posted 03-20-2004 05:46 AM            

I don't think Enron's behavior compares even remotely with Gibson's. Apples and oranges. Enron's management stole money from investors while Gibson is trying to protect it's assets in the marketplace. One management team has committed a criminal act and the other is seeking relief in the courts.

posted 03-20-2004 06:14 AM            

I remember in the early days of PRS, Smith would say in interviews that he combined Gibson guitars with a longer scale,......

posted 03-20-2004 06:28 AM            

If a company is a stock company, with the owners being the general public (and teacher pension funds, etc.), the CEO MUST make every reasonable effort to protect company assets, or he could be forced to personally reimburse the stock holders for the loss of that property.

If the CEO of Coca Cola finds out that someone in communist China was selling a brown, fizzy, sweet drink named "Coca Cola", he would have a duty to attempt to stop that from happening. If he failed to make a reasonable effort to fight the theft, he could be required to repay his stockholders the amount of the lost profits.

So, what should a CEO due in a "borderline" situation where it is unclear whether or not atrademark has been infringed? The smart thing is to let a Court decide. If the Court says that the trademark was infringed upon, his stockholders property has been protected.

If the Court rules that the trademark was NOT infringed upon, his stockholders might be upset with the Court, but they will not be able to hold their CEO liable for failing to protect their property.

Bottom line: The folks at Gibson had a duty to protect company property. If it is unclear whether or not something IS company property, a Court is the right place to go for clarification.

But, we live in an era where most of the music stored on personal computers on college campuses was stolen, without the artists being paid a penny. Not surprising that some people today seem inclined to support the thieves.

posted 03-20-2004 08:55 AM            

again you are a confused soul.....

i am an attorney and work as a law clerk for a federal judge. he has ruled countless times that a certain trademark is INVALID!....this means the trademark dissolves..........

when gibson's trademark is challenged, it will probably be ruled invalid as well.

it is easy to get a trademark or a copyright if you know what you are doing. it is much harder to make them stand up in appeals courts.

posted 03-20-2004 09:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sweet Tyrone:
but I hope Gibson's trademark doesn't hold up as they ripped others for the design.

---

This is my position exactly. Gibson did not invent this design out of a whole cloth. They built on what others had done before, and they refined it, and came up with a winner. Which is exactly what PRS is doing. I really hope Gibson loses this thing, not because I hate Gibson and love PRS, but because I think it is bad for the future of music.

posted 03-20-2004 09:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmic Wonder:

Will Line 6 be next in the courts? Their Varic certainly copies the unmistakable sound of other famous guitars. How about all the modelling amps? Jazzboxes?
Mike

---

This brings up a VERY interesting point...I mean, if Harley Davidson can do it...

posted 03-20-2004 10:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by celticman:
WmMichael,

again you are a confused soul.....

i am an attorney and work as a law clerk for a federal judge.

just because gibson has such a trademark does make it legal for them to sue prs. however, when the trademark is ruled invalid, prs will come out on top!

---

Well celticman esq., I guess I stand in my confusion with Gibson management and their attorneys. You're right and they're wrong...?

Please... American companies are faced with this dilemna all the time. Some take action and sue and some don't. I have no doubt but that the halls of justice are full of law clerks sitting around second guessing the corporations.

In any event, I haven't studied the case as much as you have but even if it's just a summary judgement victory, it doesn't look like Gibson is doing to bad so far:

"Paul Reed Smith advanced multiple arguments as to why its guitar design did not violate Gibson's registered trademark shape. None of the arguments succeeded in convincing Federal District Court Judge William J. Haynes. In a 57-page decision Judge Haynes ruled "that PRS [Paul Reed Smith] was imitating the Les Paul" and gave the parties ninety days "to complete any discovery on damages or disgorgement of PRS's profits on the sales of its offending singlecut guitar.""

posted 03-20-2004 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleBrother:
I thought you were just being sarcastic.

