Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Revokes Monster's 'Made for iPhone' License Following Beats Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a tactic designed to put pressure on Monster to drop the suit or settle for costs. It also smells of a tiny bit of an antitrust violation, where Apple is flexing their big market player muscles to restrict the trade of Monster cables.
Please explain where or who this so-called "trust" should be. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense if you have a bit of economical knowledge and actually know what a trust is.
I don't disagree, but that's a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. Monster is well known as a bully when it comes to frivolous lawsuits.
I was looking for bluetooth headphones and saw a pair for $300. When I said it seemed ridiculous the employee said they were $50 headphones before Beats became popular and everyone increased their prices.
i have no sympathy at all for Monster - the biggest lawsuit bully of them all.
Apple can do what it wants with their certification. However, in the long term, they might have to cut out a lot of 3rd party vendors if they want to punish them for suing and/or other tactics.
Personally I don't really have a horse in this race though - don't really care about Monster products nor Apple's certification program.
Personally I don't really have a horse in this race though - don't really care about Monster products nor Apple's certification program.
And here's another dose.
Directly from Apple I'd imagine.
The same Monster who overpriced their cables & accessories?
I have no sympathy for this company whatsoever.
I have no sympathy for this company whatsoever.
I don't like Monster but I can try to explain the perspective from their point of view, or maybe even from the DOJ's point of view.
Apple has an incredible hold on the smartphone industry and the hundreds of billions of dollars that revolve around it. MFI licensing should exist to ensure that accessory makers are producing cables and other products that don't have adverse effects on Apple products. Instead, it appears that Apple is using it as a bargaining chip to discourage companies from filing lawsuits against Apple and its subsidiaries.
I think companies should be able to file lawsuits when they feel wronged. Monster isn't asking for Apple to feature their products on Apple's online store. They're asking for their products to continue to work with Apple products because they're produced at the same standard that other MFI-certified accessories are. This makes MFI certification political rather than quality-centric.
Apple has an incredible hold on the smartphone industry and the hundreds of billions of dollars that revolve around it. MFI licensing should exist to ensure that accessory makers are producing cables and other products that don't have adverse effects on Apple products. Instead, it appears that Apple is using it as a bargaining chip to discourage companies from filing lawsuits against Apple and its subsidiaries.
I think companies should be able to file lawsuits when they feel wronged. Monster isn't asking for Apple to feature their products on Apple's online store. They're asking for their products to continue to work with Apple products because they're produced at the same standard that other MFI-certified accessories are. This makes MFI certification political rather than quality-centric.
Not necessarily. If Apple uses their power to hurt a partner in order to force them to drop a lawsuit then the DOJ will probably end up getting involved. I don't know that to be the case here though.
That was my first thought on this... I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a clause in the contract somewhere that covers this and terminates the contract through breach if you start a law suit against Apple for any reason. If nothing else they'd be potentially covering themselves for connector changes like dock to lightning that might rub any 3rd party manufacturers up the wrong way for some reason.
Antitrust laws and regulations cover a wide body of "bad" business behaviors, not just trusts - despite the shorthand.
Apple's actions are a vertical restraint because they are preventing a manufacturer from selling lightning cables to the retail market. The actions could also be categorized as a horizontal restraint because they are preventing a Monster from being a participant in the lightning cable market at all. Whether or not this was clear to Monster in their MFi contract is not dispositive. Many contractual provisions are unforceable, and yet routinely put into contracts anyway. The fact that Apple has a quasi-monopoly over the lightning cable market exacerbates the situation.
On the flip side, I doubt a court would find liability here. There is no tie to price - excluding Monster from the market doesn't cause prices to go up or supplies to go down so much that consumers are affected. Thus, it's probably legal. But I said it smells bad, Apple's lawyers are walking close to the line here.
No one is telling Monster they can't sell Apple related products. Monster just won't be able to call them MFI certified. That's all. Big whoop!
Last edited:
I often see myself asking this question on MacRumors: are the posters here primarily stockholders or consumers? As consumers, we should be looking for as many options as possible when it comes to charging cables, headphones, and any other accessories. You don't have to buy Monster products if you don't like them.
Pending litigation should be a concern for Tim Cook and other Apple executives. Once we as consumers start caring more about Apple's corporate interests rather than our own consumer interests, Apple has greater flexibility to do things that come at the expense of the customer. For instance, disallowing an accessory manufacturer from selling to Apple customers because of a legal disagreement.
Pending litigation should be a concern for Tim Cook and other Apple executives. Once we as consumers start caring more about Apple's corporate interests rather than our own consumer interests, Apple has greater flexibility to do things that come at the expense of the customer. For instance, disallowing an accessory manufacturer from selling to Apple customers because of a legal disagreement.
Even simple cell phone contracts now have binding arbitration requirement. I'd be surprised if such a contract does not have a clause covering business disputes.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't iOS refuse to work with accessories that aren't MFI-certified? I've bought cheap Apple charging cables before that don't work with my device, and I get alert telling me that it is an unauthorized accessory.
Regardless, I like the idea of MFI certification being a technical certification, rather than a "Friends of Apple" badge.