They've released five different sprays for five different types of devices: a camera spray, a cell phone spray, an iPhone spray (Buchanan posits that this one is made of pure angel tears), a GPS spray and a laptop spray. Yes, Monster wants you to think that your GPS and your cellphone need separate sprays, lest your phone is destroyed by the magical chemicals that can only clean a surface that displays driving directions. While yes, perhaps laptop screens need a different spray than the glass iPhone, this is a bit beyond overkill.

Each bottle of these precious fluids cost $10, which is a pretty sizable markup seeing that they just took a bunch of Windex, watered it down and put it into tiny bottles with different colored labels on it. [CrunchGear]

• The Green Monster, Boston's left field wall at Fenway Park
• The Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Monster Trucks
• A town in the Netherlands
• Hillary Clinton
• The Cookie Monster
• Giant Monster Movies
• The Monsters of Rock Tour
• Monster Sushi, a sushi chain in NY
• The dance The Monster Mash
• Everybody named "Noel Lee"
• Ugly people who look like monsters
• The Loch Ness Monster
• Unreal Tournament for their M-M-M-M-M-Monster kill
• This wikipedia entry for monster
• Charlize Theron for acting in the movie called Monster
• The cartoon show Aaahh!!! Real Monsters
• An arrangement of matter that has maximum disorder
• The Ducati Monster motorcycle
• The cataloging app Delicious Library's creator
• Monster Park, the ballpark in SF, even though they're the ones who bought out the name

Monster's Noel Lee responded back in April to then-recent criticism about their perceived litigiousness.

This time it's Monster Mini Golf, an actual mom-and-pop operation that was started four years ago by a woman and her husband. The chain has been successful enough to spread to 22 locations. MSNBC says that the "owner" of Monster Cable, which is Noel Lee (their "Chief Monster") says the public will be confused by the similarity of the names. Last time we checked, the public wasn't quite as confused as the people at Monster Cable who decided to sue. [MSNBC]

Oh look, it's a list of things Monster Cable has yet to sue!

Apparently, Monster Cable's Noel Lee issued a response to some negative publicity they got back in April (around the time Monster issued Blue Jeans Cable with a C&D). Noel says they didn't actually sue ballparks or other random places because their names were too similar, they just file objections to trademarks with the USPTO. Noel blames federal trademark law saying that they're required to "police [their] marks or [they] will lose them," and that they "didn't make these rules." [Audioholics]

RE: Your letter, received April Fools' Day Dear Monster Lawyers, Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster's, in form or in function, the better.

I am evaluating your claim that the connectors on certain Tartan brand products infringe Monster's design patents and trademarks. However, the information supplied with your letter is plainly inadequate to support a claim of infringement and so I am writing to you to ask for further information and clarification regarding your claims.

I will begin by addressing your trademark/trade dress claim. You have referred to two trademark registrations, and have attached some printouts from the USPTO system but the depiction of the marks on the drawings provided is small and indistinct, making it difficult to determine exactly what the alleged resemblance is, and I need further information from you.

First, I need legible, scale drawings of the marks, preferably with dimensions shown on the drawing. To the extent that drawings are inadequate to show the nature of materials, finishes, print legends, colors and the like, I will also need examples of each of Monster Cable's actual uses of these marks in commerce; actual physical examples would be best, but photographic reproductions might do. As you will understand, these considerations are essential to any claim arising out of trade dress, as you are alleging in essence that there is a resemblance sufficient to cause confusion over the identity or origin of the goods, and no mere line-drawing can suffice.

Second, I will need copies of the trademark applications and any correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO in support of the applications.

Third, you have not identified the Monster Cable products in question, in actual use and distribution in commerce, whose trade dress you allege has been appropriated. I have reviewed Monster Cable's online materials and have examined connectors on various Monster Cable assemblies in local retail outlets and am unable to determine which, if any, of these are thought by Monster to represent use of these particular marks. I am also unable to determine from this review whether Monster Cable actually offers any product for sale to which the Tartan connectors are alleged to be particularly similar. My own sense of it, in looking at the connectors, has been that there is no similarity between the Tartan connectors and any of the many Monster Cable connectors beyond the general functional and conventional characteristics which all or nearly all solder-cup, mechanical-assembly, barrel-style RCA-type connectors share. It may be that there is some line of products to which you have intended to refer but which I have not found in Monster Cable's marketing materials or displays; but if so, you will need to show me specifically what product it is, and you will need to call to my attention the specific aspects of the connector design which you contend constitute unique Monster Cable trade dress, what the associated secondary meaning of those aspects of the trade dress is, and in what manner and by what characteristics you allege that this trade dress has been appropriated.

