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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And have you heard, meanwhile, about Transportation Security Administration's new "freeze drills"?
 
The New York Times' "On the Road" columnist Joe Sharkey recently published a story describing an encounter with this odd and somewhat troubling procedure. Ostensibly it's a practice maneuver that helps TSA guards learn how to deal with checkpoint breaches. Guards begin yelling, "Code Bravo, freeze!" effectively scaring passengers into remaining motionless.
 
Of course, as Sharkey deftly points out, TSA doesn't really have the authority to make anybody remain motionless. TSA guards do not have law enforcement power -- much as the agency has done a good job at fooling people into believing otherwise. Screeners are now called "officers" and they wear blue shirts with badges. Not by accident, the badges look exactly like the kind worn by police.
 
Thus the cynics out there see the freeze drills as a means of control and intimidation. They probably feel the same way about the recent revelation that "arrogant complaining about airport security" is an indicator used by screeners when looking for criminals and terrorists.  
 
In both cases that's probably unfair, though TSA is, at times, prone to bullying and guilty of a certain mission-creep. At the airport, TSA's job is to keep dangerous items and dangerous people away from planes, end of story. We can argue over the definition of dangerous, but TSA holds the authority -- legitimately enough in my opinion -- to inspect your belongings and prevent you from passing through a checkpoint. However, it does not have the authority to interrogate you, make you stand in one place, recite the national anthem or otherwise compromise your rights.
 
Joe Sharkey describes being upbraided not by a TSA guard, but by another passenger when he opted not to remain perfectly still during a freeze drill. Honestly, it's not the drills themselves that concern me so much as the idea of a fellow citizen so willing to concede his freedom. Welcome to America, 2011.