|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 14, 2019 19:32:30 GMT -6
They also have a snitch line. link
Although I understand this has been around for years. Not sure what to think of all this. It doesn’t exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the new Gibson management, on the other hand, they have a legal obligation to protect their intellectual property. Cheers, Geoff Basic headstock and body shapes are NOT their "intellectual property."
I'm a huge intellectual property activist. This ain't it. This is the trademark equivalent of copyright trolling.
There is no way this is goiung to work out without hurting Gibson, even if they should happen to "win" in an idiot court that does not understand the real issues and the depth of tradition involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 14, 2019 19:35:40 GMT -6
They also have a snitch line. link
Although I understand this has been around for years. Not sure what to think of all this. It doesn’t exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the new Gibson management, on the other hand, they have a legal obligation to protect their intellectual property. Actual counterfeits, obviously. Dean? Not so sure. If Gibson wins this do they go after Hamer next. Boutique builders making Juniors, albeit with modified head stocks? I dunno. Vs and Explorers have been copied since the 70s but not sure about SGS or Juniors. They may have a better case with those if they haven’t been copied until more recently. What do do you Think? Has Gibson overstepped? Is this a pr disaster or just a necessary business move to protect their assets? I can see both sides. Cheers, Geoff A Les Paul Junior is such a bog standard body shape that there's NO WAY IN HELL that Gibson could have a legitimate claim. You could go back to some of the Merle Travis/Bigsby guitars that have the exact same basic body.Most of what Gibson is suing over has been in the public domain for at least 30 or 40 years, if not longer. And the original Gibson company - and Norlin - did not protect any trademark that might have existed. Which means that's any of that is void. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Oct 14, 2019 20:15:22 GMT -6
Not sure it’s been mentioned in this thread. But, a couple companies, including Echopark, are now saying their Gibby shaped guitars are licenced by Gibson, and there is small print on their website that the Flying V and Explorer are Gibson trademarks.
Makes me wonder who else they’ve tried to beat down.
Cheers,
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 14, 2019 22:35:31 GMT -6
Not sure it’s been mentioned in this thread. But, a couple companies, including Echopark, are now saying their Gibby shaped guitars are licenced by Gibson, and there is small print on their website that the Flying V and Explorer are Gibson trademarks. Makes me wonder who else they’ve tried to beat down. Cheers, Geoff Gibson has a case with the Explorer. With the V it's questionable, as there have been Vs made by other companies for so many years without dispute.
In the case of really small companies it's probably a matter of being unable to cover the costs of fighting it in court. This is a common tactic of large(r) companies with relatively deep pockets bullying small conpanies that can't afford even a modest defense. After bullying a few small companies into submission because they can't afford to pay for a defense, the aggressor then attempts to use those cases as precedent to go after bigger game.
It's a REALLY sleazy tactic.
SHAME on Gibson!
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Oct 14, 2019 22:45:05 GMT -6
Not sure it’s been mentioned in this thread. But, a couple companies, including Echopark, are now saying their Gibby shaped guitars are licenced by Gibson, and there is small print on their website that the Flying V and Explorer are Gibson trademarks. Makes me wonder who else they’ve tried to beat down. Cheers, Geoff Gibson has a case with the Explorer. With the V it's questionable, as there have been Vs made by other companies for so many years without dispute.
In the case of really small companies it's probably a matter of being unable to cover the costs of fighting it in court. This is a common tactic of large(r) companies with relatively deep pockets bullying small conpanies that can't afford even a modest defense. After bullying a few small companies into submission because they can't afford to pay for a defense, the aggressor then attempts to use those cases as precedent to go after bigger game.
It's a REALLY sleazy tactic.
SHAME on Gibson!
It’s obviously also a tactic to say, look, these guitar companies agree we have a trademark. To avoid being sued. And to buttress Gibson’s suit against Dean. Yeah, kinda unseemly. I know a builder who does G style things that no longer has them on his website for fear of the letter from their lawyers. And that was way before all this mess. Even with a changed headstock. So, this isn’t really new. Cheers, Geoff |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 15, 2019 13:06:49 GMT -6
Gibson has a case with the Explorer. With the V it's questionable, as there have been Vs made by other companies for so many years without dispute.
In the case of really small companies it's probably a matter of being unable to cover the costs of fighting it in court. This is a common tactic of large(r) companies with relatively deep pockets bullying small conpanies that can't afford even a modest defense. After bullying a few small companies into submission because they can't afford to pay for a defense, the aggressor then attempts to use those cases as precedent to go after bigger game.
It's a REALLY sleazy tactic.
