Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
100€ beats still fail to sound better than 30€ sennheisers

Yeah, I actually thought the new Apple EarPods for $20 was an upgrade from the Beats that I paid $200 for..
I came from a pair of $200 Shure ear plugs with amazing sound and just looked at the price and thought it would be equal.. But all I got was $190 worth of brand name and $10 worth of headphones..
 
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.

The problem Apple may have is that the licensing must be fair.
If they go this route they may face a restraint lawsuit.

Being sued because they infringe can't go hand in hand with their licensing.
Next lawsuit coming......
 
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.

You say the the cable does as good a job as a $5 cable, I agree. Clearly other people think Monsters cables are worth it. Or they wouldn't sell that many. Do they feel like they were taken advantage of? Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you.

Apple marks their products up ridiculously. Look at their charging cable. Cost pennies to make and they sell if for almost $30. No worse than Monster at all. In fact seems like the mark up is worse
 
You say the the cable does as good a job as a $5 cable, I agree. Clearly other people think Monsters cables are worth it. Or they wouldn't sell that many. Do they feel like they were taken advantage of? Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you.

Apple marks their products up ridiculously. Look at their charging cable. Cost pennies to make and they sell if for almost $30. No worse than Monster at all. In fact seems like the mark up is worse

Indeed. people crapping all over Monster for selling overpriced cables, yet defend Apple to the death despite similar gouging.
 
Just going to leave this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_(company)#Trademark_disputes

As of 2004, Monster owned about 300 trademarks,[13] 70 of which are related to the word "Monster".[14] By 2009, the company had made 190 filings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.[14] Most filings were to delay potentially infringing trademark applications so Monster could study them. Some were formal oppositions[13] and about 30 have resulted in lawsuits.[14][15][16] Most lawsuits were settled with non-disclosed terms.[14] Critics and defendants say that Monster is too aggressive in pursuing trademark protections against companies that do not have confusingly similar products and that it is trying to own a common word, not protect a brand. Monster representatives say they are doing what most "premium" brands do to protect their marks and that their products include things like clothes, mints and music.[14][15]

In the 2000s, Monster had legal disputes over its trademarks with Monster.com, and the Discovery Channel for its show Monster Garage.[13] Monster also had trademark disputes with Bally Gaming International over its slot machines, Monster Slots, with Hansen Beverage Co. for its Monster Energy drink, and the Chicago Bears, who use the nickname "Monsters of the Midway."[15] Other trademark disputes include a 2001[17] lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company for products related to the film Monsters, Inc.,[14] and a claim against an online used clothing retailer, MonsterVintage LLC.[14] In 2004, Monster filed a complaint about the trademark application from Snow Monsters, a video website with skiing content for kids. The Snow Monsters owner initiated a lawsuit against Monster pre-emptively.[13] It has also had a trademark dispute with the job site, Monster.com.[15]

In 2006 Monster brought a suit against Monster Mini Golf, a company selling franchise Mini Golf locations throughout the US. After an unsuccessful legal mediation, Monster Mini Golf launched a grassroots campaign against Monster Cable on the Internet. As a result, Monster received more than 200 complaints from the public. Monster Cable dropped the lawsuit and agreed to pay up to $200,000 of Monster Mini Golf's legal fees.[14] In 2009 Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee said on Fox Business that the company has had to balance their trademark protection efforts with the public's point-of-view.[18]

Kettle, meet pot.
 
Apples 30-pin, lightning-cables and mag-safe cables must be some of the worst cables in the history of electricity.. Never in my life has any other charging/data cable for any other device been worn out..

Apple cables have a 6 month lifespan, at best..
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigInDallas
It is open, to people who meet the standards and are not suing apple employees and apple owned companies.

Hardly an unreasonable threshold to openness.

The threshold should be only on technical terms, not personal or inter-company relationships.
 
From my own consumer point of view, i couldn't care less - both brands have ****** products - but i think, it's the only reaction Monster deserves.
 
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

It amazes me that it would even be legal for a company like Apple to retaliate against another company in regards to clearly UNRELATED merchandising (i.e. the iPhone is NOT "Beats" related in that it existed prior to Apple's acquisition). It would be like a University suspending me from attending for filing a lawsuit against them for slipping on ice in one of their parking lots. It's clearly vindictive, unrelated and meant to "punish" Monster for filing what sounds like a legitimate lawsuit. Yet Apple continues to have Samsung make tons of parts for them despite their numerous lawsuits against each other (which makes such a thing hypocritical as well, IMO).
 
