rick2906 said:
You can help by contributing just a couple of bucks here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Buy-a-Monster-M...14&_trkparms=72:1205|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318
These guys are going to need at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fight this through to what is hopefully a successful conclusion.
While I totally disagree with what Monster is doing here and having learned about this I will never buy a Monster product (never have either), I have to wonder why the courts are allowing them to.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that someone out there is doing this as whenever the law allows someone to make money (and often when it does not) there will always be someone there to exploit the opportunity. The question is, why dont the courts just tell monster to sod off, that the word monster used in the context of a mini golf franchise does not in any way impinge upon their trademark and order them to pay damages to all these small businesses for wasting their time and causing them to have to pay huge legal fees?
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that someone out there is doing this as whenever the law allows someone to make money (and often when it does not) there will always be someone there to exploit the opportunity. The question is, why dont the courts just tell monster to sod off, that the word monster used in the context of a mini golf franchise does not in any way impinge upon their trademark and order them to pay damages to all these small businesses for wasting their time and causing them to have to pay huge legal fees?
valleyman said:
The following remarks are purely my opinion..
Unfortunately unless a judge dismisses a case as frivolous that almost never happens.. The company in question has a huge and talented legal department, feels that all potential usages of a particular noun are covered by their trademark, and have found sympathetic venues to hear their cases. (I don't really understand how a trade mark which should be valid in a relatively narrow context can be and is so widely applied.) In many instances just the specter of a law suit with this company is sufficient to scare many small businesses into a potentially onerous licensing agreement. Interestingly they don't succeed in every instance, but those who prevail against them generally tend to be much larger (like Disney) or run by people who understand the limits of the law. (or both)
I wonder where it will all end, I guess this is a consequence of churning out countless college graduates in non industrial, scientific or medical backgrounds, and then exporting most of the remaining good jobs relating to tangible progress/products/technology to other places. Smart people need something to do.. It's how we got all of those clever Wall St financial instruments that no one could understand, and perhaps also why we have so many lawyers per capita.
Our educational system largely is no longer geared up to turn out students well versed in math and science which are difficult to master and instead concentrates on soft subjects aka "liberal arts" - a euphemism for the education that most people would have gotten in HS back when this country had good public (state funded) education. Perhaps in the old days some of these litigious lawyers might have done something more societally useful. There are also many good, ethical lawyers (probably most lawyers in fact) as is the case with all professions - you just don't hear much about them at all.
Just donated again, you can too, here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Buy-a-Monster-M...14&_trkparms=72:1205|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318
http://cgi.ebay.com/Buy-a-Monster-M...14&_trkparms=72:1205|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318
Because in our legal system, there is a VERY high threshold to get the plaintiff socked for the defendent's legal bills. Worse yet, the amount of money that needs to be spent before a judge even looks at a case is prohibitive. If a monster company sues you, you immediately have $100,000 or more in legal expenses. Even if it were to be found frivolous and you were awarded costs (almost never happens), you still have to come up with the money up front. Always remember, the rules are written by lawyers, and written to benefit lawyers. The judge is a lawyer.
Monster companies know this and use it as leverage to get small fry and individuals to cave.
Thankfully bad news travels faster than good by a factor of 10x or more..so this means that the the outfit/persons that are most responsible for sullying and destroying the reputation of the company in question..which will ultimately lead to the destruction of the greater of the customer base..is the given company itself.
And it IS gratifying that these insane acts are not seen for what they are by the given company, so they can put the gun in their mouths - themselves. Which they have gratiously done.
It is too bad that so many have to be damaged before the given true colors are laid bare for all to see, but there is no going back from this situation now. The bullet has flown and the damage is done. Time will show this to be true.
And I will happily put my boot in their *** as they fly over the cliff they cannot see.
And it IS gratifying that these insane acts are not seen for what they are by the given company, so they can put the gun in their mouths - themselves. Which they have gratiously done.
It is too bad that so many have to be damaged before the given true colors are laid bare for all to see, but there is no going back from this situation now. The bullet has flown and the damage is done. Time will show this to be true.
And I will happily put my boot in their *** as they fly over the cliff they cannot see.
I believe we are beginning to see the fault-lines in the capitalist system with all the financial greed finally on display for all to see & these business practise examples just reinforce this.
Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating a socialist system just a more regulated free market (if this is not a oxymoron).
The free market sounds like a great idea - competition for market share means better products and service & better serves the consumer but the reality is very different.
It's a bit like democracy, a great concept but the reality is nothing like the theory.
Rant over!
Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating a socialist system just a more regulated free market (if this is not a oxymoron).
The free market sounds like a great idea - competition for market share means better products and service & better serves the consumer but the reality is very different.
It's a bit like democracy, a great concept but the reality is nothing like the theory.
Rant over!
this is just damned silly
if it wasn't so apocryphal, the litigious legacy of this company would be laughable - sounds like a really silly story arc from Boston Legal
just where are Alan Shore and Jerry Esperson when you need them
(well, I guess Alan is sharing a cigar with Denny, pi$$ing themselves laughing over the cupidity of messrs Lee et al)
seriously, it's actions like these that give a bad name to snake oil salesmen everywhere
if it wasn't so apocryphal, the litigious legacy of this company would be laughable - sounds like a really silly story arc from Boston Legal
just where are Alan Shore and Jerry Esperson when you need them
(well, I guess Alan is sharing a cigar with Denny, pi$$ing themselves laughing over the cupidity of messrs Lee et al)
seriously, it's actions like these that give a bad name to snake oil salesmen everywhere
You'll have to firgive my ignorance once again, but the law is very complicated and I don't really understand it.
