Monster Cable - One more reason to hate them.

[freeradical]

jeffNOTjon wrote:
Is Monster Sushi in NYC next ?

Ha! There is a "Monster" Ink in Sacramento.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Nards. Kick in the nards.

[GGD]

rankandfile wrote:
Frivolous and unrealistically opportunistic. Monster Cable should have to pay all costs and then some. Maybe they should sue Pixar for naming a movie, "Monster, Inc.".

Guess again, they did.

http://www.madmartian.com/legal/disney_complaint.pdf

[macphanatic]

Why don't we start emailing monster cable to voice our opinions? Maybe they will start to get the message.

[bazookaman]

GGD wrote:
Guess again, then did.

http://www.madmartian.com/legal/disney_complaint.pdf

Holy crap. Did they win?

[Silencio]

Paul F. wrote:
Anyone still think that we don't need some serious torte reform?

I got your torte reform right here:

[michaelb]

I will take a slice of what Silencio is serving.

Tort reform usually refers to personal injury cases: cases where someone sues another person/business for an injury, like a car accident. There are other kinds of "torts" but PI cases predominant. This case would be referred to as "intellectual property" case, and so not considered a tort. I don't know much about IP law, but one potential problem (not offering this as an excuse though), is that in order preserve a copyright you have to defend it. So Monster may reasonably fear dilution of its copyright.

You may be referring to legal reform more generally. The "American" rule is that you pay for your own attorney, regardless of who wins. A fee shifting system, in which the loser pays, is a serious disincentive to lawsuits, so in theory would significantly reduce these kinds of cases.

[papercup]

Lets see'em pick on someone their own color.

[vicrock]

I fault our legal system for even giving this type of suit any standing. It is patently obvious that Monster Golf and Monster Cable are not at all competitive in the same marketplace.

[Paul F.]

You may be referring to legal reform more generally. The "American" rule is that you pay for your own attorney, regardless of who wins. A fee shifting system, in which the loser pays, is a serious disincentive to lawsuits, so in theory would significantly reduce these kinds of cases.

:agree:

Yeah... that...