6 ms·

The complete story: https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm

jdlshore 2y ago
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 myself and knowing that they'd probably be sanctioned for frivolous conduct if they sued me, Monster fell silent. Not a peep was heard again.”
- mc32 2y ago
  This reminds me of the spat between Tekton Design speakers and a Youtube reviewer. Tekton received such massive and negative feedback, he tried to backpedal the initial threat. But still, the gall. They suffered reputationally not from the [mildly] negative review, but from the fallout from the ill-advised threat of lawsuit. https://www.audioresurgence.com/2024/04/tekton-speakers-reviewing-debacle-and-manufacturer-bullying.html https://www.audioresurgence.com/2024/04/tekton-speakers-revi... [more neutral] https://musictech.com/news/gear/tekton-audio-allegedly-threaten-critics-legal-action-leaving-negative-reviews/ https://musictech.com/news/gear/tekton-audio-allegedly-threa...
  - Blackthorn 2y ago
    It's amazing to me that the writer of that piece walked away with the conclusion that Eric Alexander was in the right.
    - mc32 2y ago
      Just about everyone on YT as well as online sided with the reviewer because Tekton were being ridiculous.
      - BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
        I remember seeing his posts on ASR. Some really fun stuff like how the air coming out of the screw holes for the feet would produce a supersonic boom; in a ported enclosure. Wildly entertaining.
    - hamandcheese 2y ago
      I don't think you read the piece? > My overarching sense is that this whole saga has been largely Mr. Alexander’s fault and it could have been easily avoided. > Alexander has dropped the Mother Of All Bombs on this situation, displaying disrespect towards the reviewing industry, and regarding reviewers as trivial annoyances that can be easily brushed aside. The outcome of this saga and who will ultimately withstand the fallout remains to be seen, but Mr. Alexander almost certainly looks like an ass at this moment in time, and in my opinion, any negative assessment he receives is largely self-inflicted.
      - zettabomb 2y ago
        I believe they're referring to this bit: >There’s no doubt in my mind that Eric Alexander of Tekton Design is largely in the right, and in principle, challenging these reviewers was mostly justified. The next sentence is revealing though: >The problem, and the reason we’re here now dwelling on it, is how he went about it. I'm not sure if I understand the first of the quotes, honestly, given the rest of the content. But that seems to be what GP was referencing.
- pdpi 2y ago
  > 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/jack-daniels-lawsuit-the-full-scoop/ https://brokenpianoforpresident.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/jac...
  - silisili 2y ago
    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.
    - favorited 2y ago
      I used to be the webmaster for my parent's HOA[0], and I bought their .com domain name when it became available (a realtor had owned it originally). They eventually hired a firm to run the site, and I pointed the domain at their nameservers, and forgot about it (paying the ~$20/year in renewals, because that's not a lot of money & I have fond memories of living there). 15 years later, I get a registered letter from a law firm – counsel to the HOA – claiming that I was violating their trademark by owning the domain name, demanding that I turn it over to the HOA, etc. If an actual human had reached out to me, I would have happily transferred the domain. Instead, they paid a lawyer to be a dick about it – so I ignored the letter, they registered the .net, and everyone moved on. I still keep the domain up, and redirect it to their new URL, because as long as the .com domain works, people will be using it. Which means they will still want it, and I'm not giving it to them. At least not until they ask nicely, and catch me with honey instead of vinegar. [0]Despite this incident, their HOA is normally perfectly reasonable. It's a few hundred dollars per year to keep up with road repairs, signage, community facilities upkeep, etc.
      - flomo 2y ago
        [flagged]
- dkh 2y ago
  This is wonderful. It’s also true! Even when I was running a very small business and not particularly bothered by what people were doing that could be argued as resembling trademark infringement, I was urged to be vigilant about it because if you don’t defend your trademark, you risk losing it. That’s how the law works! If that really is the reason you’re threatening action against someone, they may just understand if you’re nice about it! That said, while it may foster more goodwill towards your company, it probably isn’t as surefire a way to generate the swift response you want as being a dick and making the threats
- derefr 2y ago
  Is there any way to file a (real) countersuit against someone, just to punish them for having wasted your time and energy with a threat of legal action that never materialized?
  - dmurray 2y ago
    The term to search for this is barratry and there are laws against it in some jurisdictions. Realistically, you will not win a judgment on this to compensate you for your time dealing with a single cease and desist letter. If someone shows a really excessive pattern of it, perhaps a judge or a bar association could be convinced to make an example of them.
