|
Author
|
Topic: Who's next? (Gibson/PRS lawsuit)
|
DaveWendler
Member
|
posted 03-18-2004 04:50 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by adaam:
...when Bob Taylor came up with a new idea or technique, he was eager to share said technique or theory with his closest competitors, with the hopes of make the guitar building world a "better place for everyone." -adaam
That sounds magnanimous....but you can bet your ass if someone comes up with an "improvement" on based on the ES pickup system that blows it out of the water there will be some litigation ensuing. He's spent several million dollars on the thing, and he has a RIGHT to reap the benefit....but after the patents run out and 52 years down the road? Well, that's what this current lawsuit is all about, and more to the point, how broad a net the judicial system will let him throw. I do know that Bob T. didn't talk to me about my "prior" art using low impedance neodymium magnetics for acoustic guitars....but I wouldn't be surprised if my patent is mentioned in his patent document...it is mentioned in a bunch of Lace patents as "prior art". It's easy to talk about being charitable, and in many instances, I'm sure that Mr. Taylor is. I've never heard about Henry J. harboring even the intentions of being so. |
Bill Motsko
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 07:47 AM
Henry J. purchased the Baldwin Piano Co. not
too long ago. Baldwin's quality had fallen
considerably like Gibson under Norlin. One
of his first moves was to require Baldwin
dealers to place substantial orders for new
pianos or forfeit their franchise. This came
during a soft new piano market and a sluggish
economy. Many dealers were already struggling
to sell their existing stock, much less pony
up more $$ to meet Henry's demands. I live close to what was the oldest Baldwin dealership in the country. This dealer refused to saddle himself with new inventory,
because of the economic climate. I find it
very disturbing for Henry J. to use such Draconian measures, supposedly to build up
capital. I once had respect for Henry's efforts to save Gibson. Now, I'm beginning to
have my doubts. 
save Gibson and
|
TRS3
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 02:15 PM
But wait..aren't you all losing sight of the fact that ...Our company [Gibson] is run by a leader [Henry J] who is also a passionate musician and as the company grows and brings music to people around the world.... I mean he's bringing the gift of music to the musicless masses... You people are so cynical. Next thing you know you'll be knocking Martha Stewart or something.
|
Bill Motsko
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 02:15 PM
Within the last year or two Henry J. has
purchased the Baldwin piano company. The
quality control of Baldwin had deteriorated
like the Norlin Gibson. Presumably to raise
capital, Henry J. issued a requirement that
existing Baldwin dealers purchase $$$ of new
pianos or risk losing their franchise. This
was done in a poor economic climate when many
dealers were already having difficulty moving their existing stock. I find that kind of draconian tactic very disturbing.
A number of Baldwin dealers who couldn't cough up the dough to buy x amounts of new
Baldwins had their franchises taken away, including one of the oldest dealers in the
country. I had respect for Henry when he tried to turn Gibson around. But the way he dealt with the Baldwin dealers makes me
wonder if I still do. |
Bill Motsko
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 02:16 PM
Within the last year or two Henry J. has
purchased the Baldwin piano company. The
quality control of Baldwin had deteriorated
like the Norlin Gibson. Presumably to raise
capital, Henry J. issued a requirement that
existing Baldwin dealers purchase $$$ of new
pianos or risk losing their franchise. This
was done in a poor economic climate when many
dealers were already having difficulty moving their existing stock. I find that kind of draconian tactic very disturbing.
A number of Baldwin dealers who couldn't cough up the dough to buy x amounts of new
Baldwins had their franchises taken away, including one of the oldest dealers in the
country. I had respect for Henry when he tried to turn Gibson around. But the way he dealt with the Baldwin dealers makes me
wonder if I still do. |
Bill Motsko
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 02:16 PM
Within the last year or two Henry J. has
purchased the Baldwin piano company. The
quality control of Baldwin had deteriorated
like the Norlin Gibson. Presumably to raise
capital, Henry J. issued a requirement that
existing Baldwin dealers purchase $$$ of new
pianos or risk losing their franchise. This
was done in a poor economic climate when many
dealers were already having difficulty moving their existing stock. I find that kind of draconian tactic very disturbing.
A number of Baldwin dealers who couldn't cough up the dough to buy x amounts of new
Baldwins had their franchises taken away, including one of the oldest dealers in the
country. I had respect for Henry when he tried to turn Gibson around. But the way he dealt with the Baldwin dealers makes me
wonder if I still do. |
Bill Motsko
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 02:30 PM
Within the last year or two Henry J. has
purchased the Baldwin piano company. The
quality control of Baldwin had deteriorated
like the Norlin Gibson. Presumably to raise
capital, Henry J. issued a requirement that
existing Baldwin dealers purchase $$$ of new
pianos or risk losing their franchise. This
was done in a poor economic climate when many
dealers were already having difficulty moving their existing stock. I find that kind of draconian tactic very disturbing.