Fourth, if the dimensional characteristics of the connector as used in commerce vary from the dimensions of the scale drawing of your mark, I will need a proper scale drawing, with dimensions, of each version of the actual connector as used in commerce, as well as photographs of the connectors showing actual in-use finishes. If there is more than one such connector design in actual use by Monster Cable as to which appropriation of trade dress is alleged, of course, I will require this information for each and every such design.

On the basis of what I have seen, both in the USPTO documents you have sent and the actual appearance
of Monster Cable connectors which I have observed in use in commerce, it does not appear to me that Monster Cable is in a position to advance a nonfrivolous claim for infringement of these marks. There simply is not sufficient resemblance between the Tartan connectors and any mark or any example of the marks' actual use that I can find to support such a claim. But if you have further information for me on that point, you are welcome to submit it.

You have also supplied me with partial documentation on five design patents which you claim these connectors infringe. I will begin by observing, first, that the five design patents are so very much unlike one another that it is very hard to imagine that any product could actually infringe more than one of them at a time; anything close enough to one of them to be deemed an infringement would, by that fact alone, be too dissimilar from the other four. The dissimilarity of the Tartan connector from each of them is readily evident.

I should add that, for the purpose of this letter, I am assuming that these patents are valid. This is in no way a concession of the point. In fact, this is a very significant and likely inaccurate assumption, and you should expect the patentability of these designs to be under attack if you commence an action for infringement.

The fact that you have presented me with five completely distinct design patents, I have to say, gives me pause. I would go over them and detail the differences between the Tartan connectors and those shown in the patents, but if you are taking the position that it appears you are taking, there might be very little point in discussing it with you. Take, for example, the patent you mark as Exhibit B. The connector shown there is substantially different from the Tartan connectors in every respect, unless one ignores design specifics and focuses on the core attributes of the connector which are dictated by function. If your view of Exhibit B is that it is to be construed broadly enough as to encompass the Tartan connector, it is very hard to imagine that there is such a thing as a solder-assembly style RCA plug which is not similarly, in your view, encompassed by this patent. And, needless to say, it is very hard to imagine that any court would ever adopt such a view of the patent's scope; if you file on this sort of basis, you are in Rule 11 frivolous-claim territory.

I will point out, though you are no doubt already well aware, that the gross morphology of the RCA plug is pretty well dictated by function. RCA plugs intended for soldering and assembly have certain attributes in common; their diameter is constrained by the need for the shell to fit over an internal set of solder points and cable clamp, and their length by the need to provide some room for cable end prep and attachment; they are generally radially symmetrical along the anterior/posterior axis owing to the need to accommodate both a round-profile cable and the round-profile RCA socket; the connector end is constrained by the standard dimensions of the RCA socket, and by the need, as the socket provides for no bayonet or screw attachment, to provide sufficient tension on insertion to maintain good mechanical and electrical contact; the barrel, grasped by the user for the purpose of insertion and removal, requires traction which is typically provided by raised or recessed rings, plastic inserts, knurling, or the like; and transition between the connector and the cable to which it is attached requires, in one form or another, a reduction in barrel size at the connector rear. It is my assumption, since you cite design patents only and no utility patents, that Monster Cable makes no claim here for any functional aspect of any of these designs; if I am wrong, please let me know what utility patents Monster Cable does hold, and what claims, if any, Monster asserts on the basis of those utility patents.

Further, on that point: one of the design patents you attached is closely related to a utility patent applicable to the same design, and you failed to point that fact out. I need to be able to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information you send to me and I find this sort of omission deeply disturbing because it is clear that the effect of this nondisclosure is to obscure the real significance of the patent features. Similarly, as I note further below, you omit reference to another patent Monster has held which appears, frankly, to be fatal to your position. If you expect to persuade me, you had better start making full, open and honest disclosures; I will find out the facts sooner or later in any event, but the impact upon your credibility will not be repaired. It looks like when you sent this letter, you were operating on the premise that I am not smart enough to see through your deceptions or sophisticated enough to intelligently evaluate your claims; shame on you. You are required, as a matter of legal ethics, to display good faith and professional candor in your dealings with adverse parties, and you have fallen miserably short of your ethical responsibilities.

My sense, in looking at these five patents, is that either you are attempting to present some argument that I simply do not understand or you are arguing for untenably broad coverage of these patents which would sweep every functional aspect of the typical solder-assembly RCA connector within the scope of a handful of mere design patents. You need to clarify this, and frankly, I think you need to indicate to me which, if any, of these patents you actually contend are relevant to the present discussion. It cannot possibly be that you believe that more than one of these patents is pertinent, and if you insist that they are, we cannot have an intelligent dialogue on this subject. Once you have identified the patent which you contend is relevant, I need to see the file history and the references to prior art; I need copies of the applicant's correspondence with the USPTO; and I need a clear and cogent explanation from you as to exactly what aspects of the Tartan connector design are alleged to constitute the infringement, and how.