    - derefr 2y ago
      I guess that does address my concrete question as given. But I think I was less imagining a countersuit that literally just "seeks damages for wasted time and effort"... and more imagining a countersuit that can somehow "rope in" the claims in the original suit, so as to force those claims to be evaluated and case law to be created upon that evaluation — whether the original claimant likes it or not. Imagine, by analogy, outside the domain of IP law: 1. Party A threatens to sue party B for having violated the terms of some contract they have. 2. Party A then drops this threat. 3. Party B then sues party A with the intent of having a judge still evaluate that same question, but now in the other direction: "would party A have had legal standing to sue party B?" — where in the case that party B wins that judgement, this would not only award damages to party B, but also have the same case-law impact as if party A had really sued party B, and lost.
      - rzzzt 2y ago
        In Kurt Denke's response he writes: > As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I > would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it > is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so. Which party would bear the burden of proof in step 3? Does it get reversed or stay as if the step 1 threat went to court?
- miki123211 2y ago
  Maybe writing that letter was a bad idea in the first place? It was good for Blue Jeans and for Monster, as they both avoided expensive litigation, but from a more general perspective, it would have been better if Monster thought Blue Jeans was an easy victim, sued and got its comeuppance.
kopirgan 2y ago
The last paragraph with upside downside comments are legendary Plus the threat to impose even bigger costs with anti trust violation claims! Need to imagine the face of the in-house counsel reading it.
- rendaw 2y ago
  But in the end did monster actually face any penalty at all? They threatened the guy, the guy said no, end of story. The bully moves on to threaten the next guy. The story insinuates lasting damage but it seems kind of subtle...
  - kopirgan 2y ago
    Lol it is not subtle at all - it basically says you will get pennies if you take us on and win, but if we win, you get screwed big time incl damages for anti-trust. Guess BJC was content with letting them just go away...but once this was generally known, it does reduce the value of those threats.
  - somat 2y ago
    Most importantly, it was also popularly published. So the critical but tricky to measure metrics now are "how much sales do we loose because we are now firmly labeled as a bully in peoples minds" and "how much potential licensing revenue have we lost because people know they don't need to fold immediately"
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      It is hard do say, though, because the market for Monster cables is pretty clearly people who came in off the street, read nothing, and picked the fanciest looking cable. By their nature they are immune to bad press, right?
lukan 2y ago
"There have been numerous times, since my exit from the practice of law and entry into the cable business, when I've been glad that I have a legal background, and this certainly was one of those; it meant that the inevitable surge in adrenalin manifested itself through careful legal review rather than through the intended panic." Channel your energy in the right direction ..
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
In particular, I'd recommend looking at the full response. While the original article covers the plain-language juicy-sounding excerpts, the full letter to Monster also contains some artful legalese that even I as layman can appreciate: It starts with several pages worth of requests for information. I'm pretty sure those aren't actually requests for information - they're a threat. If Monster were to actually sue, he'd be entitled to these documents as part of discovery, so he's essentially saying "if you sue me, you'll spend a lot of money on discovery (and be forced to reveal stuff you'd rather not)". Sprinkled in are some suggestions of ethics violations on the side of Monster's lawyers, a hint at Monster's likely corporate tax evasion scheme (and the requirement to produce the material that proves the tax evasion in discovery), and the threat to break their racket in the last paragraph that kopirgan already pointed out. All this is even more impressive than the quoted part, and sadly omitted in the original blog post.
- szundi 2y ago
  [dead]
AceyMan 2y ago
Blue Jeans Cables was what I switched to towards the end of my serious audiophile days. Before that, I was set up with StraightWire mostly, but I respected Kimber Kables, though I never ended up getting any of their goods. Now tonearm cables are a whole different animal, and my pair was a mid-priced custom set though one of the high-end dealers — all substance, no flash => aka, not paying for an advertising budget & fancy packaging.
crazygringo 2y ago
Thank you! The original blog post sets up a story and then gives no ending.
eek2121 2y ago
Thanks! I actually did not like that OP did not include the full story, but rather a small part of it. I love reading stuff like this.

