Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Another reason not to buy Monster Cables

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • Tivo
  • Video
  • Monster
  • Cable
  • Home Theatre
  • Product
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:40:10 AM

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

<URL:http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611...;

--
Stein

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

More about : reason buy monster cables

Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:40:11 AM

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%7E2611...;
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:40:11 AM

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%7E2611...;
>
> --
> Stein
>
> ... and the answer is 'none'. None more black.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:40:11 AM

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%7E2611...;
>
> --
> Stein
>
> ... and the answer is 'none'. None more black.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:40:12 AM

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%7E2611...;
>>
>>
>>
>


--
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
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:40:12 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:40:13 AM

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%7E2611...;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:23:21 AM

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.
January 7, 2005 1:23:22 AM

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
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:23:23 AM

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
January 7, 2005 4:02:39 AM

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
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:44:09 AM

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%7E2611...;

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.
January 7, 2005 4:47:26 PM

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%7E2611...;
>>>
>>>
>>
>>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
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:09:24 PM

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
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:10:30 PM

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
January 7, 2005 5:10:31 PM

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
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:55:37 PM

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%7E2611...;
>
> 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...
UL1&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004>
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:56:38 PM

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%7E2611...;
>
> 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.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:03:13 PM

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%7E2611...;
>>
>> 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.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 10:47:32 PM

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

In alt.video.ptv.tivo Dr. Personality <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

But their web page is under construction.
http://www.snowmonsters.com/MonsterCable/index.html
You think they'd be ready before the story came out.

McDonald's goes after people making frivolous use of "Mc" on a name.
IIRC, they won against a coffee shop that was owned by a Mr. McDonald for
use of "McCoffee Shop" in Santa Cruz, CA.

I dislike Monster Cables products and marketing, so I should recuse myself
from comments on their lawsuits.

I recall that "frivolous" is an important part of a trademarked name.
I don't see how "monster" can be considered frivolous.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5
January 7, 2005 10:47:33 PM

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

After reading the Denver article, and then doing a bit more research,
I'm astounded. This really ticks me off. I won't be purchasing ANY
more products from Monster. I really detest this kind of practice, and
don't believe Monster is acting ethically. I realize they want to
protect their brand recognition, but they're being far too
opportunistic and taking unfair advantage of completely unrelated
circumstances. I'd like to see them get forced to pay huge for what I
am convinced is unethical business practice.


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:34:17 AM

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

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not smart'...why
> would it be confidential?

The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000 for
annoying us".

Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.

--
Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
| animal for some silly superstition?"
| "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
| a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
| -- "Cybill"
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:36:17 AM

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

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> if they're the party that brought the suit and they didn't win (and that
> would include a settlement that is favorable to their side), then why would
> the defendant agree to keeping the settlement confidential?

Because it never went to trial.

Lawyers are trained not to risk anything, and trials are *always* risky.

Even the "winner" in a settlement will keep quiet about it simply because
it doesn't hurt them in any way.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gi...
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:51:47 AM

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

my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place, it
doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
settlement...i think it's more likely that disney agreed to buy x amount of
cables from monster over the next 3 years at significantly reduced prices,
but prices at which monster still makes a nice chunk of change and disney
saves some...the bottom line is that, if the case has no merit, there's no
settlement, let alone any confidentiality agreement


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not
smart'...why
> > would it be confidential?
>
> The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
> competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
> lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000
for
> annoying us".
>
> Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
> | animal for some silly superstition?"
> | "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
> | a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
> | -- "Cybill"
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 1:07:15 AM

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

like i said in my other post, if the case had no merit, i don't see disney
settling it...and if disney wasn't willing to give monster anything of any
value, then i don't see monster settling it


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49112df7d936d0989a5e@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > if they're the party that brought the suit and they didn't win (and that
> > would include a settlement that is favorable to their side), then why
would
> > the defendant agree to keeping the settlement confidential?
>
> Because it never went to trial.
>
> Lawyers are trained not to risk anything, and trials are *always* risky.
>
> Even the "winner" in a settlement will keep quiet about it simply because
> it doesn't hurt them in any way.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gi...
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:09:03 AM

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

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place, it
> doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
> settlement...

If they sued expecting Disney to give in quickly with no fight and ended
up with a real fight...yeah, Monster would settle in just about any way they
could, as long as they feel they got *something* from Disney.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:15:03 AM

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

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> like i said in my other post, if the case had no merit, i don't see disney
> settling it...

This is why you aren't a lawyer.

McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee too hot"
had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just what I said:
trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.

Some brain-dead jury could award Monster a lot of money in one of these
cases, and even if they only get a small sum, they will probably get legal
fees if they win. This makes it *very* risky to lose, so you often settle
even if you are "right".