Additionally, if you are able to identify any of these patents as applicable, please let me know whether Monster Cable presently sells, or has at any time sold, any products bearing connectors which are in conformity with the patent drawings or which are otherwise contended to be within the coverage of the patents, and identify those products for me. Please also provide photographs and/or physical examples of these connectors as manufactured and sold.

Also, please provide me all of the information referenced above as it relates to your expired patent D323643, a copy of which I am attaching. I will need to know what products Monster now offers or at any time has offered for sale which were believed to fall within the scope of D323643, and what claims, if any, of infringement of D323643 were made against others by Monster, whether those claims of infringement took the form of correspondence only, litigation, or otherwise. Please let me know which, if any, products Monster has ever sold or offered for sale which were marked with the patent number, or other reference, to D323643. Please also advise me whether, in your view, the Tartan connector does or does not fall within the scope of D323643, and if it is your view that it does not, please identify each and every difference between the Tartan connector and the connector represented by D323643 upon which your view is based. (On that note, let me point out to you that the "turbine cut" feature is irrelevant here as your client makes only functional, not design, claims for that feature in its marketing materials for the product.) I would assume that you would agree with me that if the Tartan connector is less dissimilar from the D323643 patent than from any of the five patents you cite in your letter, then the Tartan connector is within the coverage of the prior art and cannot, as a matter of law, infringe any of your client's current patents.

I must also point out that unless there is a good deal of background information you have not provided me which makes the case otherwise, Monster Cable cannot possibly square its patent infringement claim(s) with its own patent history. Two views of the matter might be taken; the first, which is my view, is that none of the design patents, including D323643, encompass the Tartan connector. If that is so, of course, the claim for infringement fails. But if one grants the sort of breadth to these patents that you appear to wish to do, a problem arises for Monster. D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents. Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses. You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.

Please also let me know whether Monster Cable or any related entity has brought actions to enforce any of the patents and trademarks referenced in your letter or above, and provide me with the jurisdiction, court and docket information pertaining thereto, along with copies of any decisions or judgments resulting therefrom. If any such litigation proceeded through discovery, I will need all discovery responses, including document production, issued by Monster, as well as copies of any and all depositions taken and the exhibits thereto.

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter. If my analysis shows that there is any reasonable likelihood that we have infringed in any way any of Monster Cable's intellectual property rights, we will of course take any and all action necessary to resolve the situation. If I do not hear from you within the next fourteen days, or if I do hear from you but do not receive all of the information requested above, I will assume that you have abandoned these claims and closed your file.

As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so.
I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters. I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims—or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims—from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited. If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee—say, ten cents per connector—as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures. On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before. Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

Sincerely,
Kurt Denke

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

The thing is rather stiff but still flexible, has good build quality, and gets the job done except for the loss of the ability to pause music and answer calls while listening, as you can do with the stock iPhone buds. The most remarkable aspect? Monster Cable only mildly rips you off with this one, charging just $9.95 for this headphone adapter (almost exactly price-matching a similar one from Belkin) that shouldn't even be necessary. [Monster Cable]

"When I'm making a track I'm trying to capture the sound that makes me go 'now THAT's the shit! And I want that reaction from everybody who hears it. I spend a lot of time in the studio listening to my music through headphones...with Beats, people are finally going to hear it the way they should: the way I do."

Monster Teams Up with Dr. Dre and Interscope Chairman Jimmy Iovine to Design State-of-the-Art "Beats" Headphones Engineered to Accurately Reproduce the Best of Today's Pop Music

Legendary Music Producer/Artist Dr. Dre's First-Ever Foray Into Consumer Products

Las Vegas, NV, January 6, 2008 - Monster, well known for working with legendary musicians on countless productions recorded with Monster Cable and Monster Power products, is proud to announce the introduction of the first-ever product to be endorsed by legendary music producer and artist Dr. Dre. The new "Beats by Dr. Dre" high-performance headphones were conceived by Dr. Dre and mutually designed, with groundbreaking and inventive engineering by Monster. The headphones feature both a unique and futuristic style as well as newly developed sonic technologies for unprecedented state-of-the-art performance.

When world-class producers like Dr. Dre record their music, they utilize large high-performance studio loudspeakers and high-powered amplifiers to craft richly detailed musical soundscapes. Until now, however, consumers listening back to the music using conventional headphones have never had the opportunity to experience the full sonic palette of these recordings, with the full dynamic range, low bass, punch and clarity intended by the producers. To provide consumers with a brand new level of headphone audio performance, Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine, Chairman of Interscope Geffen A&M Records, and Monster, three of the most powerful forces in music and technology, teamed up to create "Beats by Dr. Dre." Monster's innovative sound and design engineers implemented the team's vision.

