AP Article: Forget David and Goliath. This fight’s between Matt and Monster…
While I’m in favour of Vermonster, I do have to ask, what takes away Monster’s right to protect their own interest? If they feel threatened by this little brewing company, then they should by all means try to take them down.
And could someone explain to me, a Canadian, this $65000 charge to go to court? I thought court fees were covered by the crown/state while legal fees are paid by the participants?
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Fuck Monster energy drink. We should start a boycott.[/quote]
You can, however I will not. Hey corporations ran this country when we started, and they’ll run it until we die.
[quote]Bungalow wrote:
While I’m in favour of Vermonster, I do have to ask, what takes away Monster’s right to protect their own interest? If they feel threatened by this little brewing company, then they should by all means try to take them down.
And could someone explain to me, a Canadian, this $65000 charge to go to court? I thought court fees were covered by the crown/state while legal fees are paid by the participants?[/quote]
No, the United States has a monopoly when it comes to the court system, we have no private court system that is allowed to deal with such things. Anyway, instead of giving us a higher tax, the courts have two entities pay a fee to the court.
[quote]Bungalow wrote:
While I’m in favour of Vermonster, I do have to ask, what takes away Monster’s right to protect their own interest? If they feel threatened by this little brewing company, then they should by all means try to take them down.
And could someone explain to me, a Canadian, this $65000 charge to go to court? I thought court fees were covered by the crown/state while legal fees are paid by the participants?[/quote]
1.) How they could ever feel threatened is beyond me, he employs 6 people.
2.) You don’t own a word, fuckers, and you certainly don’t own ALL permutations of that word.
I’m with you, if they felt it was a legitimate threat hell, I’d encourage them to protect what’s theirs. Ya know…if the guy was even in the same business as them. You don’t get push people out of a business you’re not even in just because at some point you MIGHT be in it.
I’m writing them a letter. I’ll see if I can get my business teacher to mention it to my class of 800, too.
Fuck those guys.
[quote]Bungalow wrote:
While I’m in favour of Vermonster, I do have to ask, what takes away Monster’s right to protect their own interest? If they feel threatened by this little brewing company, then they should by all means try to take them down.
[/quote]
Can you copy right a word like “monster”? Perhaps in the energy drink market, but is are these corn-syrup peddlers going to start suing the promoters of “Monster” truck rallies? Are they going to sue companies that sell “Monster” masks for halloween? Of course not. They didn’t invent the fucking word, and the beer this guy sells is in no way interfering with their ability to market their product.
This is like if the Disney Corporation tried to sue “Mickey” Mantle, or the makers of “mouse” traps. They haven’t got a leg to stand on and they know that. They want to stick their dick in the beer market and they see the opportunity to harass a small time owner who might be competition one day out of the market, because the guy probably can’t afford what it costs to stand up for himself.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Fuck Monster energy drink. We should start a boycott.
You can, however I will not. Hey corporations ran this country when we started, and they’ll run it until we die.[/quote]
That’s pretty lame. You’re free to continue drinking their product if you want, but don’t make such a pathetic excuse. Corporations didn’t run shit when this country started, and even if they run it now, you as a consumer still have the power in the market place.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
Bungalow wrote:
While I’m in favour of Vermonster, I do have to ask, what takes away Monster’s right to protect their own interest? If they feel threatened by this little brewing company, then they should by all means try to take them down.
And could someone explain to me, a Canadian, this $65000 charge to go to court? I thought court fees were covered by the crown/state while legal fees are paid by the participants?
1.) How they could ever feel threatened is beyond me, he employs 6 people.
2.) You don’t own a word, fuckers, and you certainly don’t own ALL permutations of that word.
I’m with you, if they felt it was a legitimate threat hell, I’d encourage them to protect what’s theirs. Ya know…if the guy was even in the same business as them. You don’t get push people out of a business you’re not even in just because at some point you MIGHT be in it.
I’m writing them a letter. I’ll see if I can get my business teacher to mention it to my class of 800, too.
Fuck those guys. [/quote]
My understanding is that it’s not so much the word per se as much as it is the association and connotations behind it. Take Kleenex for example. If a cigarette company decided to use, for god knows what reason, Cleenex as a brand of cigarettes, then the connotation behind the word changes. All the money behind Kleenex advertising and marketing just got blown away.
Similarly, Monster wants to guide their own brand in their own direction. They are right to feel protective of it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Bungalow wrote:
While I’m in favour of Vermonster, I do have to ask, what takes away Monster’s right to protect their own interest? If they feel threatened by this little brewing company, then they should by all means try to take them down.
And could someone explain to me, a Canadian, this $65000 charge to go to court? I thought court fees were covered by the crown/state while legal fees are paid by the participants?
No, the United States has a monopoly when it comes to the court system, we have no private court system that is allowed to deal with such things. Anyway, instead of giving us a higher tax, the courts have two entities pay a fee to the court. [/quote]
And if one participant can’t afford the fee to enter the court, he automatically loses? That is bullshit. I can understand it if they are talking legal fees and the cost of hiring a lawyer, but a tarif to enter the courts??? That is ridiculous.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The United States has a monopoly when it comes to the court system…[/quote]
Not really. Have you heard of Judge Judy? Both parties in a dispute can agree to have their case arbitrated by a third party of their choice, who doesn’t have to be a government appointed judge and the arbitrators decision will be legally binding.