jdlshore 2y ago

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 myself and knowing that they'd probably be sanctioned for frivolous conduct if they sued me, Monster fell silent. Not a peep was heard again.”

mc32 2y ago
This reminds me of the spat between Tekton Design speakers and a Youtube reviewer. Tekton received such massive and negative feedback, he tried to backpedal the initial threat. But still, the gall. They suffered reputationally not from the [mildly] negative review, but from the fallout from the ill-advised threat of lawsuit. https://www.audioresurgence.com/2024/04/tekton-speakers-reviewing-debacle-and-manufacturer-bullying.html https://www.audioresurgence.com/2024/04/tekton-speakers-revi... [more neutral] https://musictech.com/news/gear/tekton-audio-allegedly-threaten-critics-legal-action-leaving-negative-reviews/ https://musictech.com/news/gear/tekton-audio-allegedly-threa...
- Blackthorn 2y ago
  It's amazing to me that the writer of that piece walked away with the conclusion that Eric Alexander was in the right.
  - mc32 2y ago
    Just about everyone on YT as well as online sided with the reviewer because Tekton were being ridiculous.
    - BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
      I remember seeing his posts on ASR. Some really fun stuff like how the air coming out of the screw holes for the feet would produce a supersonic boom; in a ported enclosure. Wildly entertaining.
  - hamandcheese 2y ago
    I don't think you read the piece? > My overarching sense is that this whole saga has been largely Mr. Alexander’s fault and it could have been easily avoided. > Alexander has dropped the Mother Of All Bombs on this situation, displaying disrespect towards the reviewing industry, and regarding reviewers as trivial annoyances that can be easily brushed aside. The outcome of this saga and who will ultimately withstand the fallout remains to be seen, but Mr. Alexander almost certainly looks like an ass at this moment in time, and in my opinion, any negative assessment he receives is largely self-inflicted.
    - zettabomb 2y ago
      I believe they're referring to this bit: >There’s no doubt in my mind that Eric Alexander of Tekton Design is largely in the right, and in principle, challenging these reviewers was mostly justified. The next sentence is revealing though: >The problem, and the reason we’re here now dwelling on it, is how he went about it. I'm not sure if I understand the first of the quotes, honestly, given the rest of the content. But that seems to be what GP was referencing.
pdpi 2y ago
> 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/jack-daniels-lawsuit-the-full-scoop/ https://brokenpianoforpresident.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/jac...
- silisili 2y ago
  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.
  - favorited 2y ago
    I used to be the webmaster for my parent's HOA[0], and I bought their .com domain name when it became available (a realtor had owned it originally). They eventually hired a firm to run the site, and I pointed the domain at their nameservers, and forgot about it (paying the ~$20/year in renewals, because that's not a lot of money & I have fond memories of living there). 15 years later, I get a registered letter from a law firm – counsel to the HOA – claiming that I was violating their trademark by owning the domain name, demanding that I turn it over to the HOA, etc. If an actual human had reached out to me, I would have happily transferred the domain. Instead, they paid a lawyer to be a dick about it – so I ignored the letter, they registered the .net, and everyone moved on. I still keep the domain up, and redirect it to their new URL, because as long as the .com domain works, people will be using it. Which means they will still want it, and I'm not giving it to them. At least not until they ask nicely, and catch me with honey instead of vinegar. [0]Despite this incident, their HOA is normally perfectly reasonable. It's a few hundred dollars per year to keep up with road repairs, signage, community facilities upkeep, etc.
    - flomo 2y ago
      [flagged]
dkh 2y ago
This is wonderful. It’s also true! Even when I was running a very small business and not particularly bothered by what people were doing that could be argued as resembling trademark infringement, I was urged to be vigilant about it because if you don’t defend your trademark, you risk losing it. That’s how the law works! If that really is the reason you’re threatening action against someone, they may just understand if you’re nice about it! That said, while it may foster more goodwill towards your company, it probably isn’t as surefire a way to generate the swift response you want as being a dick and making the threats
derefr 2y ago
Is there any way to file a (real) countersuit against someone, just to punish them for having wasted your time and energy with a threat of legal action that never materialized?
- dmurray 2y ago
  The term to search for this is barratry and there are laws against it in some jurisdictions. Realistically, you will not win a judgment on this to compensate you for your time dealing with a single cease and desist letter. If someone shows a really excessive pattern of it, perhaps a judge or a bar association could be convinced to make an example of them.
  - derefr 2y ago
    I guess that does address my concrete question as given. But I think I was less imagining a countersuit that literally just "seeks damages for wasted time and effort"... and more imagining a countersuit that can somehow "rope in" the claims in the original suit, so as to force those claims to be evaluated and case law to be created upon that evaluation — whether the original claimant likes it or not. Imagine, by analogy, outside the domain of IP law: 1. Party A threatens to sue party B for having violated the terms of some contract they have. 2. Party A then drops this threat. 3. Party B then sues party A with the intent of having a judge still evaluate that same question, but now in the other direction: "would party A have had legal standing to sue party B?" — where in the case that party B wins that judgement, this would not only award damages to party B, but also have the same case-law impact as if party A had really sued party B, and lost.
    - rzzzt 2y ago
      In Kurt Denke's response he writes: > As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I > would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it > is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so. Which party would bear the burden of proof in step 3? Does it get reversed or stay as if the step 1 threat went to court?
miki123211 2y ago
Maybe writing that letter was a bad idea in the first place? It was good for Blue Jeans and for Monster, as they both avoided expensive litigation, but from a more general perspective, it would have been better if Monster thought Blue Jeans was an easy victim, sued and got its comeuppance.

