologized to MV and paid for their legal fees so the two could afford to get married, there would be no shame. In such case, MC might even re-build some of their horrible public relations.
"We tried to address it with a letter to say that we are not some big bully and that 99.999999% of the info that folks are reading is BS and idiots spewing the same wrong info to other idiots."
Potential customers are IDIOTS? Great Public relations. At what point do you, as a expendable employee, (you know, someone that could be fired, laid-off, etc.) become comfortable enough to think that you are powerful enough to call customers idiots? Next week you might be flipping burgers. Seriously, you are doing more damage here than you realize. Take some stress relief /stress management classes, anything, just don't post as a MC employee then call customers IDIOTS. Not good.
" Like the $24million dollar "typo" i think you called it. I can see how the 2 and 4 keys are so close to the 6 key. They had a chance to take it down and chose to do that. Now that they think there is some kind of victory they put it back up? "
I agree 100% with you. They were wrong to do it. I do want to know if I'm still an idiot, even when I agree with you? How does this work?
"You guys are all entitled to write what you want and say what you want"
Yep, we idiots can post whatever we want. In regards to MC, too bad it wasn't something positive. Tempers have flared on both sides, this is known. How both sides decide to handle this issue will determine the final outcome and possible future posts all over the Internet.
The ball is in your court ...
Keep up the good work - Monster relied on this episode causing a stink for a few days at the most before the wind took it away, just like previous predatory actions they brought against small companies.That happens and in effect they've gotten away with it. 'We' have simply raised our eyebrows, shook our heads and accepted that such practice is distasteful but ultimately part of big business practice.
Such practice is never acceptable and the sooner and the longer it is discussed, investigated and kept in the public arena the better.
With luck, Monster may reflect on the amount of damage done to their 'good' name, and the lengths that good people went to to analyze and disect their actions before flexing their muscles and strutting their stuff in front of a hopelessly overmatched victim again.
And kudos for continuing to weather the ignorant comments that are hurled at you.
__________________
In Monsters defense, Victor should have made the changes in a more timely manner. This means leaning on your web-site manager if needed, IMO. Nearly every web-site manager that I've met in my life is just a glorified computer nerd that wants you to believe that they are a genius and that what they do is so tough. (but that is another story in itself, yet it does relate to my personal experience with cyber "experts").Tog-naughty and Noel need to let this one go. They have "officially" dropped their suit, but continue to harrass. It's like the school yard bully that keeps picking on the weaker student; That hasn't met that one tough guy yet that kicks the bully's teeth in.
If this made it to the major press, the bully may learn from their mistakes. Then again maybe not. It sure would raise awareness about who is behind the Monster Cable product ...
Hi Jack,This is my understanding of the MC v MV logocentric chess moves, ala synopsis:
Monster Cable objects to the logo
Monster Vintage offers to change the logo
Monster Cable demands name and logo (and more!)
Monster Vintage says no
Monster Cable sues, the logo is part of the claims
Monster Vintage wins change of venue
Monster Cable withdraws suit, w/all claims and objections, including the logo
(MV does at some point in the middle of this scenario change the logo, but not due to any order or agreement)
I then see the logo and agree with Monster Cable's heartburn regarding the logo, and even though Monster Cable has withdrawn the suit and Monster Vintage might be in the clear to use it I try to get it changed. I think it is the right thing to do, IMHO Monster Cable had fair right and a good reason to protest the logo.
Here is a key point! Seems that Monster Cable would have let Monster Vintage keep the logo, if they would have agreed to be under the Monster thumb. That seems to make the objection to dilution, tarnishment and confusion a question of prior insincerity on the part of MC.
I am still wondering if the recent phone call from Dave Tognotti to Monster Vintage was ex parte contact?
Ray
Found this on the first page of the story here .The relevant excerpt:
“We could have called it Monster Cable Park,“ says Lee. “It's an important point to make. We didn't call it that because we didn't want it to be too much corporate branding rather than a fun place.”
