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

The two ships, the MV Hounslow and MT Ann, were rounded up back in February by the UAE police and coastguard after Reliance Globalcom, the parent company of Flag Telecoms, whose snapped cables they were, provided satellite pictures of shipping in the area of the cables at the time they were severed.

The Korean ship was allowed to go over the weekend, having paid a rather large fine (thought to be around $60,000) to Flag Telecom, whose customers suffered two weeks of disruption to their internet services. Meanwhile, two crew members of the Iraqi boat have been arrested, and their boat looks nowhere closer to being released. [The Economic Times via National Terror Alert—thanks Mike Wahlman]

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

Yes, a poster on the Head-Fi forums had his fancy-pants power cable disemboweled by his cat, only to discover very little of value inside. Once ripped open, all he found was "a couple of bucks worth of 14 AWG PVC insulated bulk wire (VD's "LiniPur" conductors) and some ferrite powder, (VD's "5 dielectric layers") shoved into some heavy braided-wall PVC tubing to make it appear thick and meaty, and put together with dirt cheap connectors and DIY build quality."

But honestly, if you spend $300 on a power cable, you know, deep down, that you're pretty much throwing your money away, so you shouldn't be too surprised. [Audio Junkies]

Seven songs were played while the group was blindfolded and the cables swapped back and forth. Not only "after 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire," but no one knew a coat hanger was used in the first place.

Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use.

While Monster cables are of good quality and engineering, when it comes to digital signals, specifically HDMI cables, we know that its a better idea to buy a $5 dollar HDMI cable today, and then when bandwidth requirements go up in future specs of HDMI, just buy another $5 cable then. It's a lot cheaper than $100 HDMI cables from Monster. The exceptions come when you are running long runs of cable through a wall, where swapping cables is annoying and the signal can degrade (yes, the digital signal can degrade, as proven here, here and here.)

When it comes to analog cables, like composite and speaker cables, I for one believe you can get a lot out of midrange (Monster is midrange compared to some cables I've seen and used) analog cabling that has a lot of shielding for interference. More than Radio Shack stock cable? I don't know. But I'm sure cable outlets like Monoprice have lower costs for similar cabling. Did you know Monster Cable has a garage with Lamborghini showcars and throws a huge celebrity bash at CES every year? Not cheap.

Not that Monster is alone in this industry. All cable makers who sell through home theater stores are going to have a big mark up.

The reasoning? While one of the cables may have been cut by an anchor, the others were too deep for that to be a possibility. Also, five cables being cut in one week is highly improbable. I don't know how a saboteur gets that deep to cut cables in the first place, let alone five of them, so I'm highly skeptical. I mean, come on, aren't we giving the terrorists a bit too much credit here? This isn't a James Bond movie. The most likely culprit is still Godzilla as far as I'm concerned.

What do you guys think: terrorism, giant undersea lizards or some other explanation? [The Inquirer]

•There probably isn't a fifth cable, according to his sources and the Khaleez Times in the UAB seems to have double counted one.
•One cable is officially not cut, but is suffering a power outage.
•Likely, the rest of the cables have been damaged by fishing nets or boat anchors (those two causes account for 65% and 18% of all undersea cable problems).
•Officially, he believes the chances of the cables being cut by "sharks with laser beams on their fricking heads" is unlikely.
•While two cables cut in a week is a bit higher than average, its not unusual: Last year, 50 cables were damaged in the Atlantic alone.

Why are we still talking about this? Because I somehow find it fascinating, although Beckert's explanations make it less so. [WSJ Blog, thanks Ben Worthen. Previously on Giz]

The first thing you're gonna need is an Optical Time Domain Reflectometer. Engineers on shore use it to send light pulses down the cable, which reflect back at the breakage point, providing a measurable delay that can translate to distance within "tens of meters."

Once you get your location guestimation, you posse up your team of about 50 people and pile them onto—what else?—a cable ship. This ship will need remotely operated vehicles ROVs (see James Cameron) that you drive down to the sea floor, roving around until you spot your breakage.

