More David v. Goliath pwnage

[Record Store Tough Guy]

http://consumerist.com/380082/monste...e-manufacturer

Oh, to see the look on Monster Cable's lawyers face when he opens this little gem.

[Broomjockey]

You know, I'm not sure where I stand on his use of "It's the principle" in this case. Should be interesting, if it's ever resolved.

[Pedersen]

Well, to keep it short: The entire letter is amazing. That link only posts a short excerpt. Printed out, it's something in the area of 5 pages long.

And so well worth the read. In it, he categorically denies infringing anything that belongs to Monster, tells them to provide backup for their claims if they still believe it, and then tells them that without some pretty good backup, he'll go along with litigation until the bitter end.

Yes, it's the principle, but the rest of what he says explains why he sticks with that principle. Honestly, I hope Monster does try to bully him. I'd love to see the smackdown that gets delivered to them.

[symposes]

If im reading it right, he also claims that should Monster win a case against him, he will use it as evidence for an Anti-trust suit, I assume under the claim that if Monster is shutting down its competitors based on IP infrigment, that they must be trying to form a monopoly.

[Pedersen]

Actually, he's raising that as a defense. Basically, he's stating that, if Monster wins, they get an insignificant amount of money from him (net).

And, during the suit, he's going to basically give the court reason to look at Monster, and ask if they're acting improperly as a business, such that they could run afoul of antitrust laws.

Basically, that part is a bluff: Win, get insignificant money. Lose, and run the risk of losing the whole company.

[Andara Bledin]

Basically, that part is a bluff: Win, get insignificant money. Lose, and run the risk of losing the whole company.

I'm not sure it is a bluff.

^-.-^