fjzingo Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Hi all, Seems like the maker of the new mark 7 Mr Brandstetter is suing some of the major companies keyboard like Clavia on $1,000,000.00, if I understand the Dockets correctly http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-cacdce/case_no-2:2008cv05886/case_id-425201/ /Fred /Fred Cantaloop Soulfetch Soulbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mate stubb Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Tool. Get this thru your Monster-Cable-Business-Model-Loving thick skull: You will NOT make your company successful by pretending there is no Rhodes history before you, and by sueing everybody who acknowledges that fact, and who helped to keep the sound of the instrument alive in musicians' minds in the first place. Moe --- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonysounds Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It's so much easier to file a lawsuit than to get a product in the stores....they've been trying for 4, 5, 7 years now? Why doesn't Keyboard cover THIS story instead of the "making of a unicorn" angle? This would be more intresting reading. Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timwat Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 +1. Do a complete, objective story on Brandstetter, how he secured the trademark rights from Mrs. Rhodes (I don't know the story and have only read vague asides and rumours), the activity against fenderrhodes.com, how much money he's trying to secure from these legal actions, and how much working capital that would actually net him after the smoke clears and the lawyers are all paid. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 This lawsuit doesn't make sense. There are more companies than the half dozen he's suing that use the Rhodes name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogmonkey Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It's likely that his lawyer told him he had to sue for trademark infringement, or he would lose that trademark. Isn't that the way it works? If you don't defend it, and it becomes part of common speech, you lose it. Kleenex, jello, google, photoshop, bandaid. Yeah, if Rhodes doesnt sue, they will lose the trademark. Hopefully it's just for show and they will settle peacefully and there will be no harm to the other instrument makers. "Vague asides and rumours" is what I've read, too, and I would like to hear the real story. Because I can't believe that anyone would go into business producing an instrument like that, who was primarily motivated by greed, money, or malice. I mean surely it is a love of the instrument and a search for beauty that motivates such an endeavor. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonysounds Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 If companies using that trademark acknowledge that trademark (like naming a program "Stage Rhodes Mark IV ", they're not infringing. What exactly is the infringement (trademark or otherwise) that is the root of this "litigation"? Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogmonkey Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Probably just what you say: I don't see any "TM" on any of my "rhodes" patches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timwat Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 This lawsuit doesn't make sense. There are more companies than the half dozen he's suing that use the Rhodes name. Well, the first rule of litigation is follow the money. What makes no sense would be to litigate against a defendant with shallow pockets. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timwat Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I mean surely it is a love of the instrument and a search for beauty that motivates such an endeavor. Right? While that level of optimism is endearing, the smoke in the air has a distinctly more acrid aroma. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogmonkey Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Hmmm... actually the word "Rhodes" doesn't appear in the Electro 3 manual. I still think it's something along those lines, though, and that money is not the motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITGITC Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 http://www.priestsincrisis.com/graphics/elephant.jpg Oh my. I THOUGHT I spied an elephant in the room... Peaking out around the draperies. "Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Muscara Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Kleenex, jello, google, photoshop, bandaid. While each of those might be considered part of common speech now, nobody else uses them for their product names or descriptions. The trademarks still hold. You can add vaseline and pampers to the list. I don't agree with the suit at all. In fact, look at Steinway for example. I believe they are letting/not fighting companies sample their pianos (Ivory, etc.) and even say they are Steinway samples in some form or another, but not putting anything like "Virtual Steinway" on the box as the name of the product*. By similar logic, a company should be able to call their Rhodes product "Tine-y Piano" or whatever, say somewhere that it's a Rhodes sample, and be safe. Except for the company/owner being a dick. Are they in dickipedia.org? *Garritan is obviously an exception, being allowed to call their product Garritan Steinway as an authorized product. "I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck "The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangefunk Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 What's the betting this thread will be deleted sometime today? I've never seen a single post on the Mk 7 at the fender rhodes forum... gotta be a reason for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyMary Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Most companies avoid using the word 'Rhodes'. they call it 'electric piano', 'tines', one of my synths has a patch called 'Rodes'. does Nord use the word? Stage: MOX6, V-machine, and Roland AX7 Rolls PM351 for IEMs. Home/recording: Roland FP4, a few guitars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timwat Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Perhaps too cynical for my own good, but at this early and uninformed stage, I'm guessing it's a deliberate, unemotional strategy to secure working capital. It's never easy to produce, penetrate and position a new product into any market, and in this economy getting traction for a $5K, single-timbre, weighty beast (albeit one that plays and sounds great) requires even more. The first question that ran through my head was, "Of all the companies that might have been sued, why these?" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 This lawsuit doesn't make sense. There are more companies than the half dozen he's suing that use the Rhodes name. Well, the first rule of litigation is follow the money. What makes no sense would be to litigate against a defendant with shallow pockets. Like Generalmusic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timwat Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 What's the betting this thread will be deleted sometime today? I've never seen a single post on the Mk 7 at the fender rhodes forum... gotta be a reason for it... Hey...what is that convoy of black Suburbans streaming into my driveway....all those guys getting out have dark glasses and earpieces...wait a sec... .