When the ROV finds the affected cable segment, it may snip off the nasty bits (just leaving them there to become part of somebody's new habitat) and bring up the two new ends. On board the ship, operators can splice a new segment between the cleanly trimmed ends of the cable break, and drop it back down.

Sometimes the ROV can't find the segment, or can't get the right grip on it. In these cases, the technicians send down a centuries-old device called a grapnel. The grapnel snags the cable wherever it can, and yanks it up to the boat for the end trimming and the repair job.

The cable itself is a tricky fix, because it is made up of nine layers, which you can see in the BBC's diagram below. If you are an experienced undersea-cable repairman who would like to add anything to this admittedly brief primer, I encourage you. And for the love of Pete, don't try any of this cable repair stuff at home! [BBC News]

I mean, mains electric cables draped in big curves across your walls and floor as a design feature? Maybe if you live in an uber-cool loft, but in your average home it sounds too much like a trip-hazard or something extra for the cats to chew on. Keep them neatly and safely hidden away, that's the ticket: I'm for big ugly old-fashioned socket extensions! [Yanko designs]

Think about it: you need an HDMI cable for your home theater equipment that carries audio as well as video, but now there's a new cable on the way called DisplayPort specifically made for computer displays. Or maybe you'd like to hook up your TV to your computer via VGA. Then there's the old-timey composite, component, and S-video connections.

Not digital enough for you? Let's use DVI, or if you want higher resolution, you'll need dual-link DVI. Then there's digital audio, connecting via fiber optic that can't even decide whether it's called Toslink or the eloquent S/PDIF. Or maybe choose a coaxial connector for your digital audio, the same as an RCA plug used to connect analog audio, not that cable TV variety of coaxial.

Want to connect hard drives? You could use USB 2.0, or FireWire 400 is just about as fast. Want FireWire 800? Oops, you'll need a different cable for that. What about the new FireWire 3200? Yep, it'll need new cable, too. Connecting faster SATA hard drives isn't simple, either, because if you want to hook them up internally, you'll need an "L" connector, but if you want to use the external SATA drives (eSATA), well, those use in an "I" connector, to keep you from using unshielded wires inside a PC. The confusion goes on and on.

Oh, and by the way, while you're dealing with this Tower of Babel, you'll have to sidestep all the ripoff artists trying to charge you ten times as much for a cable that does exactly the same thing as its cheapest counterpart.

It's a mess. Please, someone round up all the consumer electronics manufacturers, and somehow make them all use the same connectors. But that's like herding cats. We told you we were going into the world of fantasy, but anyway, that's All Giz Wants.

Their available products include Digital HDMI, Component Video, SCART, Optical Digital Audio, Coaxial Digital and Stereo Audio cables coming in 1, 3 and 5 meter lengths—or too short to notice in most circumstances, but mainly regarding that HDMI cord. Sony reminds home theater enthusiasts that 15% of their budget should be spent on wire—we're recommending you buy a really cheap home theater to accommodate. [sony via mobilewhack]

UPDATE: When we asked Adam Blake who contacted who first, he told us, "Fremer contacted Randi first and we have been in contact with Mr. Fremer. Pear Cable has had no direct contact with James Randi." Blake said it was Fremer's idea to accept the challenge, and it will be he who receives the million dollars if he's able to prove there's a difference between the cables. Okay, James Randi, the ball is now in your court. Here's the full text of the challenge response:

$1 Million Speaker Cable Challenge Accepted

Audiophile Reviewer Michael Fremer Agrees to Double-Blind Loudspeaker Cable Test

Newton, Mass. - October 15, 2007 - Responding to accusations that the high-fidelity Pear Cable Anjou loudspeaker cables could not be differentiated from typical equivalent Monster Cable, Michael Fremer, writer for Stereophile Magazine and musicangle.com, has agreed to double-blind listening tests to prove that cables can be differentiated sonically. Accuser James Randi has claimed to offer a $1 million dollar prize if the high-fidelity cables can be detected.

