posted 03-14-2004 06:32 AM               

Almost all of what I have read supports the losing side. And if Gibson does finally get away with this(there is still the appeal process), what does it mean for us as guitarists? Will Martin try to "trademark" the ubiquitous "X" bracing pattern? Should they tradmark the "dreadnought" body shape? Perhaps Fender should trademark the solid body electric guitar....

This has tremendous implications for all guitar players and luthiers.

And I'm sure that since what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Gibson will cease making all dreadnought shaped guitars, along with going to a "ladder" brace pattern in the J200...

Here's the press release....
http://news.harmony-central.com/News/2004/Gibson-PRS-Case.html

posted 03-14-2004 06:51 AM            

Here's a snippet from the article:

"Gibson Guitar claimed that the Paul Reed Smith Singlecut guitar infringed on the company's trademark which is registered for its Les Paul single cutaway guitar. Included in the claim is the fact that the Paul Reed Smith model unjustly used the Les Paul design and would cause confusion in the marketplace and damages to Gibson Guitar, the amount of which now will be determined in the next phase of the proceedings."

It seems to me that Gibson has made a correct assessment of the situation.

To my knowledge there is no trademark for the D shape, nor are there trademarks that speak to the general X-bracing pattern developed in the 1800s by Martin. Therefore, it does not seem likely that lawsuits regarding those features could be legitimately filed.

If in fact you are correct and most electric players are siding with PRS, I wonder what they're rationale is. Gibson has a legal right to their design and has spent heavily on the marketing of that design. Why should they be denied relief by the courts? Should I be able to steal your company's trademarked designs and immediately enjoy the general recognition that those designs bring?

I admit that my views are differnt from the "down with big business" view of some guitarists, but I'm sorry: Hurray for Gibson!

posted 03-14-2004 07:22 AM            

A DVD gets released in New York on Tuesday for $20, featuring a movie that American investors spent 100 million dollars filming. By Friday, copies of that DVD are being sold in communist China for about one dollar. Not a penny goes to the the folks who invested their money, blood, sweat, and tears into making the film.

In the age of downloaded "free" music from the internet, and kids "burning" thousands of "free" cd's in their dorm rooms, perhaps stealing is no longer wrong?

Well, it's a beautiful Sunday afternoon. Let's all go over to Wal-Mart for a pleasant day of shoplifting, and then we can go eat at IHOP, and then walk out the bill. Why pay for ANYTHING in this wonderful age of stealing?

posted 03-14-2004 07:45 AM               

And then of course go after Taylor, Larrivee, Guild....the list is pretty endless. Hey, I'm all for protection of your intellectual properties. It's just going to be interesting where all of this leads as the case sets a PRECEDENT for other litigation to follow.

posted 03-14-2004 08:00 AM            

VS.

I'm looking at the shape, toggle switch, pickups, and control knobs. I see the difference with the bridge but you know what they say: If it looks like it, feels like, and smells like it, don't step in it!

And no, I do not believe Martin could trademark the D design. They missed the boat about 100 year ago.

PRS knew EXACTLY what they were doing and they didn't think they'd get nailed. Well, they did. Good.

posted 03-14-2004 08:01 AM            

Within the past 5 years the US patent office granted a patent to a Cajun Accordion builder for a design that included the basic 10 button diatonic accordion oriignally designed and patented by Damien over 150 years ago and built by the millions since the inception

I called the patent office on this... they said that there was no documentation in US records of a patent on a 10 button diatonic accordion , so awarded it...

The "cajun" is enforcing some specifics of his patent but to date has not forced the issue of the basic design by Damien..

My guess is that MArtin Corp is more secure than Gibson and would not pursue the dred
etc...

Gibson lives mostly as a result of a prior reputation and if put to the test of quality vs price (only) in the current market would
not do so well
Their pursuit of legal matters is becoming legendary...seemingly can't defend the product so protect the image

So is this infringement on any single cut or on an absolute and exact copy of the profile???

jeff

PS so is Gibson going to go after CFMIV for stealing the design for the CEO4

posted 03-14-2004 08:18 AM               

Henry J. is a real smart feller...he knew enough when he took over Gibson(that is a never ending story in itself, ie, the number of owners that company has had) to get that trademark done. I sincerely hope that Chris Martin sees the handwriting on the wall and trademarks his guitars. Specifically the D and 12 fret D designs.

And then goes after Gibson...wouldn't that be FUN....nothing like a little controversy to keep the blood flowing.

posted 03-14-2004 08:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Bushouse:
Of course, Gibson was first with the 14-fret D, so maybe it's not worth pursuing for Martin...

---

Of course, I could be wrong...

The Gibson "J" is a VERY close copy, regarding the body shape, of the original Martin D...which is of course a 12 fret design. However, Gibson didn't start making the "D" style until the early 60's with the introduction of the Hummingbird and Dove models(please correct me if I'm wrong here...but all of the earlier Gibsons in that style were "J" models by designation).

My point in all of this: There are just too many similarities in ALL of these designs to warrant a lawsuit, IMHO. Even Fender, who vigorously defends their "trademark" Strat peghead is derived from a Paul Bigsby guitar, which is a take on the original Martin/Stouffer peghead, that was derived by turning a violin peghead cross section sideways.

The guitar business is pretty much evolutionary, and any kind of minor differences in body shapes are just that. Certainly nothing to raise a lawsuit about.

posted 03-14-2004 10:54 AM            

even though the US patent office has granted that patent on the basic accordian due to no evidence that such a patent exists, it can still be successfully challenged after grant. you are correct that this is probably why they are not attacking/defending that aspect of their patent.

posted 03-14-2004 03:53 PM            

but just pointing out the stupidity of the government agencies with respect to originality etc assigning rights etc...

To challenge a patent you must submit all the documentation to the review/challenge board..and they will determine if there is sufficient evendence that they screwed up and will do the challenge for free... if not you must send a check for $2355 to have them rsearch and review your contest...then they will make a determination talk about a cloudy path....