|
Author
|
Topic: Who's next? (Gibson/PRS lawsuit)
|
outfidel
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 09:03 AM
   
There's only 1 winner in this whole fiasco, and it ain't Gibson or PRS or guitarists: it's the lawyers. |
booinec
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 10:09 AM
Strongly doubt there was a lawyer just sitting around one day and all of a sudden, on a whim called Gibson and suggested they sue PRS. Don't blame the lawyers. Their job is to find (or defeat) a claim if there is one.
The case started with Gibson, by Gibson and for Gibson. |
LittleBrother
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 10:51 AM
Edited..I went back and read all of the posts. Some good points but the real issue is that I dont beleive for a second that Gibson has the right to copyright a shape and design that goes back far beyond the invention of the Les Paul. It would be like me trying to copyright guitar chords. Single, double cutaways are pretty hard to trademark in my mind. So is an archtop. I mean even some furniture has arched tops. This stuff gets a little insane. Whoever has the most lawyers. That PRS looks nothing like a Les Paul in my opinion. No more than many other guitars. This really gives me yet another really bad taste for Gibson and they've been suing people for years. I hope Chevy and Ford start suing each other over the shape of cars and fenders. Someone needs to dish out some of this medicine back to Gibson for a change. If I start putting a rose on my headstocks that doesn't mean I can start suing everyone that puts a rose on their headstock ? I guess I just don't get it. Unless PRS is doing a Les Paul clone this is all bunk. [This message has been edited by LittleBrother (edited 03-15-2004).] |
cpmusic
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 11:24 AM
I don't think it's a matter of who invented the cutaway, but one of specific body design. And as I understand it, one of the tricky parts of having a trademark is that it must be defended against all known violators to be defended against any.I don't know whether Gibson is justified in this, but as someone noted, it's a matter of legality, fairness. The after-the-fact trademark registration sounds fishy to me, though. BTW, I remember reading somewhere that Fender had a patent or trademark (I forget which) on the Strat body, but that CBS let it lapse when they owned the company, and this is why everyone and his brother now makes Strat copies. Another, unrelated BTW: Some years ago Harley-Davidson tried to trademark their sound. I don't know if they were successful, but I do know they tried. [This message has been edited by cpmusic (edited 03-15-2004).] |
outfidel
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 11:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by booinec:
Strongly doubt there was a lawyer just sitting around one day and all of a sudden, on a whim called Gibson and suggested they sue PRS. Don't blame the lawyers.
I did not say or imply that the lawyers *started* this fiasco; only that the lawyers will be the party who profits the most from it. |
mischultz
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 11:49 AM
If, in fact, the "Guitar Body Design" is what has been copyrighted, then why on earth would they not break out the pencils and trace the two? The horn, the shape of the bouts, nothing about the lines is similar in the way that many acoustic instruments are (someone rightly noted the far more noticeable closeness of SCGC and Collings instruments to classic and more distinctively Gibson designs): it's simply a different guitar than the LP.This doesn't appear to me to be anything more than mean-spirited nonsense on Gibson's part. If they're concerned about the competition, a little evolutionary refinement and attention to QC would go a lot further than sniveling and shouting in court. Best, Michael [QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveWendler:
[B]This press release is flying around the electric guitar boards. After all, there is as much copying and "refinement" going on in the guitar business as anywhere...
|
TRS3
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 12:28 PM
Looks as much to me like a single-cutaway version of the familiar contoured PRS body shape (as the name "single-cut" implies). Has more in common with other PRS guitars than with with the LP to my eye. Legalities aside, this seems like another case of Gibson behaving like Gibsoncorp. |
Jay Lowe
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 12:44 PM
Funny how I don't remember seeing one of these before PRS guitars got popular:
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=040315124210168051179004744949/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/517512/ I always just assumed that Gibson had copied the PRS double cutaway.  |
guitone
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 02:29 PM
"Another, unrelated BTW: Some years ago Harley-Davidson tried to trademark their sound. I don't know if they were successful, but I do know they tried."Yes they were..I only know that because I date and attorney and she told me about it. Seems it is studied in TM and Patent law classes. I think of that often as I really like the way a Harley sounds when stopped at a light..very cool. |
WmMichael
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 02:39 PM
OK, I'll keep playing the defender here. I do understand the positions against Gibson, but I think they deserve a break too.They filed for and legally obtained a trademark and they spend a lot of money advertising that body shape as a symbol of rock and roll. Their investments have to count for something. I'd want the companies I invest in to protect my investment in the same way? |
dberkowitz
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 02:40 PM
The problem with Gibson's lawsuit is that Gretsch is the one they should have sued. Gretsch has been making the Duo Jet since the mid fifties. In fact, if you compare the bodies of a PRS single cut and the Gretsch 6128 or Duo Jet, they are much closer than the PRS is to the Les Paul. I wonder whether Gibson, in not pursuing this infringement case against previous manufacturers has in fact ceded any rights it has to its Trademark. They cannot deny the existence of other single cutaway instruments yet this is the first lawsuit they have pursued.
|
wmthor
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 04:34 PM
Rickenbacker is another manufacturer that aggressively protects it's trademarks, including body style. |
gaeger
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 05:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by adaam:
Whew! Just missed some serious legal trouble by about an inch! Or is 6'1" @ 172 lbs. too close to the "original". I don't want to confuse the consumers.
-adaam
That depends on your humbuckers. |
Rick Turner
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 05:28 PM
So who is next? There are plenty of Les Paul-esque guitars out there...Hamer for big, McInturff for small, and then all the Asian knock-offs...
|
Big Joe
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 05:47 PM
Gibson has always been diligent about protecting its legal properties. There have been a number of suits and they have been very sucessfull at thier effort. In the body shape contest between Gibson and others is not just the body shape, but the carved top that is a part of the design. No one else thought of that before Gibson and Gibson also has some particular designs on the peghead. Gibson prosecuted this same argument against the pac rim builders a number of years ago also. If you notice, there are some les paulish instruments, but they are not real close in design. Had PRS been diligent to make an instrument that was not such a clone they would have been in good shape. However, they did not and they have born the brunt of the issue and that will likely stand if previous results are any indication. I have said this in the Mandolin Cafe about the flowerpot that if a builder is gifted and artistic enough to build a good instrument, he is good enough to not clone someone elses work. THe argument that Gibson stole Martins design is quite false. There are so many differences as to not even be considered similar instruments. Gibson built flat top instruments similar to modern day guitars long before others were doing so and they did design the modern arch top. No matter who did what, the bottom line is some companies have protected their rights and others did not. Those that did have an obligation to the public to protect those assets and defend them as needed. Let PRS and other clones do their own thing and Gibson will be happy for them. |
