Monster Cable suing Blue Jeans Cable

[Anthony]

Came across this on the Audioholics site today.

Straight from BJC: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm

It looks like the Tartan brand is what they're going after, not their main cable line.

I guess they are pursuing the Bose model of income generation

The owner of BJC is apparently a lawyer by trade, so this may get interesting.

[solid7]

I hope that they know law better than audio.

Last time I called BJC wanting a custom subwoofer cable, the guy that I talked to just couldn't understand to save my life, why I would want to make a "Y" cable coming out of my LFE, splitting into both inputs on my EP2500. (suggesting instead to run into one channel of the amp, despite the subs being wired in stereo)

[superchad]

Who knows if BJC broke any law or not?, who also knows if Monster is bringing a petty lawsuit in attempt to squash the little guy gaining a competitive strength? Let the court settle it. Its Lawyer VS Lawyer so let the best bottom feeder win!

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

solid7 wrote:

I hope that they know law better than audio.

Last time I called BJC wanting a custom subwoofer cable, the guy that I talked to just couldn't understand to save my life, why I would want to make a "Y" cable coming out of my LFE, splitting into both inputs on my EP2500. (suggesting instead to run into one channel of the amp, despite the subs being wired in stereo)

Umm, if you flip the #4 and #5 dip switches to the right, it puts the amp in parallel mode. “Parallel mode” means a single input will drive both channels. See pg. 7 of the manual...

Regards,
Wayne

[solid7]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

Umm, if you flip the #4 and #5 dip switches to the right, it puts the amp in parallel mode. “Parallel mode” means a single input will drive both channels. See pg. 7 of the manual...

That's fair enough - but no mention was ever made of this, despite them having been given the model number, and me being given an assurance that they were *very* familiar with the EP2500. Also, despite the fact that I mentioned wanting to add another EP2500 amp down the road for 2 more subs, for which a split would be absolutely needed.

Enough on that...

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

I mentioned wanting to add another EP2500 amp down the road for 2 more subs, for which a split would be absolutely needed.

Not reallly. All you had to do was jump a cable between the vacant input on Amp #1 to an input on Amp #2. See pg. 7 of the manual...

But as you said, enough of that. I notice that the Tarant cables's connectors seem to have a resemblance to the Monster, but it should be easy enough to settle this. Unless Tarant’s connectors are exactly identical to Monster’s, they have no case. Courts have ruled for years that any change to a patented design will usually negated a patent case.

Googling monster cable sues will get you 7-8 pages of hits. It’s pretty stupid to pull this kind of stuff in the Internet age, when people can fight back and reach thousands of people with a free publicity campaign.

Here’s how one company fought back.

Regards,
Wayne

[thxgoon]

Ya it's amazing how sue happy Monster is. I remember when they sued the Monster House and Monster Garage TV shows. Oh well, I guess when their product relies mostly on reputation and marketing there's not much else to do

[WmAx]

solid7 wrote:

That's fair enough - but no mention was ever made of this, despite them having been given the model number, and me being given an assurance that they were *very* familiar with the EP2500. Also, despite the fact that I mentioned wanting to add another EP2500 amp down the road for 2 more subs, for which a split would be absolutely needed.

Enough on that...

It is widely reported on many forums that if you use the ep2500 in DIP mode that sends a single input to both amps internally - that the level will not be equal on both channels. While I have an Ep2500, I have never tried this mode. It may be prudent to check if this is true/false if using this mode, due to this claim.

-Chris

[willy-be]

Who does Monster sue?

Everyone....there 18 pages of legal action.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?q...&pn2=&cop=&cn=

Aloha,
WB

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

WOW. I guess we now know why Monster Cable charges such high prices for their stuff. They have lots of overhead - probably more lawyers than R&D people...

Monster Cable Products vs. Monster Mini Golf, LLC - gotta love it!


Regards,
Wayne

[tonyvdb]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

will get you 7-8 pages of hits. It’s pretty stupid to pull this kind of stuff in the Internet age, when people can fight back and reach thousands of people with a free publicity campaign.

Here’s how one company fought back.

Regards,
Wayne

Im surprised they didn't try to sue Disney for the movie Monster's INC

[Anthony]

Wow! I had no idea they were so litigious. I make my own cables now, but at least I have a reason to tell people to avoid Monster Cable.

Funny, of all the things I was looking for there, I'm surprised they didn't sue Monster.com job search engine. That would seem like a nice deep-pocket target. Certainly more profitable than Monster Mini Golf

Edit:
I didn't find it at the USPTO site, but there were a few google links that mention suing Monster.com.

[tonyvdb]

They go after the little guys because they have less chance of winning or don't have the funds to put up a good fight in court.
This is a big reason for my avoiding Monster cable at all costs.