A number of Baldwin dealers who couldn't cough up the dough to buy x amounts of new
Baldwins had their franchises taken away, including one of the oldest dealers in the
country. I had respect for Henry when he tried to turn Gibson around. But the way he dealt with the Baldwin dealers makes me
wonder if I still do. |
JM
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 02:41 PM
Whoa, deja vu!! [This message has been edited by JM (edited 03-19-2004).] |
Bill Motsko
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 04:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JM:
Whoa, deja vu!! [This message has been edited by JM (edited 03-19-2004).]
Yeah, I know, I know. I wasn't notified that
any of my posts went through. I do studder,
so you could think of my redundant posts as..
cyber-studdering! 
|
LittleBrother
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 08:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TRS3:
But wait..aren't you all losing sight of the fact that ...Our company [Gibson] is run by a leader [Henry J] who is also a passionate musician and as the company grows and brings music to people around the world.... I mean he's bringing the gift of music to the musicless masses... You people are so cynical. Next thing you know you'll be knocking Martha Stewart or something.
Man you really buy into it... whew. I thought you were just being sarcastic. You think Gibson is on a great track ? Hmmm.. Maybe thats the way it looks from the other side.... |
Cosmic Wonder
Member
|
posted 03-19-2004 09:32 PM
I think that PRS should fight Gibson in a way they understand. Paul should trademark the humbucker. It doesn't matter a whit that he didn't invent it, (just like gibby didn't ivent the shape of the LP) but it's tone defines PRS guitars. Then, after he has trademarked the humbuckersound/look, he can go after Henry. Justice for all.
Mike |
Twanger
Member
|
posted 03-20-2004 12:32 AM
I might be confusing my history here, but I think Seth Lover's original humbucker was called the PAF (Patent Applied For). This might make it difficult for someone else to trademark... |
WmMichael
Member
|
posted 03-20-2004 03:33 AM
Strange standards in this thread...I will wager that those of you who fault Henry for his business practices--which are not only legal but defensible as prudent IMO--are quick to forgive or ignore so many musicians who lead less than saintly lives. Addicted to heroine for a decade or so and flaunt the fact in 50 interviews read by teanagers? (At least he didn't sue anyone for stealing his riffs.) Busted for dope and gun possession---again? But we can separate the man and his music. That doesn't make his accomplishments any less meaningful. Has an average audience age of 14 but espouses violence and portrays women as inferior to men and as sex objects in 75% of his songs? Hey man, he's an artist! And what about Martin and Taylor? You've got your minimum advertised price and a company who doesn't want their dealers to "compete" with each other in America. Am I missing something here?
Hate to burst the bubble, but it's a cruel world out there guys. Gibson is in a very competitive business and fights for its turf every day. And for decades they've enjoyed a leading position in the electric guitar, acoustic guitar, and mandolin markets. You don't get that far and stay there by ignoring the business environment you operate in. So what is Gibson guilty of? They don't live up to some people's definition of "fair play?" They tried to protect their trademark in a court of law? Beam me up Scotty...this place is crazy... |
marymary
Member
|
posted 03-20-2004 05:28 AM
wmmichael,business legal does not mean business smart. but in a day and age when we are faced with enron, worldcomm, adelphia and other scandals, i, for one, no longer have any faith in "management's vision". i always thought senior management was "smarter than the average bear". as i reached a pinnacle in my corporate career i experienced first hand how greed and a soul-sucking thirst for power made a seemingly intelligent and rational individual turn into such a "git". so, unless a person shows a tremendous amount of leadership skills, whether he/she is running AT&T or a musical instrument company, it's hard for me to believe in what they are doing. my personal take on this is that for the $$$ they will make from the lawsuit are going to cost them 2 to 3 times that in sales to individuals who are "turned off" by their corporate persona. in this day and age corporate image as well as customer service are the key to survival. off the soapbox now. |
marymary
Member
|
posted 03-20-2004 05:29 AM
wmmichael,business legal does not mean business smart. but in a day and age when we are faced with enron, worldcomm, adelphia and other scandals, i, for one, no longer have any faith in "management's vision". i always thought senior management was "smarter than the average bear". as i reached a pinnacle in my corporate career i experienced first hand how greed and a soul-sucking thirst for power made a seemingly intelligent and rational individual turn into such a "git". so, unless a person shows a tremendous amount of leadership skills, whether he/she is running AT&T or a musical instrument company, it's hard for me to believe in what they are doing. my personal take on this is that for the $$$ they will make from the lawsuit are going to cost them 2 to 3 times that in sales to individuals who are "turned off" by their corporate persona. in this day and age corporate image as well as customer service are the key to survival. off the soapbox now. |