Engineered to Meet the Demanding Sonic Requirements of Today's Music
In order to re-create the rich, full sonic experience of today's best recordings, "Beats" powered isolation headphones utilize technologies never before used in headphones, including a newly developed driver technology. The result is unequalled performance, with remarkably natural sound, incredible transient response and rich, deep bass - a Dr. Dre trademark. In development for two years, "Beats by Dr. Dre" are tuned personally by Dr. Dre and The Head Monster himself.

"When I'm making a track I'm trying to capture the sound that makes me go 'now THAT's the shit! And I want that reaction from everybody who hears it," said Dr. Dre. "I spend a lot of time in the studio listening to my music through headphones...with Beats, people are finally going to hear it the way they should: the way I do."

"Dre and I have been developing these headphones for a while and in Monster we found a partner that could work with us to crystallize his vision and develop them to the quality level he expects," said Jimmy Iovine, Chairman of Interscope Geffen A&M Records. "'Beats by Dr. Dre' is yet another example of Interscope's commitment to working together with its artists in developing new avenues to experience music."

Noel Lee, Head Monster, noted: "Dr. Dre is widely-known as the most critical ear in music today. This rare partnership with such an iconic artist is a testament to the both the need for high-performance headphones and the singular quality of 'Beats.' Listening to music with Beats headphones is a true 'ear opening' experience; users will enjoy not only their comfort and style, but their sonic performance that is unequalled in any other headphone."

Unique Design
"Beats by Dr. Dre" have a unique and avant-garde new look and that will revolutionize the headphone world. Everything about the sleek Beats headphones, from their glossy extra-wide headband and hip carrying case to the high-impact attention-getting packaging reflects impeccable style. The wide adjustable headband, hinged ear cups and high-quality Monster cable makes the Beats listening experience unmatched for comfort and function. A push-to-listen Mute button adds to the flexibility and convenience.

"Beats by Dr. Dre" headphones will come in a beautifully designed carrying case with anti-microbial cleaning cloths, a special Monster headphone cable, a mini-stereo to ¼-inch stereo cable adapter, as well as Monster's iSonitalk, a microphone/headphone adapter for iPhones. Beats will be available in spring 2008 for a suggested retail price of $399.95.

Although the information I just received shows all pricing for all of the different categories of Monster cable—a tangled web including core, THX and M-Series—I didn't want to bore you with the whole data dump. What I can tell you is that while there are 14 different grades of cable in all, they range from $40 per meter to $200 per meter.

You read what I said before, that I am certain the lowest priced Monster cable would be fine for any applications I could currently dream up. But I am a little shocked that Monster thinks $40 is the lowest price it can hit, when there's strong competition in the $5-per-meter range. [Monster Price Cut]

The five categories are bewilderingly named as follows:
Standard Speed - MC 500HD and U3 V500 HD
High Speed - MC 700HD and U3 V600 HD
Advanced High Speed - M650 HD, MC 800HD and U3 V850 HD
Ultra High Speed - M850 HD, MC 1000HD and U3 V1000 HD
Ultimate High Speed - M1000 HD

My guess is that these cables will all be of decent to high quality across the board, and more importantly, I will bet that even the "Standard Speed" cables will deliver 1080p video over short distances (3 to 6 feet) and perhaps over longer ones (35 to 50 feet) without trouble. Why? Because Gizmodo has already discovered cheap cables that can do this with no problem, so Monster's would have to be worse than the generics in order to prove the value of the high-end ones. This is my guess, let's call it my "educated guess," and I will be happy to test the theory out when Monster feels like sending over some test samples.

In the meantime, feel free to peruse the press release:

MONSTER INTRODUCES THE WORLD'S ONLY SPEED-RATED HDMI™ CABLES

— Monster® "Advanced HDMI" Cables Allow Consumers to Experience the Ultimate Quality and Performance of Their High-Definition Home Entertainment Components —

— New Speed-Rated Cables Verified by Simplay Labs Offer Demonstrable Difference in High-Def Image Quality

Brisbane, CA, August 28, 2007 — Monster, the world's leading manufacturer of high-end cables, accessories and power conditioning products, is proud to announce the introduction of the world's first and only speed-rated HDMI™ cables. The introduction of the new Monster® Speed Rated HDMI Cables is being accompanied by a consumer "Need for Speed" education campaign the company is launching in order to help clear up consumer confusion about the quality differences and benefits of speed-rated HDMI cables.