Yes, but I mean Monster branded headphones. They're separate now.

Wow god no, you would not buy that crap :p though I said the same about beats, maybe monster have also improved thier headphones.

While I was impressed by the Beats solo HD, I'd never pay the RRP, maybe 1/2
 
The problem Apple may have is that the licensing must be fair.
If they go this route they may face a restraint lawsuit.

Being sued because they infringe can't go hand in hand with their licensing.
Next lawsuit coming......

Um, what? There is nothing that says that the licensing must be "fair". Nothing at all. Apple can do business with whomever they want, and, consequently, can choose not to do business with whomever as well. It's their program, and their trademark, and with that, their rules. This is not an antitrust issue at all, those laws wouldn't apply, and they're pretty much the only thing that would really require "fairness". There have been several great analogies in this thread as to why fairness has nothing to do with this, so I will let them explain it. I recommend either the video game one, or the bread one.

The threshold should be only on technical terms, not personal or inter-company relationships.

Once again, there is nothing that says that the licensing must solely be based on technical merits. In fact, I'm more than positive that, in the contract that Monster signed to be part of MFi, there was a clause that said Apple (at the very least, most likely it's bidirectional) can pull out of the deal at any time for any reason. That's standard in most contracts.

I will say, that no, it's not fair what Apple did, and yes, the threshold should be based on technical terms alone. However, with that said, there is nothing legally wrong with what Apple did, and they are fully in their rights to do so as the program owner and trademark holder (MFi is a trademark they control, after all).
 
I, as a customer, enjoy apple being a bully to companies like Monster.



Apple has suspended audio accessory maker Monster's right to make licensed accessories for Apple devices following a lawsuit Monster filed against Apple-owned Beats Electronics in January, reports The Wall Street Journal.

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. As of May 5, Apple is ending its agreement with Monster and will no longer allow the company to make MFi certified accessories.

monsterheadphones.jpg
Monster's lawsuit accused Beats Electronics, Beats co-founders Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre, and HTC of conspiring to acquire Monster's portion of Beats Electronics through a fraudulent deal. Well before Beats Electronics was bought by Apple, Monster designed and sold Beats by Dr. Dre headphones. That ended in 2011, after Beats sold 51 percent of the company to HTC and invoked a change of ownership clause in the Beats/Monster deal.

Beats Electronics later repurchased HTC's stake in the company and convinced Monster CEO Noel Lee to sell a portion of his 5 percent stake as well. According to Lee, this was a "sham transaction" designed to exclude Monster from profits from Beats by Dre sales and later, profits from the Apple acquisition, which would have been more than $100 million had he retained his stake in the company.

With Apple ending its MFi agreement with Monster, Monster will be required to change its packaging and rework some products that use licensed technology. The headphones in the image above, for example, are described as including Apple ControlTalk® microphone, music, and volume control. Apple is permitting Monster to continue to sell accessories through September, but the company is not allowed to produce new MFi-certified cables and headphones.

According to Monster, 900 of its more than 4,000 products produced since 2008 have been made under the MFi program, and the company has paid out more than $12 million in licensing fees since that date. Monster lawyer David Tognotti says the move is excessive and "shows a side of Apple that consumers don't see very often." "Apple can be a bully," he said.

Article Link: Apple Revokes Monster's 'Made for iPhone' License Following Beats Lawsuit
 
It amazes me that it would even be legal for a company like Apple to retaliate against another company in regards to clearly UNRELATED merchandising (i.e. the iPhone is NOT "Beats" related in that it existed prior to Apple's acquisition). It would be like a University suspending me from attending for filing a lawsuit against them for slipping on ice in one of their parking lots. It's clearly vindictive, unrelated and meant to "punish" Monster for filing what sounds like a legitimate lawsuit. Yet Apple continues to have Samsung make tons of parts for them despite their numerous lawsuits against each other (which makes such a thing hypocritical as well, IMO).


This seems very bizarre to me. Why couldn't a university suspend you or filing a suit? (assuming their agreement with you permits it).

But the metaphor isn't quite accurate. The MFi program is apple allowing third parties to use Apple's good reputation to vouch for their products. It's not a "right" for third parties to use Apple's trademark and leverage off of Apple's reputation. It's a privilege. And if Apple doesn't want to allow a particular company to do it, for any reason whatsoever, why should they be made to? (Assuming there isn't some pre-existing contract that forbids Apple from rescinding it).

