[roadtonowhere08]

My guess is that Monster thought they would scare BJC into submission. BJC told them where to shove it, and although they do not have deep pockets, I am sure that Kurt would have no problems representing himself in court should it get to that. He obviously knows what he is doing. I see this as a time killer for BJC rather than a money issue.

Anyway, why should BJC file a suit? What do they have to gain by being the aggressor? It looks much better if Monster sues them and then looses out of stupidity. Besides, I am betting that Kurt does not want to go to court over this, so he wants the ball to remain in Monster's court.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway, why should BJC file a suit? What do they have to gain by being the aggressor? It looks much better if Monster sues them and then looses out of stupidity. Besides, I am betting that Kurt does not want to go to court over this, so he wants the ball to remain in Monster's court.

momentum and home court advantage?

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif momentum and home court advantage?

No, I mean what would be in it for BJC to win a lawsuit brought by themselves? Money? Fame? Does not strike me as something that would be in line with the business model of BJC. There is nothing to gain. Now fending off a Monster lawsuit is another issue, but I really do not see Kurt voluntarily going to the mat for this. I think he had a bit of fun writing the letter, but I really do not think he will go "Monster" on Monster.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif momentum and home court advantage?

Denke's letter served two purposes that a declaratory judgment action would not necessarily serve:

1. The letter is an attempt by BJC to dissuade Monster from pursuing an arguably frivolous claim any further. If Denke believed that a lawsuit from Monster were inevitable, then I suppose he might consider a declaratory judgment action, but I think that his assessment here is that litigation is not inevitable, and that Monster is simply trying to bully its way to a quick settlement. Notwithstanding Denke's comments in the letter, he knows that IP litigation is an expensive and time-consuming proposition and he does not want to get wrapped up in an expensive lawsuit if he doesn't have to.

2. It's great publicity. A declaratory judgment action would not have generated nearly the level of interest in the general public as that letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, I mean what would be in it for BJC to win a lawsuit brought by themselves?

If Denke truly believes that Monsters claims are frivolous, then there is little advantage to filing a declaratory judgment action. If he filed a dec action and ultimately prevailed, he would get a declaratory judgment from the court that BJC's products do not infringe on Monster's patents and trademarks. But the filing of the action would guarantee that there would be expensive litigation, whereas his letter may dissuade Monster from pressing its claim. Unless Denke believes that litigation is inevitable, there is little reason for him to file a declaratory judgment action.

In fact, if Denke truly believes that Monster's claims are frivolous, he would be better served by letting Monster file suit, because he would then probably have a better shot at getting Rule 11 sanctions for the frivolous lawsuit.

The only circumstance where I could see that a declaratory judgment action would be beneficial to BJC is if (1) Denke believed that litigation was inevitable, and (2) he believed that there was potentially a bona fide dispute regarding whether his products infringe Monster's intellectual property.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Denke's letter served two purposes that a declaratory judgment action would not necessarily serve: 1. The letter is an attempt by BJC to dissuade Monster from pursuing an arguably frivolous claim any further. If Denke believed that a lawsuit from Monster were inevitable, then I suppose he might consider a declaratory judgment action, but I think that his assessment here is that litigation is not inevitable, and that Monster is simply trying to bully its way to a quick settlement. Notwithstanding Denke's comments in the letter, he knows that IP litigation is an expensive and time-consuming proposition and he does not want to get wrapped up in an expensive lawsuit if he doesn't have to. 2. It's great publicity. A declaratory judgment action would not have generated nearly the level of interest in the general public as that letter.

I like #2.

I still have doubts on #1, do you think Monster would file C/D letter without having their counsel first draw up an infringement opinion? (so C/D letter was not filed in bad faith). Ok let's assume Monster got an infringement opinion and it says BJC is infringing on their IP; if Monster doesn't pursue BJC, are their IP rights affected in any way?

<Time to get me few more BJC cables....got to puff up that battle chest somehow

 

[MP3guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif ?? my opinion still stands, if BJC thinks reasoning with Monster won't work then they should have filed the suit first. You think that letter will scare Monster and their council?

I believe you meant "counsel."

