Monster Cable = FAIL

[rjcc]

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back


aw man, even if they weren't such a sheisty company, this would still be hilarious. Sending a threatening letter to a small competitor not knowing its owner is a lawyer.

[Athryn]

Legalese ownage = sexy.

This is an awesome letter. :)

[Lunch of Kong]

This letter should go up on nolo.com :)

[Wholly Schmidt]

This was my favorite part:
Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

[ElGuapo]

This was my favorite part:

Damn, that was my favorite line too. Lots of good ones in there though. Clearly this guy is not impressed by Monster and knows exactly how to handle them.

I also like this one:

It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind.

[Gary Whitta]

Pure awesome.

[Mark Crump]

You gotta love four pages of legalese going, "Bring it"

[stusser]

That was really amazingly entertaining.

[Gary Whitta]

I like how he also casually exposes them as corporate tax dodger. This entire letter is made of win. Will be interested to know if he ever hears back from them again.

[Mike Cathcart]

That was almost as good as Tom vs. Gordon.

[Mark Crump]

This makes me wonder how Desslock would respond to a baseless plagiarism accusation

[Gary Whitta]

I might have to start buying my cables from Blue Jeans. From their website:

HDMI is a digital signal, and what that means is that when it works well, it works perfectly; it remains the case that when a cheap cable will do the job perfectly, there's no compelling reason to spend more.
Holy shit, the truth. That must sound like nails down a chalkboard to those fucks at Monster.

[rjcc]

check avsforum, their prices aren't a lot higher than the cheapest guys, and the construction actually makes it worth it, without adding two more pounds of shit you don't need on there and charging $150 when it should be 10

[EvilIdler]

Kurt's letter is some of the clearest legalese I've read in a long time. I didn't need help!

[Moggraider]

Oh really? You knew "collateral estoppel?" I'm a first year in law school and I only learned that recently.

[WarrenM]

I don't think you have to understand every word to declare victory. Most legal documents are so obfuscated you can't get past the first paragraph without glazing over.

[Venture]

Just curious if anyone here practices intellectual property law. If so, what level of specificity is required in pleadings (fact pleading vs. notice pleading, for example), and what is typically discoverable? I'm just wondering if this guy, as enjoyable as his letter was, just needlessly showed his entire playbook and game plan to Monster for future litigation. If the letter doesn't just scare them off, that is.

[Brian Rubin]

That is...purely awesome. I'm in awe of this....

[prolix]

I don't know; as a lawyer I can't say I'm thrilled with it. I write all letters with the idea that someday they may end up as an exhibit in court, and in court you want to look like the good guy. Not that this Blue Jeans chap isn't the good guy here (maybe he is and maybe he isn't, I have no idea whether Monster's claims are valid or not), but he does way more than he needs to in his letter; his tone is borderline vindictive. I would have toned it back a bit.

Of course, that would have substantially reduced its entertainment value.

[Kraaze]

I don't know; as a lawyer I can't say I'm thrilled with it. I write all letters with the idea that someday they may end up as an exhibit in court, and in court you want to look like the good guy. Not that this Blue Jeans chap isn't the good guy here (maybe he is and maybe he isn't, I have no idea whether Monster's claims are valid or not), but he does way more than he needs to in his letter; his tone is borderline vindictive. I would have toned it back a bit.

Of course, that would have substantially reduced its entertainment value.

That latter bit is the key. This is a front page story on slashdot and that's putting his company front and center in front of his target market. That one little letter is buying this company exposure that a huge advertising campaign would struggle to match. This guy is sharp, he knows this. So yeah, in his shoes I would have probably decided to play to the internet audience instead of some hypothetical future courtroom audience.

[Ranulf]

I wish him well, but fear he will get hit hard with a time consuming, money sucking lawsuit. God forbid Monster actually develop decent products at fair prices to compete. Just sue'em instead!

Guarantees I'll never buy their products, now based not just on insane prices but also principle.

[Hanacker]

That latter bit is the key. This is a front page story on slashdot and that's putting his company front and center in front of his target market. That one little letter is buying this company exposure that a huge advertising campaign would struggle to match. This guy is sharp, he knows this. So yeah, in his shoes I would have probably decided to play to the internet audience instead of some hypothetical future courtroom audience.

Yeah, half that stuff is totally unnecessary (especially about the offshore Bermuda corp) but it makes for great press, and I can't see Monster following up on this. But maybe they're upset enough now to try.

[Zylon]

But maybe they're upset enough now to try.
Which would make for even better press.

We probably won't be so lucky though.

[Rimbo]

I wish him well, but fear he will get hit hard with a time consuming, money sucking lawsuit.

If he represents himself, which he's both qualified and capable of doing, I'm not sure where those costs are going to come from. What's he going to do, bill himself into bankruptcy?

[krayzkrok]

I got into a fairly heated argument with a guy at the local electrical chain store a few years ago when he tried to convince me that I'd be wasting my money on my cheapo DVD player and TV that only had S-Video input if I didn't buy a Monster S-Video / Component combo pack to actually make it watchable. The pack was literally 10 times the cost of a standard no-name S-Video cable! This guy must have been getting commissions from Monster given the tactics he used, but when it descended into base insults of my common-sense scepticism he'd gone too far! Fortunately the store on the opposite side of the street didn't have any problem with my decision.

