From Clint DeBoer's original article:
Design patents represent nothing more that that: design. There is no technological content within design patents.
So? What has technological content to do with anything? That's why they're called design patents and not utility patents. Fundamentally design patents are really no different than copyright. The only difference is that design patents cover the ornamental or artistic design of a functional object.
If one doesn't feel this is intellectual property worthy of protection, then I don't see how one can make a case for the protection of any sort of intellectual property.
I'm hardly any fan of Monster Cable. But this situation isn't anything like their previous legal actions where they were suing companies using the word "Monster" even when the companies being sued weren't engaging in anything to do with Monster Cable's scope of business.
Blue Jeans Cable chose to buy cheap, ready-made cables from China. A country well-known for knocking off the designs of others.
And do we really need more cheap, Chinese-made goods in this country? Are there any morals or ethics behind this or is it just to make a buck?
se