But, if Monster's case was weak, a settlement might result in Monster being
out cash for some basically worthless concession (Disney has no desire to get
into the audio cable business) from the other party.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Olympics.gif
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 7:07:41 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c49527f3b4aee93989a64@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee
> too hot" had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just
> what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.

Um, there was no multi-million dollar award. Here's what actually
happened:

While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount
was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20
percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She
was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later
reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages
that were awarded.

But...
The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's
entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal.
The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!

http://www.truestellaawards.com/stella.html

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 9:13:58 AM

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

RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote in
news:UhiDd.9649$75.6229@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

> 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.

Yeah, for a brand *name* like Kleenex or Jell-o. But "Monster"?
January 8, 2005 1:07:01 PM

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

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:51:47 -0500, "oscargrouch"
<leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place, it
>doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
>settlement...i think it's more likely that disney agreed to buy x amount of
>cables from monster over the next 3 years at significantly reduced prices,
>but prices at which monster still makes a nice chunk of change and disney
>saves some...the bottom line is that, if the case has no merit, there's no
>settlement, let alone any confidentiality agreement
>
>

Confidentiality is almost always granted in return for dropping a
suit.
Thumper
>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net...
>> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
>alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not
>smart'...why
>> > would it be confidential?
>>
>> The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
>> competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
>> lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000
>for
>> annoying us".
>>
>> Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
>> | animal for some silly superstition?"
>> | "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
>> | a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
>> | -- "Cybill"
>

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:05:03 PM

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

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In article <MPG.1c49527f3b4aee93989a64@news.nabs.net>,
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee
> > too hot" had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just
> > what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.
>
> Um, there was no multi-million dollar award.

Yes, there was.

> While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount
> was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20
> percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She
> was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later
> reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages
> that were awarded.

The jury awarded $2.9 million. That's "multi-million" in my book.

The fact that a semi-intelligent judge reduced the number doesn't change
the fact that until that point, McDonald's was liable for $2.9 million. If
the judge had been dumber (even $480,000 shows he wasn't all there), that
$2.9 million would have been the number.

> But...
> The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's
> entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal.
> The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!

This nicely proves what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if at
all possible.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LoveRanking.jpg
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:05:04 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c49ead8b608c16d989a66@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> The jury awarded $2.9 million. That's "multi-million" in my book.

The jury recommended it; they did not award it. The outcome of the
trial was that she was awarded $480,000.

> The fact that a semi-intelligent judge reduced the number doesn't
> change the fact that until that point, McDonald's was liable for $2.9
> million.

No; the trial wasn't over yet, so McDonald's wasn't liable for anything.

> This nicely proves what I said: trials are risky and to be avoided if
> at all possible.

I never said otherwise. I was attempting to clear up the misconception
about the "Stella award."

In that suit, 12 jurors unanimously found that McDonald's was eighty
percent at fault. 25% of the final award was for damages suffered, and
the other 75% was for punishment for negligence.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 11:44:03 PM

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

despite the disdain everyone has for monster cables, does anyone honestly
think (especially given their success) that anyone there thought disney
would give in quickly? would anyone here expect that? would anyone
ANYWHERE expect that?

i appreciate everyone's efforts to come up with scenarios within which the
position that there's a confidential settlement, even though monster 'lost',
is a reasonable one, however, none of them are reasonable


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49511d9bdd7d41989a63@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > my point is that, if monster cables brought the suit in the first place,
it
> > doesn't seem too reasonable that they would agree to that as the
> > settlement...
>
> If they sued expecting Disney to give in quickly with no fight and ended
> up with a real fight...yeah, Monster would settle in just about any way
they
> could, as long as they feel they got *something* from Disney.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 11:54:14 PM

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

if that were the case, then the whole issue makes no sense...monster is
suing companies for trademark infringement who are nowhere near their
business...so, in the spirit of the main reason that companies pursue this
action relentlessly (that, if they don't, when there is a real infringement
and they're shown not to have cared in the past, the judge throws it out),
allowing disney to use the word monster, not gaining anything monetarily
from disney, and just getting them to agree to not enter the cable business,
doesn't seem to me to do anything to further that cause...it's going to
appear to any judge later on that monster wasn't really concerned with
people using the word monster, which will hurt their cause

i understand the concept of risk and avoiding juries...i just don't see
disney making that decision in this case


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49527f3b4aee93989a64@news.nabs.net...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > like i said in my other post, if the case had no merit, i don't see
disney
> > settling it...
>
> This is why you aren't a lawyer.
>
> McDonald's probably felt that the lawsuit against them over "coffee too
hot"
> had no merit, but the multi-million dollar award proved just what I said:
> trials are risky and to be avoided if at all possible.
>
> Some brain-dead jury could award Monster a lot of money in one of these
> cases, and even if they only get a small sum, they will probably get legal
> fees if they win. This makes it *very* risky to lose, so you often settle
> even if you are "right".
>
> But, if Monster's case was weak, a settlement might result in Monster
being
> out cash for some basically worthless concession (Disney has no desire to
get
> into the audio cable business) from the other party.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Olympics.gif
January 9, 2005 12:05:30 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not smart'...why
> > would it be confidential?
>
> The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
> competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
> lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000 for
> annoying us".
>
> Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.