[solid7]

Anthony wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't sue Monster.com job search engine. That would seem like a nice deep-pocket target. Certainly more profitable than Monster Mini Golf

Yes, but higher reward comes with higher risk - but I don't think they're after the money - it's just a territorial thing. (like what your dog does when you take him for a walk)

There is almost zero risk in challenging a small company. Most of them don't have the resources to fight a lawsuit of any size, so a company like Monster Cable looks to win by default. The more territory they acquire, the more profitable both branding and litigation may become later.

You won't see them taking on the giants, though. People/companies who know how to play the games, and have the resources to stand up to it, wouldn't let them get away with it. Anyway, it would be a loser for both parties in that case. (they'd just bleed each other in the litigation process, with no favorable outcome, at the end of the day)

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Anthony wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't sue Monster.com job search engine.

Oh, but they have! They even took on Disney over the Monsters Inc. movie.

Regards,
Wayne

[Anthony]

I find the Disney vs. Monster lawsuit funny, I just picture wave after wave of lawyers from both sides battling like a scene from Braveheart.

Well good to know all this. Hopefully someone that comes here looking for advice on Monster Cable will find this and make their own judgments.

Now the Blue Jeans case is obviously different -- but it would be tough to patent just the shape of a connector. Patents are usually about technical features so merely resembling something wouldn't be enough. The captain of my hockey team works at the USPTO as an examiner. I'll ask him how hard stuff like this is to prove.

[DougMac]

Anthony wrote:

I find the Disney vs. Monster lawsuit funny, I just picture wave after wave of lawyers from both sides battling like a scene from Braveheart.

Who do you think lifted their kilts first? If Monster cable, I willing to bet the product was way overrated.

Doug

[avaserfi]

This is quoted from the Audioholics forums - a post by the owner of BJC about what is going on and their planned response. I thought everyone else might be interested as well.

KurtBJC wrote:

Howdy, all; Kurt from Blue Jeans Cable here.

First, my thanks for all the supportive comments. If you want to lend further support to the cause, the best thing you can do for us is to spread the word by talking about this online; make sure that people here and elsewhere know what's going on. As for the offer of financial donations: that's very, very kind, but we're going to be just fine here, and we're happy to carry on the fight on our own dime.

Second, I should point out just a couple of quibble-sized issues with the report. Monster hasn't actually sued us yet, nor is there a cease-and-desist order; rather, there's simply a cease-and-desist letter, which carries no legal effect in and of itself. If this does escalate to litigation, I will let everyone know; heck, I'll probably start a blog.

Third, let me tell you a bit about myself, since the fact that I'm a retired lawyer has already come up. I spent nineteen years in the practice of law, first in Philadelphia and later Seattle, after attending University of Pennsylvania Law School (class of '85). My entire practice was in litigation, most of that in federal courts, involving complex legal issues and large-damage cases (occasionally, but not often, involving intellectual-property issues). My roommate from second year is a highly-regarded intellectual property litigator, and other friends of mine include IP counsel to large technology firms; so when I have a patent or a trademark question, you can bet I know who to call. And litigation doesn't scare me; heck, I spent a couple of decades doing litigation full time.

Unless Monster is hiding the ball somewhere, the patent and trademark claims they're advancing here are flat-out frivolous. The lack of resemblance between their designs and the connectors we sell is obvious, and this looks like their typical m.o. -- go shake down the little guys and try to scare them into signing burdensome licensing agreements. Still, to make sure, I'm preparing a letter to them to request further information in support of their claims; if they're not able to produce that information and show how it relates to their claims, chances are this is a bluff and no suit is coming. However, I have met some dumb, dumb lawyers over the years, so one can never be sure a suit won't be filed just because the claims are frivolous. Suffice it to say that if they do file it, I am not one of those who "suffers fools gladly" and there is no great likelihood of my settling it; I will take them all the way to judgment. The result would likely be a decision that would put an end to their efforts to attach an overly-broad scope to their various design patents and trademark registrations.

As a rule, what happens when Monster does this sort of thing is that it gets away with it. People are terrified of litigation, especially litigation against large entities with lots of money, and that allows bullies to get away with ridiculous things. I am calm under fire, and there is nothing I hate worse than a bully. As for their size: the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Money can buy lawyers, but it can't buy merits for a meritless case.

Again, thanks for all the supportive posts. I will make sure everyone is kept abreast of developments.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

[solid7]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

Oh, but they have! They even took on Disney over the Monsters Inc. movie.

Regards,
Wayne

Looks like I spoke too soon. I definitely stand corrected. (and extremely stupified by the audacity!)

[Anthony]

DS-21 wrote:

(After all, what's to "patent" in a silly wire?)

Cryogenic nano-assembled superconducting solder and hyper magnetic quantum connectors. Duh!

[chas]

This is getting interesting:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...s-strikes-back

[thxgoon]

I got a kick out of the first paragraph, lol! This is not the kind of media attention any company wants. If Blue Jeans is innocent in this matter then good for them!