---

posted 03-20-2004 02:42 PM               

PRS makes a fine product. Not superior to ours, but still very nice. There is plenty of room for them in the market and the products they produce. One of the things I liked about PRS was they chose to build a unique product that was easily identified as theirs. One day they wake up and decide to cross a line. That issue works its way into the courts for resolution. THat is the way our system is supposed to work. In this case PRS was found out of line. THat does not make them bad people. It also does not make Gibson bad and it will not diminish our market.

If PRS was the big guy on the block and Gibson was the smaller builder, the tables would be turned. Those with little knowledge of the industry or law would act like most on this forum. The unfortunate thing about internet forums is any jackass can be an instant expert at something they know little about.

It is fine to have strong opinions about ones product choice. It is fine to think the instrument you spent your hard earned money on or have dreamed of for some time is somehow superior to everything else. That does not make your opinion true or factual. Having an opinion and stating your preference is fine. But please limit that expression to the preference. To state the people making Gibson are somehow flawed for making Gibson products is petty and makes your opinions about everything else useless and not worth hearing.

Gibson has not attacked you and they have not attacked anyone on this forum. They have provided a bevy of quality instruments for the public for 110 years. Pretty good record. The product they build today is the best in the history of Gibson. Henry J has dedicated himself to building the finest quality instruments on the planet. The men and women at Gibson work very hard to make that come true. The management is quite focused and on top of the issues relevant to their market and product.

posted 03-20-2004 04:03 PM            

To state that there is "not another builder on the planet" turning out guitars of "better or higher quality" is flat out delusional. To put it simply, your business association with Gibson has blinded you to the reality of todays guitar market. Taylor. Martin . Collings. SCGC. Bourgeous. Gibson is competing (and poorly at that) with builders who offer higher quality products at prices that actually bear some relationsip to the quality of product offered.

By choosing to ignore the poor reviews of Gibson products that (as you point out) pop up on forums like this, and attacking those who point out that the Gibson emperor has no clothes you demonstrate that Gibson's apparent business philosophy of "attack rather than compete" permeates the entire corporate structure.

Gibson's trademark victory may stand, but that won't help them put better guitars in the stores.You don't like the bad reviews that Gibson gets? Build a better product. Gibson wants to compete with bulders like PRS? Drop the legal crap and start working on improving the production side of things.

posted 03-20-2004 04:14 PM            

Telling the truth is not bashing

It is universally accepted that Gibson has spotty quality and the "value" is not what it was in years past.

I understand your defense of the company and employees

I worked for years for the factory that produced the finest engineered cars in the world

I had an open check book to make the buyers happy and I spent wheel barrels full of it buying loyalty and fortifying the notion of value... I also busted trademark violators with a passion...( independents using the company logo) but we did make some serious failures...and corrcted them rather than buy up and squash competition ..

Point of fact the company is not what it was pre Norlin.....and no longer the value it once was...

You implied that most of the posters here on AG were unqualified to what? critique Gibson quality or point out the history of Henry J , or the fact that the single cutaway was not a Gibson invention...

I have not owned a Gibson for years (pre Norlin only) I do not own and will not own a PRS...not my kind of guitar... but I am tired of hearing , and I think others as well, about Gibsons litigations , sucking up and closing companies and killing competition rather than meeting it..
It's a total turn off to the mark/brand

I had little interest in them in recent history and less now...

How about bringing up the quality to the price...and chilling for a bit...stay out of court for a while and get back to the business of building ....

posted 03-20-2004 07:45 PM            

And, according to the many of posters on this thread, the homeowner is evil, the judge is a fool, and the thief is a hero.

Up is down. Right is wrong. Mine is yours. Bizarro universe.

posted 03-20-2004 08:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanhouston:
A thief breaks into your house and steals your guitar...

---

"A person is sitting on his porch, playing his guitar. You walk by and say, 'That guitar looks sort of like what I'm calling mine. You must have stolen it...'" And this version is equally bizzaro.