Lee refuses to take seriously the possibility of confusion with a well known job board by the same name.
“No, because if people wanted to know which Monster, they can go online and figure it out,” insists Lee. “ If Monster.com flies a blimp over the Super Bowl, everybody thinks it's us.”
Now, if Lee is so unconcerned about a large and very well-known corporation mistakenly being associated with his company, how can he then, while maintaining any sort of credibility, claim concern about a tiny used-clothing store mistakenly being associated with his company? If the solution to this sort of brand confusion is to simply "go online and figure it out", then why the need for legal action?
I would think that a public admission by the founder of Monster Cable that his company purposely branded an endeavor in such a way that it may cause confusion with another company, and then admit that he's not concerned about that potential confusion, would tend to undermine any future claims he may make about his own company's mark(s) being diluted.
__________________
... and the hypocracy makes me feel that it is easier and more fun to push around those without the means to defend themselves. (Bully profile)"“No, because if people wanted to know which Monster, they can go online and figure it out,” insists Lee. “ If Monster.com flies a blimp over the Super Bowl, everybody thinks it's us.”"
Monster.com is no issue, Noel loses sleep over the small business selling scary Halloween masks or Roadie coats ... They are the real threat to his Cable company. Boo!
1. The dismissal of a lawsuit by the plaintiff (or even a dismissal by the court for lack of personal jurisdiction, or improper venue) does not automatically release the defendant from all claims. That usually has to be done by a separate agreement. So, the claims are still out there, to the extent that Monster Cable wants to assert them.2. Without knowing in detail the nature of MC's claim against MV, MC's willingness to license MV to use its logo is not necessarily inconsistent with that. If MC is claiming to be a "famous brand" (like, e.g. Coca-Cola), permissive licensing is consistent, not inconsistent, with that.
3. Generally speaking, it is unethical for a lawyer to contact an adverse party directly who is represented by legal counsel. The rules regarding in-house counsel are more variable from state to state, so it's hard to be sure that Tognotti's call was improper. Of course, if MV terminated its relationship with the lawyer who had represented it in court, then there's nothing improper about a direct contact with MV from any lawyer representing MC, in-house or otherwise.
4. It does seem that the sane way to resolve this (if that's what everyone really wants) is to follow the path you've started -- a new logo for MV, and maybe a release (not a license) from MC for that logo? Getting pissed off when you're in a legal wrangle always benefits one party -- the lawyers. So, you're to be commended for counseling everyone to keep a cool head, Ray.
Hi Bruce,Thank you very much for your very helpful observations and comments. I'm taking the liberty to paste > > your post < < with my response.
> > 1. The dismissal of a lawsuit by the plaintiff (or even a dismissal by the court for lack of personal jurisdiction, or improper venue) does not automatically release the defendant from all claims. That usually has to be done by a separate agreement. So, the claims are still out there, to the extent that Monster Cable wants to assert them. < <
My gut feeling was nearly in sync, I knew that Monster Cable could, depending on the withdrawal details, re-assert claims. I just didn't realize that the claims were left just "hanging" out there.
> > 2. Without knowing in detail the nature of MC's claim against MV, MC's willingness to license MV to use its logo is not necessarily inconsistent with that. If MC is claiming to be a "famous brand" (like, e.g. Coca-Cola), permissive licensing is consistent, not inconsistent, with that. < <
This was generally my understanding also. I'll get the MC v MV documents scanned and posted as PDF's by the end of the week. However what Monster Cable was demanding seemed IMHO to be very much overboard. Famous Trademark claims by MC are, IMHO, far from justified. I have done some reading and been asking some questions. Supermark, Famousmark, Trademark differences are pretty well explained. My sense is that the "famous mark" bar is raised VERY (near impossibly) high to assert as Famous a single word that has universal previous historical usage. The word "monster" fits that bill to a T. Monster Cable would be smart to think up a cool new "unique" name, that way they could have an automatic presumed Famous Mark. (I think everyone would let Noel continue to be the "Head Monster") Trademark history is overflowing with examples of a company growing big with a common name and then changing it, for that very reason.
