David and Goliath
It's always the same and it's perfectly natural. AMD and Intel; Linux and Windows; Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone - you want the little guy, the weakling, to acquit himself well against the big bad bully.
Maybe give him a bloody nose - okay, okay - admittedly not with happy, laughing boy Boris in the London mayoral race but you do get the idea.
And, sometimes, just sometimes, the little guy does come out on top. Think David and Goliath. Or Blue Jeans Cable and Monster Cable.
Well, you probably know all about Monster Cable. It's grown to match its name by selling stupidly expensive audio and video cables to fat-walleted, willy-waving wannabes.
It doesn't matter that the sound quality transmitted by a Monster Cable cable seems to be no better than that of a coat-hanger - there are enough fools out there.
They swallow the marketing twaddle - along with the self-serving nonsense dished up by hi-fi and video journos – and pay out big bucks for something that does nothing (if you buy such cables, please take a close look in the mirror, it might not be too late to be saved).
But who and what is Blue Jeans Cable?
Actually, it's a rather smaller company that - surprise, surprise - also makes cabling. And BJC's cables aren't exactly cheap, either. What is remarkable, though, is the manner in which this minnow has given its monster rival something far worse than a bloody nose.
What it's done is make public a massively entertaining – and brilliantly written – rebuttal to Monster Cable following an attempted squeeze over alleged patent infringements.
BJC's letter makes Monster Cable appear to be a greedy bully - and a very stupid one, too.
Now, whether BJC is right or wrong we don't know. But what we do know is that the letter to Monster Cable's legal beagles – from BJC's top-dog Kurt Denke (himself a former litigations lawyer for many years!) – did gladden our hearts and is certain to do the same for you.
If you read nothing else on the web for the rest of the month, read this letter, which kicks off thus (our emboldening),
RE: Your letter, received April Fools' Day
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.
Here's another beauty,
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.
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.
For more splendid extracts - and a link to the letter in its entirety - dive over to page two...