Apple Revokes Monster's 'Made for iPhone' License Following Beats Lawsuit

[PotatoLeekSoup]

And here's another dose.

Yeah yeah, whatever. I am always satisfied with Apple products and do not find them to cost a premium, since I cannot get their OS & design elsewhere, whereas an HDMI cable is just an HDMI cable. And yeah, Monster did charge 5x and higher than superior cable products.

I'm not going to go to Monoprice to get an MP3 player.

 

[MikePLP]

That's a bit screwed up and childish.

Is it childish if your neighbor sues you(for whatever reason) and you decide to stop inviting him to your monthly neighborhood BBQ? Some will also say that's childish.

 

[lolkthxbai]

"Monster produces Lightning charging cables and headphones that are certified to work with Apple devices under Apple's Made for iPhone (MFi) certification process, and it has done so since 2005"

2005? Are you sure that the Made For iPhone certification process was in place two years before the iPhone was on sale?

iPod.

 

[youradhere4222]

Is it childish if your neighbor sues you(for whatever reason) and you decide to stop inviting him to your monthly neighborhood BBQ? Some will also say that's childish.

Individuals aren't subject to antitrust laws.

 

[bbeagle]

That's exactly why Apple is being described as a bully. You propose that Monster should drop the lawsuit to avoid consequences from Apple but the lawsuit could be actually perfectly justified, so why should Monster drop it? Because Apple is trying to bully them into doing so through the strength of its business.

Not saying that Apple should not do that: in my opinion Monster deserves every ounce of the bullying Apple can deliver.

It's a normal reaction.

If someone comes over to my house and slips on my driveway and breaks their ankle and sues me, regardless of whether the lawsuit has merit, I'm not inviting them over to my house again.

If the person tried to work out the broken ankle issue directly with me, without a lawsuit, we might remain friends.

 

[MikePLP]

That's exactly why Apple is being described as a bully. You propose that Monster should drop the lawsuit to avoid consequences from Apple but the lawsuit could be actually perfectly justified, so why should Monster drop it? Because Apple is trying to bully them into doing so through the strength of its business.

Not saying that Apple should not do that: in my opinion Monster deserves every ounce of the bullying Apple can deliver.

If Apple said "You better drop the lawsuit or we're going to drop your certification", then that's bullying. However, it *doesn't* appear this was the case. In other words, Apple did not threaten Monster. This was just a retribution. You kicked us, so I'm going to decide I'm not going to do business with you any more.

 

[phillipduran]

There's a months worth of irony right there by golly.

What irony? He doesn't mention anything comparing it to Apple's new partnership with Beats. Looks like a stand alone statement that Monster is over priced junk.

 

[youradhere4222]

It's a normal reaction.

If someone comes over to my house and slips on my driveway and breaks their ankle and sues me, regardless of whether the lawsuit has merit, I'm not inviting them over to my house again.

If the person tried to work out the broken ankle issue without a lawsuit, we might remain friends.

We should stop using these examples. Again, individuals are not subject to antitrust laws. Litigation is commonplace in any competitive environment and Apple shouldn't use its market prominence to discourage it.

Think about it. If a small company makes most of its income from selling MFI-certified iPhone chargers, what would they do if they felt that Apple infringed on one of their patents? That company should have the right to file a lawsuit without the threat of going out of business. This is why antitrust laws exist.

 

[MikePLP]

Individuals aren't subject to antitrust laws.

Prove this has anything to do with antitrust.

 

[youradhere4222]

Prove this has anything to do with antitrust.

I don't need to prove that at all. I posted that in response to your example, which is entirely incomparable to the situation between Apple and Monster because it deals with individuals rather than corporations.

 

[gbc204]

I hate Monster products and think they're ridiculous, but if you read up on the history of Monster/Beats, Beats seems pretty shady in their dealings with Monster. Both are overpriced mediocre products, so I don't really care in general, but I think Monster has a case here.

 

[oneMadRssn]

We should stop using these examples. Again, individuals are not subject to antitrust laws. Litigation is commonplace in any competitive environment and Apple shouldn't use its market prominence to discourage it.

Think about it. If a small company makes most of its income from selling MFI-certified iPhone chargers, what would they do if they felt that Apple infringed on one of their patents? That company should have the right to file a lawsuit without the threat of going out of business. This is why antitrust laws exist.

Well said, this is a good example.

Prove this has anything to do with antitrust.

No.

 

[samcraig]

Sammy needs the business

Apple needs Samsung. Don't kid yourself.

 

[youradhere4222]

I hate Monster products and think they're ridiculous, but if you read up on the history of Monster/Beats, Beats seems pretty shady in their dealings with Monster. Both are overpriced mediocre products, so I don't really care in general, but I think Monster has a case here.

I know nothing about it but if Monster feels like it has a claim, they should be able to make it in court and have it evaluated by a judge or jury. I think Apple is using illegal practices in an effort to stop it from going to court, and I hope the DOJ steps in.

 

[ChrisCW11]

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

In this Case Apple took out both their eyes, stealing Beats shares and then revoking MFi licensing, basically because Monster in a direct competitor to Beats products in the market.

This is not a situation where an Apple fanboi should flutter and chime in and hold their esteemed company in high regard. This is a situation where Apple is being petulant with a strong inferiority complex, afraid to compete on the shelves and taking what should be no more then an internal legal squabble and making it very public.