> > 3. Generally speaking, it is unethical for a lawyer to contact an adverse party directly who is represented by legal counsel. The rules regarding in-house counsel are more variable from state to state, so it's hard to be sure that Tognotti's call was improper. Of course, if MV terminated its relationship with the lawyer who had represented it in court, then there's nothing improper about a direct contact with MV from any lawyer representing MC, in-house or otherwise. < <
I wasn't sure either, that's why I stated it as "wondering" if the contact was OK. Certainly the phone call IMO was ill-advised given the amount of rancor. As Victor was telling me about the call I asked him if Dave had asked, at the start of the call, if MV did have an attorney. Victor said no, the question was not asked.
> > 4. It does seem that the sane way to resolve this (if that's what everyone really wants) is to follow the path you've started -- a new logo for MV, and maybe a release (not a license) from MC for that logo? Getting pissed off when you're in a legal wrangle always benefits one party -- the lawyers. So, you're to be commended for counseling everyone to keep a cool head, Ray. < <
Bruce, thanks for the kind words. I will try and talk to MV in a couple of days after they have cooled off.
I am unhappy about many Monster Cable tactics, as they bring down the "shine" on the industry. But, I am just as willing to defend them too. I have never been one to "throw the baby out with the bath water".
Ray
Ray Kimber,I didn't have knowledge of Monster Cable's pursuit of Monster Vintage until your post here, but I have followed the discussion of Monster Cable's apparently constant effort to surpress anyone using the word "Monster" for practically any other use- no matter how unrelated. I'm surprised they haven't stopped the use of "Monster Truck" for those 2000HP Tonka toys.
On one hand, it seems that modern trademark law almost requires the kinds of actions MC undertakes. It's an all-or-nothing course. It's a matter of logic- if you allow even one other use, this is an abdication of the concept of exclusivity.
I believe that companies should have proper control of brand names, trdemarks, and logos, but in former days there were restrictions on use. These restrictions would be that a name or some part of a name could be used if the use was obviously in a completely different realm and for a different reason. If you marketed "Cadillac Face Powder: It fills your pores with Pure Lava Goodness, a quality product of Cadillac, Michigan", you could not be sued by "Cadillac Automobiles: The Standard of the World". This is because the word "Cadillac" was the city of manufacture and a reasonable person would not think the face powder was made by GM and there is no benefit to the face powder from the advertising of the cars. This is a pretty dark grey area as you would have to demonstrate the unrelatedness. Ther would be many people who would still have an association of Cadillac car quality to the face powder. On the other hand, "Rolls-Royce Suppositories: the Best Hemorroid Treatment in the World", Royce Royce LTD. could pursue them because the two words "Rolls" and "Royce" have no other meaning to a reasonable person than the car and "The Best.. in the World" is also an obvious attempt at association.
Also, you were not protected to the same degree if you registered names in anticipation of a company wanting to use thayt name. This came up when Mobil Oil was required, I thnk be anti-trust rulings for Standard Oil to split off part of it's business to become "Exxon". This was around 1971-2. Someone had a clue of this strange name and registered "Exon" and probably others similar to try and coerce some kind of payment. They did own that name, but becuase they never intended to go into the oil business and the registration was only to extort (I use this term casually) from Mobil, so "Mr Exon" fellow lost. So, there was a part of trademark law that took intention of use into consideration. And I think that's significant.
In the case of Monster Cable, they registered a large number- even dozens of names that don't relate in any way to the production of mediocre mass-marketed cables- and these registrations give them like Mr Exon, the exclusive right to be "Monster Diaper Service" and all the others. But, in my view, this exclusive right should not hold if there was never an intention to create th diaper service- just as Mr. Exon could be seen not to be starting an oil company. The trick of course would be proving the intention of registration was only to corner absoltely any use of a term and that must be difficult.