SHAME on Gibson!
It’s obviously also a tactic to say, look, these guitar companies agree we have a trademark. To avoid being sued. And to buttress Gibson’s suit against Dean. Yeah, kinda unseemly. I know a builder who does G style things that no longer has them on his website for fear of the letter from their lawyers. And that was way before all this mess. Even with a changed headstock. So, this isn’t really new. Cheers, Geoff Well, "new" is relative. This mishegoss was started by Henry and has apparently been revived/continued by Curleigh. However it's still "new" relatively speaking, because it comes after a good 30 or 40 years of Gibson NOT defending their alleged "trademarks" on body styles. The original trademark lawsuits in the '70s were over the headstock design anbd deliberate copying of the Gibson script, along with detail exact reproduction of a couple of Gibson's more radical body designs such as the '58 V. In the original suits Gibson was never stupid enough to sue over things like the general body style of the Le Paul or the 335, which they are doing now, for the very good reason that those general body styles/shapes had been in use by a number or other guitar manufacturers such as Guild and Gretsch for many years*. Now Gibson appears to be attempting to assert ownership of any body style for a thinline double cutaway hollow body with Venetian cutaways or any single cutaway with a small body shaped like a traditional guitar. Since Gibson did not assert ownership of these shapes for decades before claiming trademark, and since those shapes were pased on traditional guitar bodies they should be recognized as being in the public domain.
Fuirthermore, these suits are nothing more than a failing company grasping at straws as they circle the drain, rather than spending the financial resourcves on bringing the product back up to traditional standards and selling it at reasonable prices.
Gibson's lack of adequate sales aren't due to competition from other makers, they're due to selling a substandard product at inflated prices. "Substandard" being relative to the standards set by Ginson in their glory days when it was actually true that "Only A Gibson Is Good Enough".
Gibson needs to concentrate on building great guitars, not wasting resources and corporate good will on assholic lawsuits.
The trademark argument holds on designs like the Firebird, the Explorer, and the original Flying V. It doesn't hold on designs like the Les Paul or any of the hollow bodies. And it's pretty obvious that Gibson knows this or they'd be going after companies like Guild and Gretsch which have been making "les paul" shaped guitars and double cut thinlines since the '50s and '60s with nary a peep out of Gibson. They're clearly going bafter the small builders that lack financial resources to defend against a spurious lawsuit. And that's disgusting and cowardly if you ask me. And I've been a Gibson guy all my life.
The truth is that Gibson DOES NOT have a valid trademark on many of the things they're sueing over. You can make something for decades while other companies are also making a similar thing for decades with no problems and suddently claim you have a trademark.
* - They don't even really have a right to sue on the SG body style, since they never went after Guild for making guitars with that general shape in the late '60s/early '70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Oct 17, 2019 6:38:26 GMT -6
The key point which they will most certainly lose is on what JohnEpstein just mentioned, namely that Gibson has not dealt with what they consider infringement on the shapes they claim to have rights on. There is precedent for this bit, and for that reason they can throw as much money as they wish on any lawsuits that they initiate, continue spitting blood, eminate negative vibes pissing off reasonably minded people and not try to capture a new audience with fresh ideas in the hope of conquering the market through intimidation...which in the end will contribute to the big lose. They will become a casualty in the war of their own making. Sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 17, 2019 13:06:51 GMT -6
The thing that's really sad is that it's so unnecessary. All Gibson has to do is forget about this crap and go back to making the finest guitars they possibly can and they'll have reclaimed their crown. Instead it's plain that they just see themselves as another mass-produced guitar company, cranking out product like all the others, with nothing of substance to distinguish themselves except a pitiful lawsuit over body shapes that they don't really own.
It's clear that the curse of Henry has penetrated into the "new" management. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Oct 24, 2019 13:18:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 26, 2019 1:41:43 GMT -6
Most, it not all Gibson body shapes and trim are not protected in the EU.
The real elephant in the room, however, is that Gibson's real problem is not Dean or any other US manufacturer. Their real problem is "Chibson" counterfeits from China, which, at least in solid body electrics, have reached a level where with the exception of the electronics and hardware (which are not covered in Gibson's suit-fest anyway) have reached a level of quality where many are indistinguishable from actual current Gibson product. I know of quite a few local musicians who are using Chibsons as their gigging guitars and leaving their valuable real Gibsons at home.