While Pear Cable remains highly skeptical that the challenge is genuine, full support for Michael Fremer's effort has been offered. Although the cables to be used in the test have not yet been selected, Pear Cable has offered to loan Mr. Fremer any Pear cables necessary to conduct the test if he desires to use them.

To date, James Randi has provided no scientific evidence of any kind to support his accusations. No test protocol for the challenge was stipulated in the original accusation, however James Randi reserves the right to change test protocol in any way he personally desires.

Official rules for the James Randi Educational Foundation challenge state that $1 Million will be paid to "any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability." Michael Fremer has expressly stated as a condition of his challenge acceptance that he does not possess any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal abilities, and that he does not believe he has above average hearing. Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality.

About Pear Cable, Inc.
Pear Cable is a manufacturer of high fidelity audio cables for both home and car audio. Using custom designed manufacturing equipment and cutting edge scientific principles; Pear Cable brings quality products to the audio marketplace. For more information visit: Pear Cable Audio Cables

Here's Pear Cable CEO Adam Blake's response received by Don, a member of the forum at DIY Mobile Audio:

Hello Don,

Nice to hear from you. Yes, by now we have heard about this challenge (although we were never contacted directly). Unfortunately, like most offers of $1 million this one is a hoax. While James Randi is claiming to offer a $1 million dollar prize to differentiate between these speaker cables, by reading the official rules of the challenge, it becomes immediately clear that the offer is not valid. One must be able to "demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability" in order to qualify. Since there is a wealth of scientific information explaining the differences between speaker cables, the offer is not a valid one (and James Randi knows it).

While we publish a frequency response plot demonstrating the differences between cables on our own website here: http://www.pearcable.com/sub_product...cyresponse.htm, there are also independant measurements and data that can be found for example here: http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto...leID=201807390 In addition, the High School eductated James Randi who claims to have consulted unnamed experts on the matter makes unsubstantiated claims that our science is junk. Unfortunately true experts do not agree. For example, despite his claims that RFI is not a problem in speaker cables, according to publications by the Amateur Radio Relay League, RFI has been documented as a known problem that can exist in speaker cables.

In addition, according to the editor of Stereophile magazine John Atkinson, James Randi has completely fabricated the statements about Atkinson made in this "challenge". Furthermore, another audiophile who goes by the moniker "Wellfed" on the AudioAsylum forums, says he tried to take the challenge twice for what I consider a more dubious audio tweak (the GSIC chip), but was denied the opportunity and was lied to by the Randi Foundation. Finally, according to these forum posts: http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/...es/719041.html at least one person has tried to take the "challenge" previously to show that they could differentiate between loudspeaker cables and they were denied by Randi who said "Wire is not wire. I accept that".

So, at the end of the day we have claims made by a high school educated retired magician, which are refuted by independent studies and publications conducted by experts. Most importantly, James Randi's "challenge" is backed by nothing. Many audiophiles have already expressed interest in taking the challenge, but they are barred by the contest rules unless they are part of the media. And, in the past, Randi denied audiophiles the chance to take the "challenge" with regard to differentiating between speaker cables.

At Pear Cable we publish objective measurements to demonstrate the improved fidelity of our cables. In addition, we publish reviews and opinions that are based on both blind and non-blind testing. In fact, the comments made by Richard from the Bay Area Audiophile Society on the Comice Silver Interconnects were the result of a blind test he conducted.

We have not yet put together an official response to this joke of a "challenge", so we are not currently participating in the many conversations going on in audio forums as we speak. In any case, I hope you find the above to be informative.

Sincerely,

Adam Blake

We see that the Pear Cable company is advertising a pair of 12-foot "Anjou" audio cables for $7,250; that's $302 a foot! And, as expected, "experts" were approached for their opinions on the performance of these wonders ... Well, we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these "no-compromise" cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables. While Pear rattles on about "capacitance," "inductance," "skin effect," "mechanical integrity" and "radio frequency interface," - all real qualities and concerns, and adored by the hi-fi nut-cases - we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation. That said, we offer the JREF million-dollar prize to - for example - Dave Clark, Editor of the audio review publication Positive Feedback Online.