The other issue is the registration of a term in previous common use. The word "Monster" was not invented by MC just as "Cadillac" was an an Indian tribe and later a grey city in Michigan and not coined by General Motors. I read a few months ago that Trump was trying to copyrigth the phrase "You're fired" and asumed this was a joke, but then so is Trump generally and it was true. Trump should be able trademark soething like "Trumphair" because anyone would know immediately what that means, but not two words in common usage since Chaucer.
The numerous grey areas of trademark laws are beyond my meager knowledge. but there needs to be a realm of reasonable use. MC has the right, and to some degree the necessity to pursue what they regard as infringements, but because of their extensive regstrations of names and tradmarks unrelated to the business that an ordinary consumer associates with them, their protection should be limited.
Is ee their practice of pursuing compnies in unrelated businesses using the generic word "monster" as predatory and destrcutive of business confidence and I think in such vehement terms and to such extent will gradually have the opposite effect of protection adn in fact, produce an association of "monster" with, well -monster".
Sorry to ramble on, but I feel strongly on this issue. A few months ago, I was designing facilities for one of the largest stuff-animal company in the US and the owner committed suicide, partly as the result of his depression over successful multi-million dollar lawsuits by a huge corporation for copyright and licensing infringement of trademarked characters. I don't know the details, he may have been making Bears that were too close to some version of W. the P., but this fellow is dead- and to some degree over tradmarks and copyrights.
It's so damn complicated! I suppose the real problem in trademark law is that it seems to hinge on their being "reasonable" people about to judge if a possible infringement is banking off a name by association. And in the hyper-commerical world- how many reasonable people are left?
Cheers,
Bambi B
- Disclaimer: No association with "Bambi", a registered trademark and copyrighted term of the Walt Disney Company is intended or implied and there is no explicit or implied representation of this person as a 2-dimensional, ficticious deer.
I assume any grownup can read all the posts about the "monster" issue and make up their own minds.Still listening to the music-LAGQ at the moment-under cloudy Seattle skies, Gill
I haven't really followed the whole monstervintage vs monstercable thing closely. But now that I have seen and compared both logos, I really had to look closely to see the difference. At first look, it looked exactly the same as the Monster logo plus a dash of some sort and of a different color. But I see that the "M" part of the logo for vintage is joined together at the bottom rather than totally separated.
The MV "M" appears to be a rip-off of MC's registered trademark. In spite of MC's recent backpedaling on their decison to withdraw the lawsuit, chances are that if MV were to change their logo MC would leave them alone.
A Danged Silly Technicality that leaves Howie, agattu and me in agreement with each other.That is why I tried so hard to take this bone-of-contention off the table.
If I were MC I wouldn't like the MV logo either. I attempted to remove the logo issue in a way that would make the MV logo more "vintage", and I was refusing any compensation or PR benefit. Only our two graphics guys knew what was going on, and they were told not to tell any other KK staff about it.
That said, the following points help fill out the context for me:
1 - I noticed in the court documents a Monster Cable logo that is similar, but not exact, to the one they are using now, has some design element differences. Seems that might be the one that MC has registered with the Trademark Office. If that is the current MC logo registered with the Trademark Office, then IMHO the MV logo is not as close as it would seem to be. Still close, but not as close.
2 - On the part of MV there seemed to be genuine lack of intent to rip-off anybody’s logo. The court documents show the art student as a witness.
3 - There didn’t seem to be any interest on the part of MC to *just* have the MV logo changed.
4 - Indeed one of the agreements proposed by MC seemed to leave MV free to use the original logo? N.B.(A hypothetical question) If MC didn’t want the logo changed . If MC wasn’t satisfied to see that MV had NO! business activities or products that were even close to MC’s. If MC was offered written solace that MV would never trade in similar services or products of MC. Then what! did MC *really* want?
