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

[AntonAmsys]

You really think you can call mom fat and ugly, and still expect her to keep cooking your dinner? Sorry, Monster. Cry all you want, but at the end of the day, you overplayed your hand, so now you can't come to the party anymore. I wonder though, does this whiny lawyer have anything to say about Monster's ridiculous ~80% markups?

Apple and crappy Beats products are overpriced. Anyway this is clearly double-standards on Apple's part. When the Apple vs Samsung lawsuit was current Apple continued to use Samsung as a supplier for LCD panels and embedded chips but it was in Apple's interest to continue that relationship despite the lawsuit. Stop being a fanbois and look at the bigger picture.

 

[numlock]

You really think you can call mom fat and ugly, and still expect her to keep cooking your dinner? Sorry, Monster. Cry all you want, but at the end of the day, you overplayed your hand, so now you can't come to the party anymore. I wonder though, does this whiny lawyer have anything to say about Monster's ridiculous ~80% markups?

although i admire the simile and its emphasis on respect for parents and mothers i dont get the connection. this issue predates apple.

this seems like a rather pathetic move by apple. bullying is a fitting word. seemingly they had a good enough relationship with monster and apples actions have no other purpose than to threaten, intimidate and undermine the legal system.

but your markups comment certainly takes the cake.

 

[numlock]

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

why?

 

[joe-h2o]

In Samsung and LGs case they're not in a monopoloy position either. But if stuff like this was legal, LG and Samsung would just kick Apple out of the LTE patent pool whenever some senior Korean executive got pissed off about an Apple lawsuit.

FRAND laws take care of that. In order to have a patent included in a standard that other companies *must* use (for example, Wifi, LTE, 3G etc) then the company licensing it is bound by certain terms, one of which is that they must licence it to anyone who asks at a fair rate. They very specifically cannot exclude competitors or people who sue them.

It's the trade-off for getting an effectively guaranteed return on your investment, since anyone making an LTE device *must*, by definition, use the patents involved.

 

[peterdevries]

What Apple is doing is a common business practice that happens all the time. They own the technology and it is within their rights to decide who is allowed to license it. The same as it is their decision and right to determine which products are sold in their stores.

 

[the-msa]

are people here really hating on monster because they are overpriced?

 

[dannys1]

How. Then buy the $5 cable. What does this have to do with a MacBook? If you prefer the $5 cable, buy that one.

Clearly monster is selling a lot of cables. They are a multi million dollar corporation. You don't like their cables....don't buy them.

Errr I don't boy their cables. That wasn't my point was it. You said both companies have ridiculous mark up. I disagree. Apple's products are worth their value, Monster isn't. The point is a $5 cable does an IDENTICAL job, not a similar, or almost as good, 100% IDENTICAL to the £150 HDMI cable. Thats gross markup. Apple on the other hand, please tell me how their products are not value for money for what you get and where you can buy the same thing for 1/10th of the price? You can't. There are no comparisons between the companies. Beats and Monster on the other hand, yes.

 

[AntonAmsys]

Errr I don't boy their cables. That wasn't my point was it. You said both companies have ridiculous mark up. I disagree. Apple's products are worth their value, Monster isn't. The point is a $5 cable does an IDENTICAL job, not a similar, or almost as good, 100% IDENTICAL to the £150 HDMI cable. Thats gross markup. Apple on the other hand, please tell me how their products are not value for money for what you get and where you can buy the same thing for 1/10th of the price? You can't. There are no comparisons between the companies. Beats and Monster on the other hand, yes.

One time Apple sold MacBook's with built-in Ethernet, Firewire (Thunderbolt now), Optical Drive, and now the latest MacBook's have none of these items and did they discount the price of the MacBook to compensate removing these items. No they increased their margins by doing so. Also you now have the added expense of a USB-C breakout box to get back some of the features that you previously had.

 

[numlock]

What Apple is doing is a common business practice that happens all the time. They own the technology and it is within their rights to decide who is allowed to license it. The same as it is their decision and right to determine which products are sold in their stores.

whether its common or not is irrelevant. although i doubt a scenario exactly like this one happens that often.

but you find it perfectly fine that the biggest companies on earth can try and force smaller entities out of seeking their right? it makes a joke of the legal recourses available to all.

 

[peterdevries]

whether its common or not is irrelevant. although i doubt a scenario exactly like this one happens that often.

but you find it perfectly fine that the biggest companies on earth can try and force smaller entities out of seeking their right? it makes a joke of the legal recourses available to all.