[EvilIdler]

Monster cables are in the bargain bins all around town now. They're still three times the price of a regular cable :)

[stusser]

If he represents himself, which he's both qualified and capable of doing, I'm not sure where those costs are going to come from.
Assuming that his time is worthless you would be correct. But this is clearly a matter of principal, so he's happy to go for it.

[Machfive]

My favorite part:

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

[Eightball]

My personal favorite:

I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster's, in form or in function, the better.

Awesome.

As a lawyer, I agree with the other sleazy lowlife attorneys in this thread; I wouldn't have written it like this (and I'm fairly sure his veiled threat to expose them as tax-dodgers is pretty close to grounds for disbarment by his jurisdictions ethic's committee).

But it's highly amusing.

[Nengjanggo]

As a lawyer, I agree with the other sleazy lowlife attorneys in this thread; I wouldn't have written it like this (and I'm fairly sure his veiled threat to expose them as tax-dodgers is pretty close to grounds for disbarment by his jurisdictions ethic's committee).
I had the opposite reaction. I remember my legal ethics professor advising us that on the first day in prison you had to shank a man to let everyone know just how crazy you were. I see this letter as the intellectual property version of this, and thus it makes sound legal sense.

[jerri blank]

(and I'm fairly sure his veiled threat to expose them as tax-dodgers is pretty close to grounds for disbarment by his jurisdictions ethic's committee).

Seriously? I guess if it could be construed as a threat of criminal prosecution in order to gain advantage in a civil matter, but I think that would be a stretch. And it would warrant a reprimand at most, probably a private one.

I had the opposite reaction. I remember my legal ethics professor advising us that on the first day in prison you had to shank a man to let everyone know just how crazy you were. I see this letter as the intellectual property version of this, and thus it makes sound legal sense.

I agree. In this case, he's making sure Monster's attorneys know that he knows a little about IP law and that they're not going to be able to bully him into submission.

I do hope there are further fun developments. I wonder if Monster will soon be issuing a statement blaming all this on "miscommunication" or overzealous attorneys.

[Eightball]

Seriously? I guess if it could be construed as a threat of criminal prosecution in order to gain advantage in a civil matter, but I think that would be a stretch. And it would warrant a reprimand at most, probably a private one.

According to my jurisdiction - DC- :


Rule 8.4: Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(g) Seek or threaten to seek criminal charges or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.

I just sat through the stupid mandatory ethics class yesterday. The ethics nazi specifically said they disbarred people for this. Shrug.

[Ben Sones]

He's careful not to actually threaten any action on that front, though. It's toeing the line, certainly, but if it is revealed that Monster has engaged in criminal activities, he could always drop or settle the civil suit. Then it would be difficult to argue that his purpose in uncovering that information was to gain advantage in a civil suit.

[ElGuapo]

Yeah, I don't think he sought or threatened to seek any charges, he just casually mentioned it, then mentioned it might not be the case, either.

"Hey I'm not saying you are or aren't hiding your money in an offshore account, but I noticed that the patent holder is based in Bermuda, which I'm sure I'd mention if you continue this lawsuit." Etc.

Where are you in DC, Eightball?

[Jag]

I agree with 8B that it was not necessary. He achieved his result without that threat. If Monster had anything to work with, it would be that paragraph. Not that I didn't enjoy what he wrote, it provided much entertainment, but he does need to consider how this would be viewed in a future litigation.

It also highlights his ignorance of offshore activities and IP. Many companies legitimately move assets, IP, etc offshore. If they were engaged in tax evasion, they would not be in Bermuda (maybe Panama, Nevis or some third world nation). It plays well for the general public, but really doesn't carry much of a threat other than a company probably not wanting people to know they have offshore assets. (not that i have any personal knowledge of this *ahem*)

[charmtrap]

Not sure if this means anything regarding possible trouble from the Bermuda thing, but he's made it pretty clear on postings to the audioholics forum that he's no longer licensed to practice law, and is considered retired.

[Rimbo]

If he's retired, he sure as heck can't be disbarred.

[Eightball]

If he's retired, he sure as heck can't be disbarred.

Lol. Actually, it's more:

he's no longer licensed to practice law

That means he can't be disbarred :)

[Zylon]

It plays well for the general public, but really doesn't carry much of a threat other than a company probably not wanting people to know they have offshore assets.
Isn't public perception Monster Cable's most valuable asset?

[Sol Invictus]

That is...purely awesome. I'm in awe of this....

Hey, that's a term I always use! Nice to see someone else using "purely awesome". Goes damn well to describe this whole situation, I'd say.

I'm pretty sick of Monster Cable and companies like them which try to hock their cheap products with monster price tags, employing fables and myths to make people think that having an expensive cable actually matters.

The cable just needs to be heavy and decently manufactured to be good. Even cheap cables can do that.