5 - The most recent phone call by Dave Tognotti to MV seems to be flatout harassment. Monster Cable had the mechanism in place to settle ALL the issues, in the form of the lawsuit that MC filed. But MC withdrew the suit!?! There are “rules of engagement” regarding contacts between attorneys and the opposing party, I am wondering if the direct phone call of DT was appropriate or allowable.6 - If DT *knew* that MV was days away from changing the logo, then why would he torpedo the change by calling and making Victor and Cathy dig in their heels.
Ray Kimber
P.S. Hang in there for a few days until I can get the MC v MV documents scanned and posted, this issue is covered.
Ray's repeated posting may seem like some to be mudslinging. Hell, I wouldn't really mind if it were. Monster deserves every bit of destructive action this site can muster. But I think it's more that Ray feels like I do (and several other cablewinders, little guys like myself and steve eddy) and finds it personally quite distasteful, as well as reflecting poorly upon the business in general. To not temper business practice with any sort of ethics... leaves a bad taste in everybodys mouth. And if you get sushi poisoning, you tend to not eat ANY fish for a while. By extension, we get painted with the same mottled, soulless brush as the monster goons. Which makes their disgusting legal practice all the more bothersome to the other ripoff, overpricing, scumbag cableguys like us.
.
Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to read it.Also, since it was so clearly titled if you have any complaints you have only yourself to blame.
but, as we have seen, anytime someone decides to bash Monster, Ray has to be right there chearleading and playing the poor, helpless victim.What if Paul Barton, or Brian Cheney jumped in and joined along on the many Bose bashing posts? I don't see them whining on some board about how unfair, unethical and aggressive Bose's business practices are. If Ray wants to mend fences or make some "back-channel peace" then good for him. But then let's make it truly "back-channel" and off the boards - and spare us the progress reports.
Dear uw312,You said:
> > ...anytime someone decides to bash Monster, Ray has to be right there chearleading and playing the poor, helpless victim. < <
"anytime" Hardly true, check *just* the threads on the AA, virtually all the MC discussion I have had has been on AA.
"cheerleading" I don't do poms poms, never have.
"poor, helpless victim" Nope, incorrect. Victim's advocate maybe.
You said:
> > how unfair, unethical and aggressive Bose's business practices are < <
Please give some details of how Bose and Monster Cable are either the same or different in regards to "unfair", "unethical", and/or "aggressive". Since Monster Cable's tactics have been compared to Bose's more than once that would be a valid and relevant audio industry related discussion. *IF* Bose is as bad as MC and *IF* someone had reined them in, then maybe MC wouldn't have been operating under tacit approval.
Do you approve of Monster Cable's tactics?
You said:
> > ...let's make it truly "back-channel" and off the boards... < < <
And I would have left it back-channel, if it would have succeeded. It became a relevant post IMO due to the failure caused by Dave Tognotti's phone call.
You said:
> > ...and spare us the progress reports... < <
You are cordially invited to ignore my postings. The posts are read by many who have made no reply posts at all. I have heard from some of these folks and they are grateful for the information and discussion, along with being supportive of my doing so.
Ray
Why are you reading his posts if they're worthless? And if you're not reading them, why get so bent out of shape?It's a hobby.
Isn't it?
Of course, my post is wothless too. Oh, the humanity....
Although, while some people might find the posts interesting, others do take offence. Maybe they should be listed at a different part of the Asylum.
He's trying to damage his competitor by obsessively slinging mud in public.
I see. He told you his motives? Or are you happily risking slander by making claims you have no proof of?I may have missed it. Since you are one who seems to like proof, show me where he wrote that he is purposefully damage his competitor by obsessively slinging mud in public.
If you can, we get a better understanding of him. It wouldn't be pretty. If you can't, we get a better understanding of you. You may have a good point, or you may not. The way you go about things matters....
Most of us can see that Ray is a good guy with no hiden agenda. (Do you know whose donated jacket is up for sale at monstervintage's eBay auction? Rays.)Ray has a warm heart and cares about folks. You, obviously, do not.
ZZZZZzzz...
I wish I had greater power to cause MC serious damage!