And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 12:05:31 AM

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

42 wrote:

> And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
> court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
> has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
> the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.

Going to court would be the last thing either party would want. It
drives up costs and you can't predict what a jury might do.

Matthew

--
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
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 12:05:31 AM

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

exactly


"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c49eaf9cf8af8e989986@shawnews...
> In article <MPG.1c4910af6486646f989a5d@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
> says...
> > oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > ok, i'll play along before just resorting to calling you 'not
smart'...why
> > > would it be confidential?
> >
> > The agreement could be something like "Disney agrees not to produce any
> > competing product and won't bring all of our much more massive group of
> > lawyers to bear on you as long as you drop the suit and pay us $100,000
for
> > annoying us".
> >
> > Monster would demand a confidentiality clause if this was settlement.
>
> And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
> court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
> has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
> the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 12:11:16 PM

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

oscargrouch wrote:

>"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
>>court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
>>has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
>>the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.
>

Top postig fixed.

> exactly

What part of "trials are unpredictable and to be avoided" do you not
understand? Going to court is very expensive and the outcome can't be
predicted.

Matthew

--
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
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:39:49 PM

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

no need to fix my top posting, numbnut


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10u2es63r3putfd@corp.supernews.com...
> oscargrouch wrote:
>
> >"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >>And I, as Disney, would shrug, walk out the door and say 'see you in
> >>court' then. From Dis' perspective killing frivolous lawsuits publicly
> >>has a lot of value, while 'confidential settlments' represent a loss in
> >>the eye of the public, and invites further lawsuits.
> >
>
> Top postig fixed.
>
> > exactly
>
> What part of "trials are unpredictable and to be avoided" do you not
> understand? Going to court is very expensive and the outcome can't be
> predicted.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> 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
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:51:21 PM

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

oscargrouch wrote:

> no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
>

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Matthew

--
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
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:57:55 PM

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

no


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10u2rogdq6n9be7@corp.supernews.com...
> oscargrouch wrote:
>
> > no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
> >
>
> Please don't top post.
>
> No. I'm not singling you out.
>
> >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> >>> quoting.
> >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
> >>>> mean?
> >>>>> A: Top posters.
> >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> 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
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:00:19 PM

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

oscargrouch (leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> despite the disdain everyone has for monster cables, does anyone honestly
> think (especially given their success) that anyone there thought disney
> would give in quickly?

Yes, they might.

Lawsuits that have *some* merit are often disposed of quite quickly by
settling, even when the target has very deep pockets and a history of
litigation of their own.

That's one of the problems with the law today...a company is often already
paying for lawyers whether they do anything or not, so why not take a chance
of making some money with a "silly" lawsuit.

--
Jeff Rife | "My God, what if the secret ingredient is people?"
| "No, there's already a soda like that: Soylent Cola."
| "Oh. How is it?"
| "It varies from person to person."
| -- Fry and Leela, "Futurama"
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:07:09 PM

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

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In article <MPG.1c49ead8b608c16d989a66@news.nabs.net>,
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > The jury awarded $2.9 million. That's "multi-million" in my book.
>
> The jury recommended it; they did not award it.

No, the jury *awarded* it. The judge doesn't have to change the number,
and quite often doesn't.

> > The fact that a semi-intelligent judge reduced the number doesn't
> > change the fact that until that point, McDonald's was liable for $2.9
> > million.
>
> No; the trial wasn't over yet, so McDonald's wasn't liable for anything.

At that point, the judge is merely there to make sure that the rules of law
had been followed. He correctly determined they had not, so changed the
number. But, if they had, he is just a rubber-stamp at that point, so,
yeah, technically nothing was "over" but that's like saying when a jury
comes back with "guilty" in a criminal case, that trial isn't really over
until the judge accepts the verdict.

Stupid multi-million dollar awards are often accepted by judges and later
overturned on appeal. Until they are overturned, though, the loser is
considered liable for the award.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: How's life, Norm?
|
| Norm: Not for the squeamish, Coach.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:07:10 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c4b4ae5883cf18d989a6c@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> > > The jury awarded $2.9 million. That's "multi-million" in my
> > > book.
> >
> > The jury recommended it; they did not award it.
>
> No, the jury *awarded* it. The judge doesn't have to change the
> number, and quite often doesn't.