According to Noel Lee, Head Monster, much of the consumer confusion about HDMI cables stems from the advent of HDMI 1.3 Category 2 standards with even higher speed capabilities than conventional HDMI. Most important to understand, he notes, is that speed is dramatically affected by cable length. He says: "Consumers and installers alike have many questions about HDMI cables such as 'What speed of cable is necessary for the best of today's video displays and sources?,' 'Should I buy the cheapest cables or the highest performance cables?' 'What is the performance of long-length HDMI cables?' People also wonder whether their HDMI cable will have adequate bandwidth for their application, as well as what will be the requirements for higher bandwidth intensive components in the future."

Great Performance Even With Long-Length Cables
Lee notes that as HDTV displays get larger, people are positioning their flat-screens further and further away from source devices, and screen resolution and color depth can be degraded by using long lengths of low-quality HDMI cables. Monster is committed to staying at the leading edge of technology advances in cables and to creating products that exceed current specifications, providing great performance even at long lengths. This commitment reflects the company's 28-year history of building quality cables and its portfolio of over 100 cable and connector patents. Additionally, Monster's new speed rating and performance system makes it easy for consumers to know their cable will deliver the very best performance when used with today's most advanced home entertainment components as well as those of tomorrow.

Five Different Levels of HDMI Performance
To help answer these questions and bring a new level of quality to HDMI viewing, Monster is launching its new line of Speed Rated HDMI cables with five different levels of HDMI performance, including Standard Speed, High Speed, Advanced High Speed, Ultra High Speed, and Ultimate High Speed

As additions to the M Series® line, Monster's highest performance cable will be designated Ultimate High Speed and will feature advanced new technologies that maintain its incredible performance, even over long lengths. If you want to future-proof your system, there is nothing faster or better available. Model name for these Ultimate High Speed cable is: Monster's M1000 HD

The Ultra High Speed cable is ready to deliver not just everything available today but all the amazing technologies that are right around the corner. Model names for these Ultra High Speed cables are: Monster's M850 HD, MC 1000HD and U3 V1000 HD

Advanced High Speed cables are for those who want better performance from today's technologies, such as advanced color and lossless audio. Model names for these Advanced High Speed cables are: Monster's M650 HD, MC 800HD and U3 V850 HD

High Speed cables deliver today's high definition picture and sound at a price everyone can afford. Model names for the High Speed cables are: MC 700HD and U3 V600 HD

Standard Speed cables offer entry level high definition connection for HDTV buyers on a budget. Model names for the High Speed cables are MC 500HD and U3 V500 HD

All of the cables in the Core, Monster Ultra Home Theater and M Series line will be clearly identified with the Monster Speed Medallion System and Performance Bars on the package. The performance bars will identify cables as to their capability with higher refresh rates, advanced color, and other HDMI features, prominently on the packaging.

The new Monster cables offer a price reduction on the acclaimed performance of the company's HDMI 400 cables, which are being renamed HDMI 700. The price is being reduced from $100 to $80 for the HDMI 700 in 2 meter lengths.

At Retail: Need for Speed Education Campaign
In addition, Monster will be launching an educational Need for Speed campaign to educate retail salespeople and consumers. This program will be offered to every Monster HDMI retailer as part of Monster's M5 attachment selling program.

Speed-Rating Guarantees Optimum Audio and Video Performance
Monster HDMI speed ratings provide consumers the confidence that their HDMI cables will deliver a guaranteed level of bandwidth and high definition performance, verified and certified by the world's leading HDMI testing program, Simplay HD. In fact, Monster Advanced HDMI cables regularly and uniformly exceed the performance parameters established by Simplay HD tests.

Monster's Cable for Life Replacement Offer
Monster's advanced speed-rated HDMI cables are designed to bring out the best of today's high-definition home entertainment devices, as well as those of tomorrow. To back up this promise, Monster's 1000 level cable in all lines will carry Monster's Cable for Life replacement offer, so if the cable is ever outstripped by the technologies of the displays or sources, Monster will replace the cable at no charge.

ABOUT SIMPLAY LABS
Simplay Labs, LLC, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., is the leading provider of testing technologies, programs and interoperability design standards for the high-definition consumer electronics industry. The Simplay HD Testing Program is comprised of leading consumer electronics manufacturers and technology providers focused on delivering fully compatible products for consumers. As a result, consumers making home theater component purchases can be confident that Simplay HD verified systems are compatible and ready to receive and play premium digital content, regardless of manufacturer. Simplay Labs is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Silicon Image, Inc.

ABOUT MONSTER
Monster, under its Monster Cable® brand, is the world's leading manufacturer of connectivity solutions for high performance audio, video, car audio, computer, console and computer gaming, professional audio and sound reinforcement. Monster, under its Monster Power® brand, is also the leading manufacturer of high performance AC power line conditioning and protection products for audio/video systems.

As our tests showed, Monster's cables are better than cheapo cables for long distances or so-far imaginary signals requiring more bandwidth over 1080p. And this guarantee makes them better. But an honest alternative is getting a cheap cable today, and upgrading to another cheap cable when that one poops out.