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABECK Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Tool. Get this thru your Monster-Cable-Business-Model-Loving thick skull: You will NOT make your company successful by pretending there is no Rhodes history before you, and by sueing everybody who acknowledges that fact, and who helped to keep the sound of the instrument alive in musicians' minds in the first place. Next thing you know, they'll try suing Greece for the island of Rhodes, Rhodes College, The Rhodes Scolarship recipients, Rhodes Bread, and the estate of Cecil John Rhodes. At least that's what Monster would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 The first question that ran through my head was, "Of all the companies that might have been sued, why these?" Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanker. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Ahhh, more demonstration why they'll never get my business. I don't care how it sounds, how it plays, if it's better than sex, whatever. I'll never buy one of his products. A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timwat Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 This lawsuit doesn't make sense. There are more companies than the half dozen he's suing that use the Rhodes name. Well, the first rule of litigation is follow the money. What makes no sense would be to litigate against a defendant with shallow pockets. Like Generalmusic. That's the one that throws me too. I'm just not smart enough to figure that one out. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burningbusch Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 From Apple's Logic Studio brochure: "The EVP88 authentically reproduces the sweet, legendary sounds of Fender Rhodes, Wurlitzer, and Hohner electric pianos in every detail, resulting in a software instrument that sounds authentic and responds to every subtle playing nuance." From Digidesign's Marketing Info for Velvet: "Realistic emulations of four legendary electric pianos: The Fender Rhodes Suitcase, Fender Rhodes MK I and MK II Stage Pianos, and the Wurlitzer A200* * Velvet is not connected with, or approved or endorsed by, the owners of the Fender Rhodes and Wurlitzer trademarks. These names are used solely to identify the electric pianos emulated by the Velvet plug-in." Digidesign (Avid) is being sued; Apple is not. Busch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogmonkey Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Kleenex, jello, google, photoshop, bandaid. While each of those might be considered part of common speech now, nobody else uses them for their product names or descriptions. The trademarks still hold. You can add vaseline and pampers to the list. I don't agree with the suit at all. In fact, look at Steinway for example. I believe they are letting/not fighting companies sample their pianos (Ivory, etc.) and even say they are Steinway samples in some form or another, but not putting anything like "Virtual Steinway" on the box as the name of the product*. By similar logic, a company should be able to call their Rhodes product "Tine-y Piano" or whatever, say somewhere that it's a Rhodes sample, and be safe. Except for the company/owner being a dick. Are they in dickipedia.org? *Garritan is obviously an exception, being allowed to call their product Garritan Steinway as an authorized product. The trademarks do NOT still hold. They are significantly weakened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark All those companies have had legal fights about their trademarks. I don't agree with the lawsuit, either, but it isn't the result of malice or greed on the part of the Rhodes people. It is a result of the nasty legal climate of the commercial world. A company has to *appear* to be defending their trademark, or they will lose some of their legal rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanker. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 They've already sued/threatened most of the other folks who've used the Rhodes name. Witness the Scarbee C.E.P. that used to the RSP73 and referenced the Rhodes name. This is just a continuation of that. I agree that Keyboard is really doing itself and its readers a disservice by not covering the whole story. Puff pieces for Rhodes is not journalism A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I agree that Keyboard is really doing itself and its readers a disservice by not covering the whole story. Puff pieces for Rhodes is not journalism Journalism. New York Times? Yes. Keyboard? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanker. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Kleenex, jello, google, photoshop, bandaid. While each of those might be considered part of common speech now, nobody else uses them for their product names or descriptions. The trademarks still hold. You can add vaseline and pampers to the list. I don't agree with the suit at all. In fact, look at Steinway for example. I believe they are letting/not fighting companies sample their pianos (Ivory, etc.) and even say they are Steinway samples in some form or another, but not putting anything like "Virtual Steinway" on the box as the name of the product*. By similar logic, a company should be able to call their Rhodes product "Tine-y Piano" or whatever, say somewhere that it's a Rhodes sample, and be safe. Except for the company/owner being a dick. Are they in dickipedia.org? *Garritan is obviously an exception, being allowed to call their product Garritan Steinway as an authorized product. The trademarks do NOT still hold. They are significantly weakened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark All those companies have had legal fights about their trademarks. I don't agree with the lawsuit, either, but it isn't the result of malice or greed on the part of the Rhodes people. It is a result of the nasty legal climate of the commercial world. A company has to *appear* to be defending their trademark, or they will lose some of their legal rights. At the same time, there are other ways to approach this. For example, the Nord C1. When Clavia announced it at a trade show (NAMM?), it was called the C3. The guys from Hammond heard that Clavia was introducing a new Hammond emulator and went by to take a look. Their reaction basically was that Clavia did a great job, but that C3 was still a trademark of Hammond's, and unfortunately Clavia was going to need to change the name. Clavia said oh? No problem, and changed the name to the C1. All this went down basically at the booth from what we were told, businessmen doing business. A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanker. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I agree that Keyboard is really doing itself and its readers a disservice by not covering the whole story. Puff pieces for Rhodes is not journalism Journalism. New York Times? Yes. Keyboard? No. It's an industry mag, it should cover the industry completely, unbiased, openly. A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timwat Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I agree that Keyboard is really doing itself and its readers a disservice by not covering the whole story. Puff pieces for Rhodes is not journalism Journalism. New York Times? Yes. Keyboard? No. It's an industry mag, it should cover the industry completely, unbiased, openly. +1. Of course, that means either 1) a prior-approved gloss censored by Brandstetter or 2) NewBay Media gets to multiply last year's budget line for legal fees by an order of magnitude. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana. Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I agree that Keyboard is really doing itself and its readers a disservice by not covering the whole story. Puff pieces for Rhodes is not journalism Journalism. New York Times? Yes. Keyboard? No. It's an industry mag, it should cover the industry completely, unbiased, openly. I agree, but it ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.