Is there any reason a company whose copyright is disputed can't simply turn up in court without a lawyer, explain that their company has nothing whatsoever to do with cables, would never in a million years be confused with it and walk away with a ruling in their favour?
It strikes me that that is a very naive thing to believe, but the question is why?
If they cannot, there is something very wrong with the legal system, and that brings me back to the point i was really trying to make - that the fault here is really with the legal system, not with monster. It is a simple fact that someone out there will always abuse a system for their own benefit if they can, and it is up to the govornment to make sure that doesn't happen - after all, that is their job.
Maybe if the courts started ordering plaintiffs to pay defendents legal costs more often when a case was deemed to be frivolous this kind of thing wouldnt happen.
Edit: heh, I loved boston legal! It was probably the show I enjoyed watching the absolute most every week. Such a shame it got cancelled. Apparently it was more popular in the rest of the world than in the US towards the end. I think the political agenda (which I admit was very in your face almost to the point of being offensive especially around election time) was a little too liberal for the taste much of the us public
Is there any reason a company whose copyright is disputed can't simply turn up in court without a lawyer, explain that their company has nothing whatsoever to do with cables, would never in a million years be confused with it and walk away with a ruling in their favour?
It strikes me that that is a very naive thing to believe, but the question is why?
If they cannot, there is something very wrong with the legal system, and that brings me back to the point i was really trying to make - that the fault here is really with the legal system, not with monster. It is a simple fact that someone out there will always abuse a system for their own benefit if they can, and it is up to the govornment to make sure that doesn't happen - after all, that is their job.
Maybe if the courts started ordering plaintiffs to pay defendents legal costs more often when a case was deemed to be frivolous this kind of thing wouldnt happen.
Edit: heh, I loved boston legal! It was probably the show I enjoyed watching the absolute most every week. Such a shame it got cancelled. Apparently it was more popular in the rest of the world than in the US towards the end. I think the political agenda (which I admit was very in your face almost to the point of being offensive especially around election time) was a little too liberal for the taste much of the us public
As a practical matter, no. This isn't Small Claims, it's Federal Court.
First, there are the interrogatories. Then discovery. You have to know the procedures and rules of evidence, case law to overcome objections and make objections, and the plaintiff will tie you up in knots answering those requests. You'd be dead right there. Then declarations, done in a dueling fashion, which also must be crafted with a deep knowledge of case law. Then comes depositions, where you'll have no clue as to what is allowed and what isn't, and probably get eaten alive. Then more declarations and maybe a pre-trial conference. You're not even close to getting to see a judge yet... Did I mention the expert witnesses?
I'm in a lawsuit at the moment which is as open-and-shut as it gets. But nearly a year into it, and with probably $250,000 in legal expenses so far for both sides, we're not even at the deposition stage yet.
If somehow I were expert enough and had enough time to maneuver my way through, I would arrive in front of a judge who, in all likelihood, will screw me over because he resents amateurs in his courtroom. Nope, the system is rigged.
First, there are the interrogatories. Then discovery. You have to know the procedures and rules of evidence, case law to overcome objections and make objections, and the plaintiff will tie you up in knots answering those requests. You'd be dead right there. Then declarations, done in a dueling fashion, which also must be crafted with a deep knowledge of case law. Then comes depositions, where you'll have no clue as to what is allowed and what isn't, and probably get eaten alive. Then more declarations and maybe a pre-trial conference. You're not even close to getting to see a judge yet... Did I mention the expert witnesses?
I'm in a lawsuit at the moment which is as open-and-shut as it gets. But nearly a year into it, and with probably $250,000 in legal expenses so far for both sides, we're not even at the deposition stage yet.
If somehow I were expert enough and had enough time to maneuver my way through, I would arrive in front of a judge who, in all likelihood, will screw me over because he resents amateurs in his courtroom. Nope, the system is rigged.
That's my point SY, this system favours the rich - it's not just the legal system it runs through all of the social systems we live with in the capitalist west. Look at the patents system, the banking system,etc
Again I don't want to sound like a "commie" but let's face up to the flaws in the only viable system we seem to be left with!
Again I don't want to sound like a "commie" but let's face up to the flaws in the only viable system we seem to be left with!
Looking at all the other systems, what they all have in common is... favoring the rich.
Actually, the legal system here is abused by the not-rich as well; it costs little to file a lawsuit, lawyers like contingencies for a cherry case, so the concept of "go away money" has become entrenched.
Anyway, we're veering dangerously close to the Forbidden Zone (politics), so let's conclude this part of the discussion.
Actually, the legal system here is abused by the not-rich as well; it costs little to file a lawsuit, lawyers like contingencies for a cherry case, so the concept of "go away money" has become entrenched.
Anyway, we're veering dangerously close to the Forbidden Zone (politics), so let's conclude this part of the discussion.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.