The cables go for about $99 a meter, and come in flavors of "Home Theater Ultra 1000, M
Series M1000HD and Monster Cable 1000HD" [Electronic House]

Monster Announces "Cable For LifeTM" Upgrade Program on Select HDMI® Cables Performance Guarantee Protects Against Changing Performance Standards

New York, August 3, 2007 — Monster, the world's leading manufacturer of high-end
cables, accessories and power-conditioning products, has just announced that it will offer
a new "Cable for Life" upgrade program on select upcoming Monster® Advanced HDMI®
cables, including the new Monster Cable 1000HD.

These cables will be shipping in mid September. If a cable, offered with the Cable For
Life program, ever fails to support a component incorporating future generations of
HDMI, Monster will replace the cable at no charge (for complete details, please visit
www.monstercable.com).

Cables developed in the past are adequate for today's technology, but not tomorrow's.
Even Monster's current cables are good for TrueHD and 1080p, but not for future120 Hz
displays. They will not meet the needs of tomorrow. But Monster's new cables are
designed for "Higher Definition—full HD and beyond."

"Monster is proud to announce the "Cable for Life" Program," said Noel Lee, The Head
Monster. "Monster Cable is the only company to offer an HDMI performance guarantee
of this kind, so your customers have total confidence in their HDMI cable purchase and
maximize the performance of their HD components now and in the future."

"HDMI cable connectivity standards have evolved to meet ever-changing improvements
in source and display technology," continued Lee. "Monster has designed the most
advanced HDMI cables to meet and exceed these standards, but also certifies the
performance of select HDMI cables for future generations of products."

The "Cable for Life" upgrade program is available for the Home Theater Ultra 1000, M
Series M1000HD and Monster Cable 1000HD cables. Monster estimates that these cables

This time, we brought along a bag full of awesomely priced cables, mostly from Monoprice, that we were ready to run bandwidth tests on, side-by-side with Monster's finest (and most damned expensive) cables.

What were our findings?

1) At short distances up to 6ft (2 meters), you can pretty much get away with any cable. Monoprice cables kicked ass at the 6 foot length that mostly everyone uses.

Not all cables are the same, however, and in truth, it's the medium-priced cables that may be the real rip-off.

2) At longer distances, cheaper cable tends to choke up. A 720p signal will make it, but even today's standard 1080p signal can fry out inside of a long cable that isn't built as well. If you are trying to hook up a 1080p projector on your ceiling to a Blu-ray or HD DVD player, this is a concern.

The tests, which fired digital signal through the cable to synthesize high-definition video, can be divided into REAL-WORLD requirements (720p and 8-bit 60Hz 1080p) and FUTURE-WORLD requirements (12-bit 60Hz 1080p and even 12-bit 120Hz 1080p). Mind you, the future formats don't exist now, so they should only be a concern when you are buying cables you intend to keep for five years, such as those you want to build into a wall.

OK, you got the results, now, don't you want to see how the test was done, and see what we saw?

Look at the pic above. The box on the left is an Anritsu Pulse Pattern Generator. To simulate high-def video, it sends signal down one of three paths within an HDMI cable, so its signal at any given time is ONE-THIRD the bandwidth of that video format. The list of bandwidth tests we ran is as follows:

REAL WORLD
• 720p 8-bit 60Hz = 742 Mbps (x3)
• 1080p 8-bit 60Hz = 1.65 Gbps (x3)

FUTURE WORLD
• 1080p 12-bit 120Hz = 4.455 Gbps (x3)
• 1440p 12-bit 120Hz = 8.24 Gbps (x3)

When the signal was sent out over the cable, its performance was measured on a Tektronix DSA8200 Digital Serial Analyzer. The argument goes like this: it may all be 1's and 0's, but what is being sent over that cable is electric current. When too much data is sent over a shabby cable, the device on the other end can't tell what is a 1 and what is a 0. The end result is video that is either jittery, full of digital snow, or flat-out not there.

The Tektronix display shows two arcs, a high ridge that stands for the 1's and a low ridge that stands for the 0's. As bandwidth increases, you will see that the arcs get fuzzier, and at the failure point, there are too many 1's that look like 0's, and vice versa.

Bear in mind, in some cases, if the cable failed at one level, we didn't go on to the next. Likewise, if we knew it passed the higher test, we might not go on to a lower test.