And until the judge maked that decision, it was not awarded; the
plaintiff had no claim on the money.

> > No; the trial wasn't over yet, so McDonald's wasn't liable for
> > anything.
>
> At that point, the judge is merely there to make sure that the rules
> of law had been followed. He correctly determined they had not, so
> changed the number. But, if they had, he is just a rubber-stamp at
> that point, so, yeah, technically nothing was "over" but that's like
> saying when a jury comes back with "guilty" in a criminal case, that
> trial isn't really over until the judge accepts the verdict.

By George, you got it! And there have been criminal cases where the
judge did exactly that.

> Stupid multi-million dollar awards are often accepted by judges and
> later overturned on appeal. Until they are overturned, though, the
> loser is considered liable for the award.

That's right, but that has nothing to do with this case, since there
wasn't any award in the million-dollar range to be appealed. The amount
that could have been appealed was less than a half million, but it
didn't go to appeal because the parties settled in private.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:13:40 PM

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

Matthhew,

You appear to be too lazy to delete an excessively long post before you
bottom post, and to stupid to be able to read a top post.

I feel sorry for you.

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> oscargrouch wrote:
>
>> no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
>>
>
> Please don't top post.
>
> No. I'm not singling you out.
>
> >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> >>> quoting.
> >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
> >>>> mean?
> >>>>> A: Top posters.
> >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
> Matthew
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:27:05 PM

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

wbertram wrote:

> Matthhew,
>
> You appear to be too lazy to delete an excessively long post before you
> bottom post, and to stupid to be able to read a top post.

Oddly enough, the post to which you made this response was completely
trimmed to the relevant content. Since it wasn't top posted, you must
not have seen that.

> I feel sorry for you.

I feel sorry for you, since it appears you would rather call people
names (inappropriately, in this case) than address the issue at hand.

HANL.

Matthew

--
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
January 9, 2005 9:08:26 PM

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

I prefer to read top posts. Please top post from now on.
Thanks.

"oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34d9lpF48pe9jU11@individual.net...
> no
>
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10u2rogdq6n9be7@corp.supernews.com...
> > oscargrouch wrote:
> >
> > > no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
> > >
> >
> > Please don't top post.
> >
> > No. I'm not singling you out.
> >
> > >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting
for me!
> > > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> > >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> > >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> > >>> quoting.
> > >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does
that
> > >>>> mean?
> > >>>>> A: Top posters.
> > >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:08:27 PM

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

no problem


"Badger" <cferriola@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uqeEd.14422$dt3.575307@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I prefer to read top posts. Please top post from now on.
> Thanks.
>
> "oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34d9lpF48pe9jU11@individual.net...
> > no
> >
> >
> > "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> > news:10u2rogdq6n9be7@corp.supernews.com...
> > > oscargrouch wrote:
> > >
> > > > no need to fix my top posting, numbnut
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please don't top post.
> > >
> > > No. I'm not singling you out.
> > >
> > > >Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting
> for me!
> > > > Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> > > > conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
> > > >> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
> > > >>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
> > > >>> quoting.
> > > >>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does
> that
> > > >>>> mean?
> > > >>>>> A: Top posters.
> > > >>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:25:28 AM

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

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > At that point, the judge is merely there to make sure that the rules
> > of law had been followed. He correctly determined they had not, so
> > changed the number. But, if they had, he is just a rubber-stamp at
> > that point, so, yeah, technically nothing was "over" but that's like
> > saying when a jury comes back with "guilty" in a criminal case, that
> > trial isn't really over until the judge accepts the verdict.
>
> By George, you got it! And there have been criminal cases where the
> judge did exactly that.

Yes, both of them. :) 

Seriously, on criminal cases, the judge is usually a rubber stamp on the
actual verdict unless something grossly wrong has already happened in the
trial.

*Most* civil cases are the same way, and although the "hot coffee" case
is an exception, there are many, many times that multi-million dollar
awards are rubber-stamped by the judge...even though they are just as
silly. They usually get overturned on appeal, but that still leaves
somebody on the hook for that money for at least a while, which usually
requires they place that sum in an escrow account during the appeal
process.

So, we are right back to "trials are risky, and to be avoided if at all
possible".

> That's right, but that has nothing to do with this case, since there
> wasn't any award in the million-dollar range to be appealed. The amount
> that could have been appealed was less than a half million

This isn't true.

The appeal can be for *anything* procedural in the previous case, including
actions by the judge. The judge may not have had any valid legal reason
for reducing the award, thus the original award could be re-instated at
appeal.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/BrokenInterne...
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!