I think you're missing the whole point of Mr. Denke's response. First off is the fact that Monster is a known bully, and the delight that the tech and audio world is taking in it's humiliation- from CNET podcasts, Gizmodo, Engadget, plus some publications as far away as Great Britain, should tell you something.
This is a public relations disaster for Monster, that they will not recover from any time soon. Tech media despises the firm. Google this and you'll see what I mean.

Mr. Denke OBVIOUSLY thinks "reasoning with Monster" will work, (sic) because he is daring them outright to prove they have a case. Mr. Denke's experience is telling him they can go crap in their hat. They don't have a case, just a legal department with little else to do but intimidate others. They expected Mr. Denke to curl up in a ball and allow himself to be shaken down. Looks like that is not going to happen.

Moreover, Mr. Denke's threat, that if this action were to actually proceed, he would explore the proposition that Monster could lose what little patent protection they think they had altogether, just might be a risk the little shysters at Monster Legal may not want to take.

Lastly, Mr. Denke is not going to take up the expense of going to court against Monster. I believe he made this completely clear that if Monster were to proceed, he would rather close his doors than give them a red cent.

I don't know how you missed all this by reading the letter.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP3guy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mr. Denke OBVIOUSLY thinks "reasoning with Monster" will work

you mean reasoning with monster will not work.

I do agree most of Monster's patents are pretty stupid

I just thought the letter was overly verbose and has a little 'bad faith' taste to it

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just thought the letter was overly verbose and has a little 'bad faith' taste to it

"Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a legal concept in which a malicious motive on the part of a party in a lawsuit undermines their case." That seems more like Monster's problem. Requesting proper documentation does not constitute bad faith.

Monster's original letter was probably written in the same style. That's legalese for ya.

And yes, he's hoping that reasoning with Monster will work, which is the whole purpose of the letter--proving to Monster that their case against his company is not worth pursuing.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a legal concept in which a malicious motive on the part of a party in a lawsuit undermines their case." That seems more like Monster's problem. Requesting proper documentation does not constitute bad faith. Monster's original letter was probably written in the same style. That's legalese for ya. And yes, he's hoping that reasoning with Monster will work, which is the whole purpose of the letter--proving to Monster that their case against his company is not worth pursuing.

correct me if I am wrong and IIRC BJC's original letter had everything from putting the kind of burden on Monster to produce the proofs that's probably outside of the reasonable 'good faith' dealing; to things like 'tax shelter', 'unfair business practice', and 'I am the bigshot litigator'

no?

all of those things in the letter can't all be relevant to determine whether BJC had infringed on Monster's IP rights. yes? no?

I am not saying the letter was not entertaining, or BJC was wrong to write that letter; it was just a little over the top for me.

We can at least give Monster some credit for their IP portfolio of 137 patents and their continual innovation in the cable arena dating back to their 1st patent in 1981; That's 27 years of innovation (cough...quite a few are design patents, but still). What's the point of granting a monopoly by the U.S. government if you don't ever intent enforce your monopoly? Why should inventors continue to invent if they know that someone can just steal their invention with no recourse? How can the world advance forward if we don't give inventors some special inventive so they keep on inventing? Should all these principle be pushed aside just because one of the party is the 'little guy'? something to think about in this modern age of diminished appreciation and respect for intellectual property.

 

[MP3guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif correct me if I am wrong and IIRC BJC's original letter had everything from putting the kind of burden on Monster to produce the proofs that's probably outside of the reasonable 'good faith' dealing; to things like 'tax shelter', 'unfair business practice', and 'I am the bigshot litigator' no? We can at least give Monster some credit for their IP portfolio of 137 patents and their continual innovation in the cable arena dating back to their 1st patent in 1981; That's 27 years of innovation (cough...quite a few are design patents, but still). .

To answer the first point, since Monster is accusing Mr. Denke of patent infringement, the burden is on Monster to prove it. Mr. Denke specifically pointed this out. He needn't lift a finger to defend himself if Monster cannot prove- as opposed to merely stating or threatening- that their patents have been infringed.

Secondly, Monster cables have become a bit of a joke. Like Bose, a strong marketing strategy has trumped the functionality of the product. Gizmodo ran a link to a story where RCA connectors were soldered to coat hanger wire, and compared to a Monster product. A seasoned panel of listeners could not discern a difference. The same goes for their "speed rated" cables.