One of the most astonishing accomplishments of the Transparent Cable Company is how it gets "reviewers" to play along with its con game.

This is from the Transparent Cable website:

"We are also pleased that so many members of the audio press have chosen to write about Transparent Cable. While our upper-end products seem to garner the most attention in the sheer number of reviews written, audio experts write about our more affordable cables, too. Reviewers everywhere agree that Transparent products at all levels deliver superb performance and great value for the asking price."

"... way better than anything I have heard...Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace—these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

If you're the trusting type, you might not want to read this press release from Pear Cable:

"... simply way better than anything I have heard prior to their audition."

Editor of Positive Feedback Online, Dave Clark, Reviews the ANJOU Speaker Cables by Pear Cable

Newton, Mass. - September 21, 2007 - Pear Cable Corporation, a manufacturer of high fidelity audio cables for both home and car environments, continues to redefine the limits of what is possible in high-end audio cable design. The glowing review of Pear Cable's new ANJOU Speaker Cable, bolsters the argument for describing the cable as one of the world's best.

Dave Clark, Editor of audio review publication Positive Feedback Online describes the ANJOU performance as being "... way better than anything I have heard..." He goes on to say, "Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace—these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

The ANJOU Speaker Cable represents the introduction of a completely new hybrid cable geometry developed by Pear Cable. Drawing upon the best characteristics of several more common cable geometries, the resulting hybrid design minimizes the sonic impact of the cable.

Annica Kjellberg, President of Pear Cable said, "We are extremely pleased that the unique geometry we developed for this cable is getting the attention we think it deserves. The numbers say that it is better, but it is critical to validate numbers with the human ear. This review further solidifies the ANJOU Speaker Cable as a class leading design."

Dave Clark concluded his review by declaring the ANJOU's "Highly Recommended." To read the review in its entirety please visit: Positive Feedback Online.

An 8-foot pair of ANJOU Speaker Cables retails for $5,250
For more detailed information on the ANJOU speaker cable, please visit:
ANJOU Speaker Cables

About Pear Cable, Inc.
Pear Cable is a manufacturer of high fidelity audio cables for both home and car audio. Using custom designed manufacturing equipment and cutting edge scientific principles; Pear Cable brings quality products to the audio marketplace. For more information visit: Pear Cable Audio Cables

Let's hope Google's alleged entry into this bandwidth biz will bring prices down, because with the way things stand now, even though there's a glut of dark fiber spanning the Pacific, the stubborn owners of all that potential bandwidth aren't budging on their too-high prices. Do it, Google, and get going on that wireless carrier threat you made, too! Teach the rest of the world your catchphrase: "Don't be evil." [New York Times]

Says David Coleman of Honeywell's CE Cable Products division:

"We've made this cable intelligent by integrating a chip into the connector that performs two major functions. First, the chip's line driver 'cures' corrupted HDCP and EDID data that can lead to serious audio and video artifacts. Second, we added 'light' in the form of LEDs embedded into the connector that let installers monitor the most critical elements of the HDMI interface for problems."

Not only that, but the lengths of cable only go to 50 feet. That's a respectable distance, for sure, but in our testing, the possibility of problems lie in the longer distances, so perhaps Honeywell should forget about the shorter cables (there's even a 1.6 footer) and focus on 50 feet or longer.

That said, the LED concept is pretty cool: four LEDs indicate whether you have a live connection, whether there is actual video coming through and other situations that can occur. Neat, you know? But perhaps not worth the expense.

Honeywell Introduces First Self-Diagnostic & Self-Healing HDMI Cable — Revolutionary New Honeywell CURxE Light Technology Automatically Corrects A/V Signals for Corrupted HDCP and EDID Data —

PLEASANT PRAIRIE, WI, August 29, 2007— Honeywell (NYSE: HON) today announced the world's first HDMI digital cable with CURxE Light technology that automatically corrects corrupted HDCP and EDID data that would otherwise degrade high-definition picture and multi-channel audio performance.