It happens all the time. I work for a company that produces technology for diabetes tests trips. Globally a 10 B dollar business on a yearly basis. No one can tell us who to license the technology to and we certainly don't license to anyone that shows up to our headquarters to ask for it. It is our technology and we decide what happens with it.

Edit: our contracts specifically state that we can decide at any time to revoke the license if certain conditions apply. And that includes litigation from the licensee. Our contracts are not exotic but common in technology licensing.

 

[nebo1ss]

Don't see how Apple is being a bully, "Monster" is suing Apple. Clearly if you punch someone, the other person is going to punch back or walk away. In this case Apple is walking away from the relationship. Monster needs Apple's business far more than Apple needs Monster so they should have dropped the suit or be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Beats and Monster have had an ongoing legal issues for a very long time and certainly well before Apple got involved. Apple was surely aware of these issues before they purchased Beats. Monster originally made all the products for Beats and in fact claim they were more than just a manufactuer but also designed many of the products. Here is some background.

http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world

 

[numlock]

It happens all the time. I work for a company that produces technology for diabetes tests trips. Globally a 10 B dollar business on a yearly basis. No one can tell us who to license the technology to and we certainly don't license to anyone that shows up to our headquarters to ask for it. It is our technology and we decide what happens with it.

Edit: our contracts specifically state that we can decide at any time to revoke the license if certain conditions apply. And that includes litigation from the licensee. Our contracts are not exotic but common in technology licensing.

i appreciate your reply but im 100% certain that you know you didnt address any of my points.

and the most important part here is that the conflict predates apple.

there is a huge difference between the decision to not license to someone and deciding to terminate a 10 year old agreement because the company was seeking its right against a company you ended up buying.

i certainly hope for your sake you wont ever have to decide against seeking justice against your employer/superior and risk losing your job.

 

[bbeagle]

Never said it's not.


Friendship has nothing to do with business. Apple had huge lawsuits with Samsung, so by your rationale Apple should have stopped doing business with Samsung long ago. Apple still does business with them and the reason is simply that Apple needs Samsung too much and cannot afford the same strong arm tactics it's using against Monster.

Also you assume that Monster didn't try to work out the issue directly before the lawsuit.

I don't assume that they didn't try to work it out. They might. But they STILL went ahead with a lawsuit. That's the same as a friend who tries to work it out then STILL sues me. Same either way.

Apple tried as hard as it could to avoid Samsung, but they realized they couldn't. It would be similar to my breaking his ankle story, if that person who did it was my boss. The immediate reaction would be different, while I'd look for another job.

 

[Wahlstrm]

So, I realised that my old Beats headphones that sucked where made by Monster..
Anyone who actually bought beats twice and know if they became any better after the ended with Monster?

 

[lazard]

So, I realised that my old Beats headphones that sucked where made by Monster..
Anyone who actually bought beats twice and know if they became any better after the ended with Monster?

My colleague recently bought a pair, mediocre at best at their price point.

 

[MH01]

Does anyone actually own and use Monster headphones?

You realize when you see Beats headphones in the wild, its a good chance they are the early generation ones made by Monster?

I see a lot of older models around. Seems they became less popular by the time they actually improved the sound quality. I could be wrong though.

 

[bsolar]

I don't assume that they didn't try to work it out. They might. But they STILL went ahead with a lawsuit. That's the same as a friend who tries to work it out then STILL sues me. Same either way.

Maybe your friend tried to work it out but you refused any discussion on the matter, which leaves a lawsuit as only way for your friend to have his rights respected (the alternative being forfeiting his rights rights and dropping the matter altogether).

It would be similar to my breaking his ankle story, if that person who did it was my boss. The immediate reaction would be different, while I'd look for another job.

Being in a position of power and abusing it to retaliate or put pressure against a weaker party is exactly what we are talking about. Note that "abusing" in this context doesn't mean "illegal".

​

 

[dannyyankou]

You realize when you see Beats headphones in the wild, its a good chance they are the early generation ones made by Monster?

I see a lot of older models around. Seems they became less popular by the time they actually improved the sound quality. I could be wrong though.

Yes, but I mean Monster branded headphones. They're separate now.

 

[bsolar]

why?

I consider their products to range between "overpriced" and "snake oil scam".

 

[shalegac]

"Apple can be a bully," says the company that has threatened to sue everyone on the planet who also uses the word "monster", including Hanna Barbera for old episodes of Scooby-Doo. (Not joking.)