A better metaphor would be if you were a former employee of mine, and you are asking me to write a letter of recommendation for future employers on your behalf, all while you are suing me for something. I can assure you, if you sue me, I am not going to write you a letter of recommendation.
 
I don't agree at all. Monster actively rip off guillable consumers with £150 HDMI cables that do exactly the same job as a £6 one

You can't go and buy an exact equivelent to a Macbook for £60...
agreed, so many people miss this point. Yes apple products are costly, yes they have a high mark-up when compared to the net sum of their internal components, however, they tend to last longer, run osx natively [without hacks/mods] and have freed me from a life of torture being with windows/norton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
"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?

MFI does not always mean made for iPhone.... Back then it was Made for iPod It's really now Made For iPhone/iPod
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
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.

The lawsuit is totally justified... and the lawsuit isn't technically against Apple nor is their a claim against apple. Now that Apple owns beats, they do have a financial stake.

This also doesn't make them look good. Not just to the consumer, but to the courts. Retalitory practices often piss off judges.... juries... you know, the people who may decide to fine their asses for illegal business practices. If Monster has proof, it is illegal to defraud investors and stakeholders.... but they would have to prove HTC was being nefarious. I do not think HTC was. I think it just didn't work for them.... they sold less phones, and it was better to dump a failed investment and business venture. I kind of think this is sour grapes on monster's fault more than anything... because I do not think Beats had a crystal ball to know HTC would fail with their tech in their phones.
 
What Apple did is 100% what freedom means. Freedom should apply to everyone, but alas today, everyone wants to control everyone else with the mantra "I want to be free, but you should follow my wants, desires, and wishes because I know better than you". Freedom should mean that you can buy from whomever you want to and baring discrimination the manufacturer should be able to license and enter into business agreements with anyone they want to. If one is concerned with freedom, then that should be the end of the story whether it involves sneezes or not.

The weird thing I agree with you if you were talking about freedom of speech (which doesn't exist by the way). But we are talking about a big ass company bullying others because they don't like them.

By your logic, if I'm bigger than you, I can kick you around because I have the freedom too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
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.

I see what you did there :) But at the same time why has Apple not stopped using Samsung processors, screens, parts, etc? Same idea... I guess its' the bullying that doesn't seem fair.

As for my reply to your argument...

It's an ethical thing more than anything else. Neighbor sues me, that's a relationship. But I couldn't legally fire my neighbor if he worked for me, just because he is suing me, looks at me funny, or even says mean things about me. I can imagine apple stuff is a pretty big chunk of change for Monster. This may result in layoffs, and who knows what else chain reacts from apple just not liking someone.

No one should have that much power. I will no longer give my money to apple. They've grown to big and began leaning on the unethical side of life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
There is a specific law dealing with standards patent pools (Google "FRAND").

There is no law that says Apple has to license its trademark to anyone.

I intentionally used a patent pool example to expand an earlier point. FRAND isn't a law, it is a practice based on legal doctrine addressing anti-competitive behavior and has to be interpreted or imposed by the courts. The earlier point I made is that there is legal doctrine that suggests that this kind of behavior by Apple could be interpreted as anti-competitive.

Seems anti-competitive to me. Doesn't just need to tie to price - it can be for other kinds of behavior. In this case they are removing access of a widely shared service to an incumbent, where it is readily provided to others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine

The earlier point is this - there are certain intellectual properties, not just patents, covered by TRIPS that can potentially be determined as standard essential. In many cases the trademark, like Qi is linked to a pool so the seperation of the tm and patents isn't something that I think regularly comes up. But anyway, FRAND is an exception to regular patent law where the companies themselves do not have full control of their licensing terms because full control of certain IP, in this case patent standard pools, could result in anti-competitive behavior. I am not a lawyer, but I have studied some IP law, and I would believe that the same doctrines would apply to other ip, such as essential marks.

This is an evolving area, (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324072) so maybe I'm at fault for even attempting this on macrumors. But the idea of writing about which companies are friends, and which companies to invite to the BBQ, seems to already be well covered by other posts.
 
How does that help us consumers? Thanks a ton Apple. All I buy is monster accessories for my iPhone, but between this and the terrible customer service I have received in store, I just might switch to Android!
But who will we buy $500 iPhone charging cables from now?!
Apple. -__-
 
All I see is a big can of Butthurt from Noel Lee. He got outsmarted in business deals and couldn't see the bigger picture and now wants a piece of the pie even though he got outfoxed.
 
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.


The lawsuit is a bullying attempt in itself.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.