slow_down, we agree entirely.
My post was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek and imply that by convincingly calling attention to the frivolous nature of Monster's legal threat, the owner of BJC was effectively implying that they should piss off.
What I liked especially was the direct statement that Monster is using threat and intimidation as a business strategy, and that is illegal. That stands to benefit other small companies from similar vacuous threats.
Personally, I had not realized that Monster was this sort of company (others, clearly, have known this for a long time), but given BJC's response, I find that conclusion inescapable. That is both unfortunate and inexcusable.