Monster is just another faceless corporation, out to maximize profits with no respect of others. What did you expect?
I hope the thoughtless insults towards you don’t dissuade you from keeping the majority of us here, who appreciate your informative posts, up to date with this unfortunate saga.I hope I win your Jacket!
Smile
but now you're just milking it. Why don't you get back to marketing your high priced crap? Maybe one day you will do it as well as Monster Cable.
"while zipping around town". There is an art to reading and, once mastered, will help you understand what the writer is actually saying.
nice touch
and once again, you have certainly achieved this result.Abuse in place of reasoned argument merely displays the worthlessness of any point attempted to be made and probably the mentality of the person making such comments...
Ray has been completely civil about this. As for his cables, I don't care much for the 8TC speaker wires but the KCAG interconnects are incredible.
Accuphase DP65V cdp or Denon DVD-5900 Universal
PS Audio PCA-2 Pre - Krell KSA50S - Tannoy D500 spkrs
...I don't think Ray is milking anything. I, for one, appreciate his updates on this issue. He has been completely respectful in his presenting of this issue....more than I can say for your post.
It's a civil and informative post and does not portray all the people working at Monster as, um, monsters. Were Ray simply milking this, it would hardly be in his interest to push for reconciliation.The merits of the issues were talked out some time back and there were several really smart and informative posts about the legal issues -- maybe someone can direct Chris_F to them so we don't reopen all that.
.
I don't like the fact that anyone is suing anyone over anything, especially when one party is respected among our community and the other isn't so well respected. I won't mention names as I don't want to end up party to some lawsuit...Unfortunately companies hands are tied when it comes to defending their brand names. When a company has a brand (for example: Halmark cards, "Halmark" is the brand) it must defend its brand if it wishes to keep the brand. In this case nobody else can call their greeting cards "Halmark" because Halmark already has the rights to that name. If someone decided to call their greeting card company Hallsmark then Halmark MUST sue Hallsmark if it wishes to retain its brand name. If it doesn't then Halmark may loose it's claim on its brand name and anyone could use the name Halmark on their greeting cards.
So companies have to vigorously defend their brand against anyone in their field or a field related to theirs. This looks like one of those cases. One party field a lawsuit just to get a record that they're defending the brand. When the other company withdrew their logo they felt this was enough to show that they defended their brand. Now that the old logo is back one company may decide that the brand MUST be defended once again.
Never take legal advice from anyone over the internet. That said, it would probably be just as well if one of those companies changed their logos.
Again, not mentioning any names. And I certainly don't condone one of the involved company's behavior, but I figured I'd give some limited insight about what may or may not be going on.
Hi Chris,Here is my understanding on what was happening, such understanding is based on conversations with Cathy and Victor, my looking at the data at the Trademark office and looking at copies of the actual court filings and correspondence between MC and MV.
The use of the MV logo was part of the claims by MC within the lawsuit. However long before the lawsuit, MV indicated that they would happily agree to abandon the use of the logo, this seemed to MV to be a simple way to avoid conflict. MC cable said they would only be happy if MV were to sign over the rights to the name, plus a bunch of other stuff. When presented with the draconian list , which amounted to a one-sided takeover of the MV business by MC, Victor and Cathy said no!
MV did change their logo but this was never ordered by a court or was the subject of any completed agreement, nor part of any settlement filing. They just did it assuming/thinking/hoping that MC would call off the attacks. Not to be, MC pressed ahead with lists of demands, and eventually did file suit. MV won a change of venue and was days away from filing answers and counterclaims to the charges in the lawsuit.
MC just flat withdrew the lawsuit, no stipulations, no settlement agreement, no mention of the use or non-use of the logo or anything else for that matter.
I am familiar with stipulated judgments and I am familiar with lawsuits being withdrawn due to the parties reaching a "background" written agreement that solves the issues. The withdrawn MC suit is not a stipulated action of any kind. I have a copy of the withdrawal motion, it is about one sentence long, no stipulations, no agreements, no nothing.
Ray
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: