Live data from Hacker News

Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

oncontracts.com

31–40 of 210 posts

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#31

Reminds me of when Caterpillar (trucks+tractors) sued Cat and Cloud Coffee (coffee) in Santa Cruz for trademark infringement. https://www.ksbw.com/article/cat-and-cloud-coffee-in-santa-c...

I heard a story about the CEO of Maxim Integrated complaining about Maxim Magazine and wanting to sue them. The lawyer got a box of chips and a magazine, opened to the centerfold, and said "no one's confusing this for that."

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#32
post #22

Monster Cables is a name I hadn't thought about in ages... I mostly remember them as the company that tried to convince people that digital images would look better via a more expensive cable.

Well, there is now some truth to it. For example, low quality HDMI cable will may be only good enough for low bandwidth, that would limit refresh rate, and/or color fidelity (e.g. chroma subsampling) and/or resolution.

So yea, “digital” cables are not immune to signal integrity issues, and better cables do perform better.

I understand that monster takes this to the next level of bullshit — but in principle, yes, more expensive cable cable can yield better quality. Or should I say — crappy cable can result in quality degradation

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#33
post #26

Reminds me of when Caterpillar (trucks+tractors) sued Cat and Cloud Coffee (coffee) in Santa Cruz for trademark infringement. https://www.ksbw.com/article/cat-and-cloud-coffee-in-santa-c...

What happened? This is reporting on the first round but I can't find a follow-up on how things went. Did Caterpillar back down or did Cat and Cloud lose their apparel trademark?

A quick google seems to indicate that they are still doing business under that same name.

https://catandcloud.com/

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#35
post #28
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anybody who’s wondering what happened next, this is from the above link: “Monster's counsel had made a horrible mistake, and probably caused lasting harm to the company, by sending me that ridiculous letter. But he, and Monster, did apparently know the first rule of holes: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." The end, therefore, of the story was a bit anticlimactic. Knowing that I was able to defend my…

> Monster's counsel had made a horrible mistake, and probably caused lasting harm to the company, by sending me that ridiculous letter This sort of thing always reminds of the Jack Daniels cease and desist letter[0], which, at least for me, had the exact opposite effect. 0. https://brokenpianoforpresident.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/jac...

Hadn't seen this before. What a nicely written letter. Explained why they have to do this, outlined a reasonable action step, and even offer to help said action. Moreover, it didn't contain a single threat.

I wish all companies took such an approach. You catch more flies with honey, and all that.

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#36
I had no idea Monster sold anything other than over priced guitar cables... About 15 yeard ago, I knew a guy who exclusively bought Monster... well he had two of them, one from the guitar to the pedal board and another from the board to the amp.

But it wasn't because of their alleged improved sound quality or whatever, it was because they had a lifetime warranty. Dude had bought two monster 1/4inch cables and gotten them replaced "for free" like 5 times.

From what I can tell they got rid of the lifetime warranty around 2018 and have mostly transitioned to licensing their name.

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#37
post #22

Monster Cables is a name I hadn't thought about in ages... I mostly remember them as the company that tried to convince people that digital images would look better via a more expensive cable.

Well, there is now some truth to it. For example, low quality HDMI cable will may be only good enough for low bandwidth, that would limit refresh rate, and/or color fidelity (e.g. chroma subsampling) and/or resolution. So yea, “digital” cables are not immune to signal integrity issues, and better cables do perform better. I understand that monster takes this to the next level of bullshit — but in principle, yes, more…

> So yea, “digital” cables are not immune to signal integrity issues, and better cables do perform better.

Better cables perform better, but not at all in the way that Monster suggests.

Gold plating and oxygen-free copper doesn't matter.

Any certified HDMI cable will operate at least to its certification, whether or not it is gold plated with triple shielded conductors.

I wish the HDMI forum would officially deprecate all older HDMI standards, so that companies like Monster couldn't advertise that their cables provide "better color, higher resolution, better sound", etc. All the cables in the store would be 8k HDMI 2.2 cables, or they wouldn't be allowed to use the HDMI trademark.

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#39

Reminds me of when Caterpillar (trucks+tractors) sued Cat and Cloud Coffee (coffee) in Santa Cruz for trademark infringement. https://www.ksbw.com/article/cat-and-cloud-coffee-in-santa-c...

I heard a story about the CEO of Maxim Integrated complaining about Maxim Magazine and wanting to sue them. The lawyer got a box of chips and a magazine, opened to the centerfold, and said "no one's confusing this for that."

a source here would be amazing

Re: Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)

#40

I read the letter and it looked like pretty much the first negotiating position of any lawyer. Regardless of what you think, convince the opposition that you are prepared to litigate to the end of time.

Just speaking as someone who's not a lawyer, but who grew up in a family of lawyers: This isn't so much a negotiating position as a rigorous way of thinking about everything. It's also the default position if e.g. your child asks you to buy them a book, let them sleep over at a friend's house, etc. (Something an ex-girlfriend of mine categorized as "child abuse", whereas I think it was a fantastic education). Cross-examination on a subject doesn't mean an automatic "no". It's more like: If you want to use X amount of personal capital here, to achieve your ends, then persuade me that you're right using logic and proof, not threats or acting out. It's kind of a Jedi mind training, and a wonderful shield against both bullying and idiocy in the wider world. Because at the end of the day, it is a superpower to be a lawyer, or even to think like one.
Post reply on HN