Monster Cable 2-meter ($120)

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - PASS

Monoprice 6ft HDMI 1.2a ($4.79)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - FAIL

Monoprice 6ft HDMI 1.3 Category 2 Certified (Price unavailable, but fairly cheap)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - FAIL

XtremeHD 2-meter HDMI 1.3 ($20)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - FAIL

Monoprice 6ft Heavy-Duty CL2 ($15.44)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - (CLOSE) FAIL

Monoprice 35-ft In-Wall CL2 ($35.17)

REAL WORLD 720p - PASS

REAL WORLD 1080p - FAIL

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

Monster 10-meter ($230)

REAL WORLD 720p - PASS

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

Monoprice 50-ft In-Wall CL2 ($53.64)

REAL WORLD 720p - PASS

REAL WORLD 1080p - FAIL

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

You will notice that even the Monster 10-meter couldn't pass the Future World 1080p test. The Monster folks said they didn't have a 50-footer in the building that they could test with, but I suspect it would have done a little bit better than the Monoprice, possibly even carrying today's 1080p. But we did not test that.

Judging from these results, I would have to reiterate my original position, that it's best to skimp at short distances, but you don't want to be caught with the wrong cable installed in your walls. Even with the projector, it might be smart to buy a $30 cable first and see if it works, but be prepared, when upgrading your gear, to upgrade the cable too. Does it have to be Monster? Hell no, but you might have to pay something close to a Monster-sized price.

The truth is, the bigger rip-off appears to be the $20 XtremeHD cable. It didn't perform as well as stuff one-fifth the price. (No wonder they don't sell a 10-meter cable.) I would say beware of mid-priced cable of dubious origin. Our dealings with Monoprice lead us to believe that at least they know what they're selling, even at such a tremendous discount.

Stay tuned for HDMI Cable Battlemodo: The Truth About Monster, Part 3, where we try to match the laboratory results with basic, in-home testing. If the Digital Serial Analyzer said a cable fails, but it works just fine in my basement, maybe I'll have to call BS. – Wilson Rothman

Monster Cable [Gizmodo]

One issue I have with the test is that they used 10-meter long HDMI cables. Of course that's going to dramatically increase the differences between high-end and low-end cables. And of course, I don't know a single person that uses a cable that length unless wall mounting; and wall mounting, in my experience, is rare. Many average tech geeks just don't use these.

Before I go to Monster HQ and match cheap cables vs their high end cables, help me do a fact check on my gut feeling.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

And while we're asking, what about your cables?

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Naturally I expected some ranting and raving—in fact, the original title for the piece was "The Truth About Monster Cable, Part I," because I knew there would have to be a follow-up. Well, you've more than demanded it, and in the interest of scientific discovery (not to mention demonstrating to some of you knuckleheads that we are not shills of the Monster corporation), we have expedited delivery of some cables from Monoprice and others, for a full-on technical showdown performed on our terms.

The GIZ Truth: We will not rest until we have judged the practical similarities and differences of $220 cable and $20 cable. This is not merely Monster vs. Monoprice, so much as it is high-priced cable vs. low-priced cable. Those brands will represent their pricing brackets, which I think most would agree is fair.

Let the Battlemodo begin! – Wilson Rothman

Monster Cable Coverage [Gizmodo]

Let's start with my allegation about Monster, which isn't mine alone, because Lee helpfully pointed out the gist of it in the opening of his presentation:

I say, since everything is digital, and since HDMI is a spec, the cheap cable will get the data from point A to point B as well as any other cable. Additionally I say that if there are subtle (i.e. videophile-grade) differences in cables, the average consumer isn't going to spot them on the TV.

Am I wrong? Monster says yes, but in Lee's elaborate answer I felt both his POV and mine were justified.

Here are Monster's truths:

Bandwidth is King.
The requirements of 1080p and beyond is what separates from the high-end cable from the knock-offs. This is the same as Ethernet cable, in the sense that a cable certified for HDMI 1.3a "Highspeed" will guarantee greater throughput. The newest spec, 1.3a means just over 10Gbps of bandwidth. Standard 480p requires less than 1Gbps, the current 8-bit 1080p requires 4.46 Gbps, but the next gen 1080p formats will require nearly 15Gbps, more than the highest certified HDMI cable can support. (See chart if you can, if not I'll try to get a better one up later.)

Not all cables are the same.
During Lee's slideshow, he demonstrated via X-Ray slides that pricier cables (OK, Monster's) have a smaller chance of wear and tear damage at the point where the cable meets the connector. t's a concept that's easy for any musician to understand—remember all of those shorting-out patch cords?

Even if it has an HDMI-style connector, it may not be certified HDMI.
You have to look for the HDMI logo, says Steve Venuti of HDMI Licensing. There are tons of knock-offs, especially the bundled or online cables, since you can't look at the packaging when you buy. Really high-end cables will certify other things, such as HDMI 1.3a and even "Highspeed."