And there isn't a damn thing that Gibson can do about it since China does not respect our intellectual property laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Feb 20, 2020 14:48:13 GMT -6
And now Keisel
Gibson is back at it. This time going after Kiesel for a somewhat V shaped guitar. Cheers, Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 20, 2020 19:43:55 GMT -6
I wonder if Gibson and Fender custom shops have so many orders they can’t possibly make a guitar as good as others can? Obviously others can and do, and can charge a ton for it. So shouldn’t Gibson and Fender raise the price and take the time to do it like it should be done? I guess they still be just as busy even if they doubled the price (or maybe busier-if the quality was 100%). So what price would they charge to slow down the orders and take time to do it right? My friend ordered from Wal and it was a 2 year wait, when it arrived he spent over $10k after shipping/duty. Was it worth it? Well he loved it so much he ordered another 6 months later. The quality is pretty incredible. That’s what they should be doing really. Gibson should be the very best brand, even if they are $50k each. Then make a splinter brand that is their current stuff at current prices. Well epiphone is sort of there already haha. This is not a good look for the ‘new’ Gibson. As I understand it, Gibson fired/laid off most of their top luthiers as a cost cutting measure some time ago. First a round by Henry, then another when the new guys took over.
Gibson has already raised their prices to beyond what the current market will bear. If James Curleigh had even half a functioning brain he's fire all those lawyers and spend the money he would have wasted on them to rehire some of those luthiers Gibson let go, if they would have him - which is somewhat questionable.
You can't expect to sell CNC made guitars for premium prices and retain market share. I people CAN tell the difference. And the competition from offshore CNC factories is something that Gibson will never be able to beat, not in a thousand years at their prices. And the Chinese knockoff factories - which are doing amazingly good work for little cash - are legally untouchable since the Chinese government doesn't give a damn about US intellectual property rights, even when the plaintill has a supportable case. And THOSE knockoffs come with a Gibson logo.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Mar 15, 2020 10:50:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Mar 22, 2020 14:25:56 GMT -6
Gibson forcing its employees to work during pandemic link
A new low. Cheers, Geoff |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2020 17:59:48 GMT -6
Gibson didn’t make anything themselves consistently for years. This fund that bought them is just corporate grave robbing. They can’t even sell the good products from brands they own. Chinese Epiphones were actually playable for years when the American made Gibsons were not. A ton of recent Tascam stuff was good but there is no consistency. The previous generation of interfaces had good pres and converters that were ditched in the newer ones. Instead of fixing the drivers, they just put out a worse product with equally bad drivers. The Tascam CD players and the DA 3000 were very good. The 3000 sounds great but hums. Instead of fixing the vibrating power transformers or using a better power supply, they just have it out there and it’s not really moving. KRKs too. The Rokit 10-3 and the Rokit 5 G4 are legitimately decent monitors. They’re not great but they’re the first cheap KRKs since the K-Roks to not totally suck. The others are awful with no mids. The V series is beyond not sucking; they’re actually pretty good. They still sell and there is no marketing. They don’t want to legitimacy make money making and selling guitars and audio equipment. They’re pretty much a parasite corporation who own the rights to some good products and name brands.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Mar 25, 2020 22:08:06 GMT -6
To be fair to Gibson, the plant is now shuttered and they are paying their employees $1000 each. And they stepped to help out Nashville musicians affected by the recent tornado.
But I’m sure they’ll step in it again soon, and if they do, I’ll be back here to spread the joy.
I will add that I have a couple Gibson’s, and if a good J200 or 45 came up at the right price? I just wish they would focus on making great guitars, when they are able to start up again, instead of lawyering up in dubious lawsuits against other guitar builders.
Cheers,
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Jul 15, 2020 16:44:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Jul 15, 2020 16:54:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 15, 2020 18:51:33 GMT -6
I wonder if Gibson and Fender custom shops have so many orders they can’t possibly make a guitar as good as others can? Obviously others can and do, and can charge a ton for it. So shouldn’t Gibson and Fender raise the price and take the time to do it like it should be done? I guess they still be just as busy even if they doubled the price (or maybe busier-if the quality was 100%). So what price would they charge to slow down the orders and take time to do it right? My friend ordered from Wal and it was a 2 year wait, when it arrived he spent over $10k after shipping/duty. Was it worth it? Well he loved it so much he ordered another 6 months later. The quality is pretty incredible. That’s what they should be doing really. Gibson should be the very best brand, even if they are $50k each. Then make a splinter brand that is their current stuff at current prices. Well epiphone is sort of there already haha. This is not a good look for the ‘new’ Gibson. You can't make a guitar as good as "the others" when you keep firing your top artisans.
People are not machines. You can't fire a guy with 20 or 30 years experience and replace him off the rack.
It's not so much a matter of "so many orders" as a matter of pure arrogance.
|
|