Honeywell developed exclusive CURxE Light technology along with Spectrum Electronics' Jeff Bocaccio, one of the CE industry's most respected authorities on HDMI.

"We've made this cable intelligent by integrating a chip into the connector that performs two major functions," said David Coleman, Program Manager, CE Cable Products, Honeywell. "First, the chip's line driver 'cures' corrupted HDCP and EDID data that can lead to serious audio and video artifacts. Second, we added 'light' in the form of LEDs embedded into the connector that let installers monitor the most critical elements of the HDMI interface for problems."

"We are encouraged to see companies like Honeywell develop innovative HDMI products for the marketplace," said Les Chard, President, HDMI Licensing, LLC. "As HDMI proliferates and becomes the de facto standard for connecting home theater and PC devices, companies like Honeywell are leading the way with new applications of the technology to meet specific market needs."

AUTOMATIC SIGNAL CORRECTION
HDCP and EDID data becomes corrupted as a result of inconsistencies of hardware manufacturers' implementation of HDMI, or excess transmission distances. Working in the background, CURxE Light Technology automatically cleans the bad data to its intended dynamic range for the best picture quality. Left uncorrected this corrupt data causes dropout of the picture or audio signal, incorrect resolution, intermittent "snow" in the picture, or a pink or blue hued screen.

BUILT-IN DIAGNOSTICS
Four LEDs integrated into the cable's HDMI connector serve as self-diagnostic monitoring indicators. The four LEDs verify: Hot Plug detection, +5 Volts status, HDCP and EDID, pointing to either downstream, upstream or device problems depending on which LED fails to light. The fix may be as simple as switching inputs on the TV or can require a firmware upgrade of the DVD player, set-top box, AV receiver or other source. This first of its kind diagnostics should help installers save hours of time troubleshooting.

SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTION
To help ensure pure, crystal-clear digital audio and video signals, the new cables feature full-balanced line transition-minimized differential signaling (TMDS); 100% foil shield with 25% overlapping, combined with a 90% tinned copper braid shield; plus bandwidth-maximizing silver-plated copper conductors. The male-to-male cables are designed for HDTV 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p. Lengths range from .5 meters (1.6 feet) up to 15-meters (49.2 feet)

For more information, call (800) 222-0060, or visit www.honeywellcable.com

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]

They're doubling the chipsets in each TV to get that 1080p signal. One set enables uncompressed 720p and 1080i video to be transmitted over the 5GHz wireless band, using 20MHz of bandwidth and reaching distances up to 100 feet with the same quality as HDMI cable. Two of the chipsets ganged together send 1080p video wirelessly, using 40MHz of bandwidth. The company also revealed that version 2.0 will combine two chipsets into one for the 1080p solution.

Amimon is a fabless semiconducter company, so it won't be building dongles and boxes using this tech, but will supply them to consumer electronics manufacturers. Amimon is hoping WHDI will become the new wireless HDMI standard, and told us by January, 2008 at CES, a variety of its partners will be announcing products with the WHDI interface, either installed internally or deployed in the form of dongles that transmit and receive the WHDI signal.

Amimon wasn't willing to give us a complete list of manufacturers set to receive the chipsets or embrace the technology, but did mention European high-end TV manufacturer Loewe and Japan's Funai would demo WHDI at the upcoming IFA convention in Berlin. Amimon added that Sanyo was also planning the use the tech (and we saw a demo of its projector running WHDI at 720p at CES last January) and said that Motorola is also an investor in the company.

When we asked about pricing of the WHDI chipset, Amimon wasn't willing to spell out specifics, but said the components would cost "several hundred dollars" at the outset. The company added that as economies of scale improve, the chipset should add less than $10 to the price of a device. [Amimon]

Here's the Amimon press release:

AMIMON Announces WHDI Chipset Availability

Whole-home HD Video Connectivity Net Now Unwired and Uncompressed;
WHDI HDTVs To Be Demonstrated at the IFA Consumer Electronics Show

Santa Clara, Calif. - August 28, 2007 - AMIMON Inc., an emerging leader in semiconductor technology for wireless transmission of high-definition (HD) video, has today announced the availability of its Wireless High-definition Interface (WHDI™) chipset. The WHDI chipset (AMN2110 and AMN2210) enables CE display and device manufacturers to develop home entertainment products that connect wirelessly.