Just because digital information is made up of ones and zeros it can still degrade, especially over distances.
I get this now, because it's not about the digital info just getting there, like packet data. It's video, so it's about the digital info getting there at the right time to make sense. It's also audio, and over distances, there's a greater chance that audio and video will get out of sync. The following pictures show a test that they run that measures data throughput. In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that the more those lines crowd the center, the greater the risk of having crappy video.

This is what it looks like when a low-grade 10-meter cable tries to handle 720p:

This is what it looks like when a Monster 10-meter cable tries to handle 1080p:

Differences in cable are easily spotted by untrained eyes.
A PS3 feeding 1080p signal to a Samsung 1080p LCD TV starts to jitter and throw digital noise lines across the screen if the cable can't hack the bandwidth. We tested the two cables above on a PS3 showing a Blu-ray of Chicken Little and it was totally noticeable, there were lines and jitters, none of this videophile matter-of-opinion stuff that I had anticipated. It was totally obvious, and something that Monster says people often blame on their TV, not their cable.

Future proofing and heavy-duty cable are crucial for in-wall installation.
This probably made the most sense of all. Given the fact that in-wall cable is longer than others, you'd need something that can handle the bandwidth. (In fact, when it gets to 50 feet, you don't have many choices in the cable world for that reason—Monster says it's soon headed for 100 feet of HDMI.) Couple that with staples, kinks and other weirdness that might happen with in-wall installation, and the fact that when you upgrade your TV, you don't want to have to re-do your drywall, and Monster has a good point.

Lest you think I be drinkin' Lee's Kool-Aid, here are my caveats to Monster's truths:

• If you are going from any source to a 720p or 1080i TV set, you should really be in the clear using a full-on crappy ass cable.

• As long as you're not doing installing the wiring in your wall, start with the crappy cable. If it sucks and you only paid $20 for it, go back and spend more on something certified.

• In the demo, Monster even proved that good components can offset crappy cables: that PS3 and that Samsung 1080p were able to work around much of the problems, all the more reason why, in a non-custom non-in-wall installation, you should try out the lower grade stuff first.

So listen, you've heard it from me: there are differences in cable, but there are also differences in technical requirements. We don't all need $120 cables for our components. As to the question of why Monster won't offer a lower-priced product in recognition of these differences in technical requirements, Lee told me to "stay tuned."

OK people, let's hear it. Go ahead and vent. – Wilson Rothman

Company site [Monster Cable]
Info site [HDMIInfo.org]

These arguably work better than their nano counterparts, though, since you can control the shuffle pretty easily without actually eyeballing it. While cheaper than some other "wireless" setups, $50 seems a bit high. More eyeCandy after the jump.

– Matt Buchanan

Product Page [Monster via Digital Trends]

Why is this price gouging continuing? As Ars Technica so deftly postulated yesterday, there's no difference. We figure the best we can do to help the situation is to get the word out. And you suckas who think there's a diff, well, I'll sell you my HDMI shorts for $89.99. – Charlie White

Product Page, HDMI Cables [Firefold]

Sure, the announcements of support may have just been PR moves trying to get love from geeks, but any anti-DRM support is good support. OK Steve, now how about making it so not everything in iTunes is wrapped in FairPlay? It's not like everything on the store necessitates it. Time to back your words with actions, my friend. –Adam Frucci

Jobs gains support from Yahoo, Monster on DRM issue [Apple Insider]

We dug a little deeper, and noticed that Best Buy wasn't the only electronics purveyor hopping on the HDMI gravy train. Checking online stores, it appears that everyone wants to get in on the act of selling Monster Cable—or any HDMI Cable—for seemingly inflated prices. Of course, these cables are gold plated, right? Help us out here. Is there really $143.62 worth of difference? How can we test this? – Charlie White

Their rationale? The product was "not yet released."

Later I was told by Se-Kure Controls, Inc., a manufacturer of retail security devices such as ink bombs and magnetic sensors, that their products were off limits to photographers due to "security reasons." If you are a retailer, don't ever purchase products from Se-Kure, as they obviously can be compromised by anyone who can take a picture. (It is especially ironic that the company also sells miniature, concealable security cameras.)

I don't understand what these people could be thinking. They have paid thousands of dollars to display their wares to the CES attendees, yet bristle when someone tries to take a picture that would let even more people know about their product. Obviously, some companies (like Se-Kure) are there mostly to forge relationships with vendors. Their products never see a retail shelf.

But whether they like it or not, displaying their products—even on private property—makes it legal for anyone to take photos. CEA (Consumer Electronics Association, the organization running CES) may request that the person be removed from the show for, I don't know, upsetting exhibitors or something, but as far as I understand the law, there's nothing they can do to legally prevent anyone on the show floor from taking pictures.

CEA needs to make these companies come correct. Displaying something on the show floor? Then it's kosher to take a photo—and ridiculous to try to scare others into thinking otherwise.