Sometimes- and of course it happens with audio equipment- the price one pays alters the perception of the experience.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP3guy /img/forum/go_quote.gif To answer the first point, since Monster is accusing Mr. Denke of patent infringement, the burden is on Monster to prove it. Mr. Denke specifically pointed this out. He needn't lift a finger to defend himself if Monster cannot prove- as opposed to merely stating or threatening- that their patents have been infringed. Secondly, Monster cables have become a bit of a joke. Like Bose, a strong marketing strategy has trumped the functionality of the product. Gizmodo ran a link to a story where RCA connectors were soldered to coat hanger wire, and compared to a Monster product. A seasoned panel of listeners could not discern a difference. The same goes for their "speed rated" cables. Sometimes- and of course it happens with audio equipment- the price one pays alters the perception of the experience.

you are correct in everything you have said so far.

However, 1. if Monster believes in good faith that BJC is infringing on their patent, they will file a claim; and 2. this has nothing to do with Monster's business practice, this is strictly related to patent infringement. Granted there are practical business consequences as a result of Monster asserting their rights. So what!? If you think patent law is corrupt and does not serve the purpose intended or is perverted by the current patent holders, you can always lobby your legislator to change the law through the political process.

maybe this response is a little harsh...let me temper it by saying that protecting your property is good socially acceptable thing to do and people shouldn't be blamed for protecting their property. Even though, practically, protecting the property by the property owner may seem like an oppressive act to the 3rd party, nevertheless the property owner shouldn't be blamed for protecting its property.

 

[fordgtlover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... What's the point of granting a monopoly by the U.S. government if you don't ever intent enforce your monopoly? Why should inventors continue to invent if they know that someone can just steal their invention with no recourse? How can the world advance forward if we don't give inventors some special inventive so they keep on inventing? Should all these principle be pushed aside just because one of the party is the 'little guy'? something to think about in this modern age of diminished appreciation and respect for intellectual property.

I don't think anyone here is taking the line that IP infringement is OK.

In Denke's response to MC he states:

It may be that there is some line of products to which you have intended to refer but which I have not found in Monster Cable's marketing materials or displays; but if so, you will need to show me specifically what product it is, and you will need to call to my attention the specific aspects of the connector design which you contend constitute unique Monster Cable trade dress, what the associated secondary meaning of those aspects of the trade dress is, and in what manner and by what characteristics you allege that this trade dress has been appropriated.

Denke is question the specifics of the claimed infringement.

Here a link to MCs original letter. Nothing too legalese about it.

 

[MP3guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif you are correct in everything you have said so far. However, 1. if Monster believes in good faith that BJC is infringing on their patent, they will file a claim; and 2. this has nothing to do with Monster's business practice, this is strictly related to patent infringement. Granted there are practical business consequences as a result of Monster asserting their rights. So what!? If you think patent law is corrupt and does not serve the purpose intended or is perverted by the current patent holders, you can always lobby your legislator to change the law through the political process. maybe this response is a little harsh...let me temper it by saying that protecting your property is good socially acceptable thing to do and people shouldn't be blamed for protecting their property. Even though, practically, protecting the property by the property owner may seem like an oppressive act to the 3rd party, nevertheless the property owner shouldn't be blamed for protecting its property.

Again- let me commend to you that you read the letter in full, to the end.

A presumption would have to be made that there is a patent to enforce in the first place. No one seems to think so. I never said patent law was corrupt. What the letter is saying, and what you have apparently missed from the onset, is that there is nothing to enforce here. Period.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP3guy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again- let me commend to you that you read the letter in full, to the end. A presumption would have to be made that there is a patent to enforce in the first place. No one seems to think so. I never said patent law was corrupt. What the letter is saying, and what you have apparently missed from the onset, is that there is nothing to enforce here. Period.

so? all patents are strongly presumed to be valid in the first place; and as long as the patent owner believes that another is infringing it should try to get the other to stop. Whether there is actual infringement is to be determined at trial.

turning to the facts on hand (I didn't know BJC had put up a copy of the exhibits on their site), damn those exhibits are weak

I didn't know they were all design patents; BJC's response was more than appropriate in this case

(yes BJC should take Monster all the way to judgment)

 

[MP3guy]

Follow up from Mr. Denke.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/edit...jeans-followup