I signed in only to give you a thumbs up.

 

[the-msa]

So, I realised that my old Beats headphones that sucked where made by Monster..
Anyone who actually bought beats twice and know if they became any better after the ended with Monster?

100€ beats still fail to sound better than 30€ sennheisers

 

[kdarling]

You really think you can call mom fat and ugly, and still expect her to keep cooking your dinner? Sorry, Monster. Cry all you want, but at the end of the day, you overplayed your hand, so now you can't come to the party anymore. I wonder though, does this whiny lawyer have anything to say about Monster's ridiculous ~80% markups?

Besides the heavy irony about ridiculous markups, you were not so supportive of the right of companies to revoke licenses when under attack, back when Motorola did something similar to Apple.

(Motorola had a deal with Qualcomm to allow their customers to use Moto patents, _unless_ a customer sued Motorola. If that happened, a clause in the contract _removed_ that customer from overall licensing protection. So when Apple sued Moto, Moto invoked that "war clause" to declare that Apple now owed direct royalties to them.)

FRAND laws take care of that. In order to have a patent included in a standard that other companies *must* use (for example, Wifi, LTE, 3G etc) then the company licensing it is bound by certain terms, one of which is that they must licence it to anyone who asks at a fair rate. They very specifically cannot exclude competitors or people who sue them.

There is no "FRAND law" per se. Rather, it's a vague type of contractual agreement that companies voluntarily enter into. The specific rules and implementation depend on the particular standards group.

For example, under ETSI cell phone "FRAND" rules, it's quite okay to REQUIRE that a competing company cross license its similar patents to the FRAND member.

It's also possible to have a "FRAND" situation where the companies involved are allowed to refuse a license, say, to pornographic producers.

However, yes, many standards groups do include a phrase about licensing being "irrevocable" in their FRAND rules.

 

[Saucesome2000]

One day we will hear about the junior Mr. Lee committing hari kari. If you've ever read the history of the Beats/Monster relationship, Iovine screwed Lee over in a major way. Technically it was Lee's fault as he made a few ****** business decisions, but Iovine knew what he was doing and Monster is being wayyyy under compensated for their role in Beats' current financial bliss. I believe Lee was right to try and sue.

I would like to think that if I was ever in Iovine's position I would happily throw a decent finder's fee to the people who created the technology that made me a billionaire.

 

[staypuffinpc]

First off, everyone's arguments about product pricing is completely non-sequitur and has no bearing on the issues at hand.

Don't see how Apple is being a bully, "Monster" is suing Apple. Clearly if you punch someone, the other person is going to punch back or walk away. In this case Apple is walking away from the relationship. Monster needs Apple's business far more than Apple needs Monster so they should have dropped the suit or be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Insider trading is illegal b/c it's a situation in which one party, privy to information about upcoming company moves, takes advantage of that information in an unfair way. Monster feels that they were taken advantage of (to the tune of $100million - whatever they got for selling their 5%) due to what was clearly inside information not shared with the as investors. So, they're using their legal recourses to recoup what they feel was an unfair loss. Rightfully, they should be suing Beats. Since Apple now own Beats (as part of this sneaky deal they felt went down), Apple is the one they sue.

In turn, Apple says, "oh yeah, now we're not going to certify that your stuff works with ours." In essence, Apple/Beats is saying, "I don't like that you ratted me out to the authorities, so you can no longer play in my playground. Oh, and let me throw some sand in your eyes, too." Monster will likely have legal recourses here, too, if it plays out that the playground is not Apple's to determine who gets a pass and who doesn't. If it ends up that there are no legal ramifications to allowing one group to certify over another simply because

 

[Renzatic]

never liked monster accessories, especially cables or headphones, far too overpriced imho. Their headphones were pretty average in performance, for a huge premium.

I remember walking into Best Buy a few years back to buy an HDMI cable, and having one of the sales rep try to sell me on a pair of Monster's gold plated, high performance, high speed, triple insulated cables.

"You really want to get this if you care about your image quality, brah. The triple insulation blocks ambient electrical noise for the clearest, most vivid, sharpest image possible. No interference whatsoever! Only $39.99 for a 5 foot cable. It's worth ever penny!"

"It's running a digital signal. It either works perfectly, or it doesn't. That 10' no-name HDMI cable you've got going for $5 will give me the exact same image quality as that way too overpriced Monster cable. Sell me that."

Guy gave me a look that made me think I just killed his favorite dog, but he gave me my cheap cable. And you know what? It still works just fine all these years later.