kopirgan 2y ago

The last paragraph with upside downside comments are legendary Plus the threat to impose even bigger costs with anti trust violation claims! Need to imagine the face of the in-house counsel reading it.

rendaw 2y ago
But in the end did monster actually face any penalty at all? They threatened the guy, the guy said no, end of story. The bully moves on to threaten the next guy. The story insinuates lasting damage but it seems kind of subtle...
- kopirgan 2y ago
  Lol it is not subtle at all - it basically says you will get pennies if you take us on and win, but if we win, you get screwed big time incl damages for anti-trust. Guess BJC was content with letting them just go away...but once this was generally known, it does reduce the value of those threats.
- somat 2y ago
  Most importantly, it was also popularly published. So the critical but tricky to measure metrics now are "how much sales do we loose because we are now firmly labeled as a bully in peoples minds" and "how much potential licensing revenue have we lost because people know they don't need to fold immediately"
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    It is hard do say, though, because the market for Monster cables is pretty clearly people who came in off the street, read nothing, and picked the fanciest looking cable. By their nature they are immune to bad press, right?

lukan 2y ago

"There have been numerous times, since my exit from the practice of law and entry into the cable business, when I've been glad that I have a legal background, and this certainly was one of those; it meant that the inevitable surge in adrenalin manifested itself through careful legal review rather than through the intended panic." Channel your energy in the right direction ..

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

In particular, I'd recommend looking at the full response. While the original article covers the plain-language juicy-sounding excerpts, the full letter to Monster also contains some artful legalese that even I as layman can appreciate: It starts with several pages worth of requests for information. I'm pretty sure those aren't actually requests for information - they're a threat. If Monster were to actually sue, he'd be entitled to these documents as part of discovery, so he's essentially saying "if you sue me, you'll spend a lot of money on discovery (and be forced to reveal stuff you'd rather not)". Sprinkled in are some suggestions of ethics violations on the side of Monster's lawyers, a hint at Monster's likely corporate tax evasion scheme (and the requirement to produce the material that proves the tax evasion in discovery), and the threat to break their racket in the last paragraph that kopirgan already pointed out. All this is even more impressive than the quoted part, and sadly omitted in the original blog post.

szundi 2y ago
[dead]

AceyMan 2y ago

Blue Jeans Cables was what I switched to towards the end of my serious audiophile days. Before that, I was set up with StraightWire mostly, but I respected Kimber Kables, though I never ended up getting any of their goods. Now tonearm cables are a whole different animal, and my pair was a mid-priced custom set though one of the high-end dealers — all substance, no flash => aka, not paying for an advertising budget & fancy packaging.

crazygringo 2y ago

Thank you! The original blog post sets up a story and then gives no ending.

eek2121 2y ago

Thanks! I actually did not like that OP did not include the full story, but rather a small part of it. I love reading stuff like this.