The WHDI chipset can be embedded into CE devices such as LCD and plasma HDTVs, multimedia projectors, A/V receivers, DVD players (HD-DVD and Blu-ray), set-top boxes (STBs), game consoles, PCs and HD video accessories (wireless for HDMI dongles), allowing wireless streaming of uncompressed HD video and audio.

"With WHDI chipsets in hand, CE manufacturers will now be able to offer consumers wireless HDTVs and other HD wireless video devices based on the WHDI standard," said Noam Geri, vice president of marketing and business development at AMIMON.

"Consumers should see initial WHDI-based products at the end of this year, with a wide variety of WHDI-based CE products available in 2008."

AMIMON's WHDI makes it possible for a wireless whole-home HD video connectivity net that allows the devices to share HD content throughout the entire home, up to 30 meters (100 feet) through walls, while maintaining superb, wire-equivalent quality and robustness with no latency. WHDI is the only uncompressed wireless technology with the capability of covering the entire home.

"Home entertainment enthusiasts are asking for wireless HDTVs that can be hung on the wall without having to run cumbersome and unaesthetic audio/video wires," said Roland Bohl, Loewe's director of R&D. "AMIMON's WHDI technology enables us to meet this demand while maintaining the high quality of HDTVs."

CE manufacturers Loewe and Funai will be demonstrating wireless HDTVs based on AMIMON's WHDI technology at the IFA Consumer Electronics tradeshow in Berlin, August 31 - September 5, 2007.

AMIMON's WHDI technology is based on a unique video modem approach. WHDI supports delivery of uncompressed 1080p (with equivalent video rates of up to 3 Gbps) in a 40MHz channel in the 5GHz unlicensed band, in compliance with FCC regulations. Uncompressed 720p, 1080i and 1080p 24/30p (with equivalent video rates of up to 1.5 Gbps) can be delivered in a 20MHz channel, conforming to worldwide 5GHz regulations. Range is beyond 100 feet through walls (entire home), and latency is less than 1 millisecond.

More than just a wire replacement, AMIMON's WHDI enables a connectivity matrix of multipoint-to-multipoint connections, allowing consumers to eliminate all the A/V wires and cables in the entire home.

AMIMON's WHDI chipsets and reference designs are available now. Companies, engineers and developers interested in additional information on WHDI chipsets should contact AMIMON at info@amimon.com.

For further technical details of AMIMON's WDHI technology, please visit: www.amimon.com/technology.shtml.

About AMIMON
AMIMON is a fabless semiconductor company pioneering wireless uncompressed high-definition video for universal connectivity among CE video devices. AMIMON's uncompressed Wireless High-definition Interface (WHDI™) allows flat-panel televisions and multimedia projectors to wirelessly interface to all HDTV video sources at a quality equivalent to that achieved with wired interfaces such as component video, DVI and HDMI™.

The company is headquartered in Herzlia, Israel, with offices in Santa Clara, Calif., USA, and Tokyo, Japan. More information is available at www.AMIMON.com.

WHDI is a trademark of AMIMON, Ltd. All other trademarks or registered trademarks are those of their respective holders.

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

As I mentioned this morning, I skipped the testing on the shorter cables because, using Monster's own gear, we showed that they could carry today's 1080p signal without trouble. (One, from XtremeHD, had trouble with some extreme video simulations, but it passed all of the real-world simulations, so you can keep using it... for now.)

But as you know, both the 35-footer and 50-footer from Monoprice failed the 1080p test in the lab. I used the very same cables from the lab for the real world test below, and guess what? The 35-footer did just fine, as did the 35-f