Apple has, consistently, pulled product from their stores and also licensing agreements when dealing with legal issues or adjusting their marketing/product portfolio to go after a competitor in the same retail space. Why Apple is not slapped with antit-competitive government lawsuits is beyond me and most likely speaks to some very well paid lobbyists which squash that kind of thing well in advanced.

 

[MikePLP]

We should stop using these examples. Again, individuals are not subject to antitrust laws. Litigation is commonplace in any competitive environment and Apple shouldn't use its market prominence to discourage it.

Think about it. If a small company makes most of its income from selling MFI-certified iPhone chargers, what would they do if they felt that Apple infringed on one of their patents? That company should have the right to file a lawsuit without the threat of going out of business. This is why antitrust laws exist.

That has nothing to do antitrust. In fact, Apple can decide to stop supporting 3rd party from making accessories COMPLETELY. Of course, that's not going to stop them from selling non apple approved products, and there's nothing Apple can do to stop them(unless it's patented).

 

[ChrisCW11]

No because they cost too much lol. I don't think it's about that, it's about the darker side of apple.

Ditto about Beats, they want too much money to drop the bass, and any kind of other audio fidelity, which is why I own neither of these wannabe audiophile company products.

 

[MikePLP]

I know nothing about it but if Monster feels like it has a claim, they should be able to make it in court and have it evaluated by a judge or jury. I think Apple is using illegal practices in an effort to stop it from going to court, and I hope the DOJ steps in.

"illegal practices"? You clearly aren't a lawyer.

 

[cmaier]

I know nothing about it but if Monster feels like it has a claim, they should be able to make it in court and have it evaluated by a judge or jury. I think Apple is using illegal practices in an effort to stop it from going to court, and I hope the DOJ steps in.

Exactly what law do you think they are breaking?
And how are they stopping Monster from going to court - Monster already went to court and sued. You think if someone sues you, you should be required to continue doing other business with them?
Do you think the antitrust laws require such a bizarre result? If so, can you cite what statute provides for that?

 

[ChrisCW11]

That has nothing to do antitrust. In fact, Apple can decide to stop supporting 3rd party from making accessories COMPLETELY. Of course, that's not going to stop them from selling non apple approved products, and there's nothing Apple can do to stop them(unless it's patented).

When Apple controls the support and distribution of accessories, it becomes an anti-trust issue. Other companies should have equal opportunities to participate in any program that Apple offers. Apple wants to be the channel to support and distribute accessories, and companies have to pay them for that privilege, by not letting certain companies in to that channel out of spite is the fundamental principal of anti-trust.

 

[MikePLP]

Exactly what law do you think they are breaking?
And how are they stopping Monster from going to court - Monster already went to court and sued. You think if someone sues you, you should be required to continue doing other business with them?
Do you think the antitrust laws require such a bizarre result? If so, can you cite what statute provides for that?

Apple haters don't need logic.

 

[youradhere4222]

That has nothing to do antitrust. In fact, Apple can decide to stop supporting 3rd party from making accessories COMPLETELY. Of course, that's not going to stop them from selling non apple approved products, and there's nothing Apple can do to stop them(unless it's patented).

Like I mentioned earlier, in my experience, iOS only works with MFI-certified accessories. The OS displays a prompt if an unauthorized accessory is connected to the device.

If that's the case, then Apple, through its MFI-certification program, is picking and choosing which accessory providers are allowed access to the multi-billion dollar iPhone accessory market. If the MFI-certification program was entirely based on technology standards, this wouldn't be a problem. But Apple appears to be denying that certification for political reasons which is more than enough to convince a large or small company to drop a lawsuit or not pursue one at all.

 

[cmaier]

When Apple controls the support and distribution of accessories, it becomes an anti-trust issue. Other companies should have equal opportunities to participate in any program that Apple offers. Apple wants to be the channel to support and distribute accessories, and companies have to pay them for that privilege, by not letting certain companies in to that channel out of spite is the fundamental principal of anti-trust.

This post evidences an extreme misunderstanding of what antitrust law is for.

No, not every company should have an equal opportunity to do business with Apple on equal, or even unequal, terms. Apple is free to do business with who it likes. What it cannot do are things like leverage a monopoly in one business to force sales in another, or conspire with other companies to fix prices in a manner deleterious to consumers.

Your argument is no different than saying if I open a store to sell, say, loaves of bread, I must sell any brand of bread that comes knocking on my door and demands shelf space. That's not at all how antitrust law works.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Monster and Beats. Two companies I don't ever plan on doing business with.

Now now, I feel the same way, BUT what if they come out with a killer product in the future?
Maybe tape over the gaudy B ?

As one gets older Status symbol marketing loses it's appeal I find. With a few exceptions I think it's for young people. Part of trying to find ones identity and be perceived cool.
These days I cut out logos or skip buying something even what I really like when a gaudy or too large logo ruins the product. All made in China anyway with a label sown over the top.

Same factory that makes Lacotz shirts may do the Walmart 9.99 version.

 

[theBB]

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.

I agree, as a customer I want options, but I am surprised by those who throws around words such as "monopoly", "unfair", "childish" etc about a business dispute where the lawsuit and the response is all about business, i.e. money.