Another Gibson Lawsuit

[Mudcat]

Looks like we can say goodbye to the Love Rock.

 

Check this story out.

[doc taz]

Ugh. Enough already. I can understand if it were Steinberger (now owned by Gibson), or Parker guitars going to court, but I think this is too much. Gibson should be concentrating on things like this. Going after rivals in the current manner is fruitless at best, and may turn away potential new customers.

[Mudcat]

I can actually understand going after Tokai for the "Love Rock" model. I still don't understand the court ruling against PRS for the "Single-Cut" model.

 

I just saw this story in this morning's headlines and was amused by it. It's interesting that it looks like Gibson is going after dealers as well onthis lawsuit. That seems like a stretch to me. They should definitely be more concerned about the Korean Epi forgeries mentioned in the other thread.

[musicalhair]

Are you guys saying that the effort they put in to create a design shouldn't be protected? That every manufacturer and capitalize on Gibson's good fortune by cranking out guitars that look like Gibsons so dopey kids can get a guitar just like Zakk's or who'evers. Gibson losses money when someone wants a les paul but don't want to save up for the real thing. AT best they should pay a licensing fee that would allow someone to make a guitar of similar designs.

 

Anyway, I don't see the big deal. Why should "Crap-o-da-week" guitar company be allowed to make a guitar that looks exactly like a good guitar.

[Dennyf]

Originally posted by musicalhair:

Are you guys saying that the effort they put in to create a design shouldn't be protected? That every manufacturer and capitalize on Gibson's good fortune by cranking out guitars that look like Gibsons so dopey kids can get a guitar just like Zakk's or who'evers. Gibson losses money when someone wants a les paul but don't want to save up for the real thing. AT best they should pay a licensing fee that would allow someone to make a guitar of similar designs.

 

Anyway, I don't see the big deal. Why should "Crap-o-da-week" guitar company be allowed to make a guitar that looks exactly like a good guitar.

Well, that depends.

 

Gibson's sole concern seems to be over the shapes of things, not over construction. If they don't feel that the quality of their instruments is enough to garner the sales they feel entitled to, then I guess I don't either, so I'm even LESS inclined to buy one of their instruments than I was before this recent lawsuit spate. If the other guitars they're concerned about were clearly inferior, Gibson wouldn't have anything to worry about. Since some of the others are NOT clearly inferior (like Tokai), then one wonders how come they cost half as much, or even less, so again, Gibson doesn't seem to have much to stand on.

 

I certainly don't think that every Agile Les Paul sold = one less Gibson Les Paul sold. I don't think every kid who got a cheap knockoff would have persuaded mom&dad to buy the real thing for 10X the price.

 

Just gives me the impression that they're desperate to preserve/enhance market share by jealously guarding superficialities rather than relying on their substance. Makes one suspect how much substance there really is.

 

But then I've thought Gibson has been an overpriced, good-quality but pretty average guitar ever since the Norlin era.

 

The licensing idea is a good one, except I suspect Gibson would be stupidly greedy about the fee.

[Werewolf by Night]

I can see them going after Tokai and others who make real "knock-offs" of specific models, down to naming them "Love Rock" so that the name screened onto the headstock looks like "Les Paul" (The capital "L", and the script-capital "R" resembles the "P").

 

But going after PRS is wrong. PRS gave a big shot in the arm to the guitar-industry right acrossed the board, and helped raise the bar again for real quality, after "Gibson" and other name-brands (granted, under different ownership) dragged it right into the friggin' mud during the '60s, '70s, and '80s!!

[Major Tom]

Interesting. Tokai has made some great LP copies thru the years in Japan. I recently became the proud owner of a 70's Japanese LP copy, an early set-neck Memphis that I believe was made in the Tokai Factory. I don't blame Gibson for going after them if they were to be selling a guitar like that in the US, as that would cut into their profits. Tokai now makes a Korean Love Rock, I see them on ebay for sale...I'm guessing that they are about the level of the other top Korean guitar products out there today - pretty dern good for the $$.

 

Didn't I read once that the Japanese have a much different view on the whole concept of patents? As I remember, in their culture, an invention is pretty much considered to be the intellectual property of everyone to use for whatever, as opposed to the inventor having exclusive rights. Something like that. Anyone?

[Werewolf by Night]

Invention- like using a solidbody made of mahogany and maple for the first time, and proprietory electronics and hardware back in '52 through '57- is one thing.

 

So is making a warm, fat, sustainful sounding solidbody guitar with mahogany and maple, and "feel" and hardware and electronics that reflect "vintage" sensibilities, even "vintage" aesthetics.

 

Making an instrument that mimics the appearance and even logo is quite another!

 

The Love Rocks, Super Grades, etc. definitely rip-off Gibson. If they could have gotten away with it, they probably would have used the "Les Paul" name on them, too.

 

Now, some, if not all, of these got their start when an authentic, truer-to-the-original "reissue" was not realistically available; it was almost a loving tribute to "the good old Les Paul"! (I've read that there were actually some Strat knock-offs that had "just like the good old Strat" right on the headstock!) However, that has changed a lot over the decades here; Gibson's name means a lot more than it had begun to, and plenty of quality guitars that are similar in sound and feel but do not totally copy (hmmnn, PRS, anyone?) are on the market. To continue to make and sell dead knock-offs is a rip-off.

 

As illustration:

 

Tokai

 

http://members.cox.net/othergai/TokaiLS1504.jpg

 

Burny (Note how the "r" references the "dot" of the "i" on Gibson LP logos)

 

http://members.cox.net/othergai/BurnyLPTeaBurst4.jpg

 

Now, what's wrong with this picture?

 

http://members.cox.net/othergai/BurnyLesPaul4.jpg

 

Could they have made good quality, LP-ish guitars that had more original looking headstocks, logos, tuners, etc. etc. etc.? Yuhp!

 

Could they have even improved upon the design, and/or taken it into a different direction, with a few different twists of their own? Mmmnn... could-be!!

[Major Tom]

Oh yeah, its definitely a rip-off of a successful product. Those in the pics were only officially marketed in Japan I think.

 

I want one of those "Luper Pracle's"

 

I wasn't trying to make an editorial comment about what is right or wrong in the way of copying or "borrowing" designs or concepts. Just curious about the mentality in that part of the world that spawns unabashed copies that are sold for profit. When I was in the coin-operated game industry back in the 80's, there were lots of knock-off versions available of video game PC boards from Taiwan and Japan... I have had the impression since then that it is more of the "norm" in that part of the world.

[Mudcat]

Originally posted by Caevan O'Shite:

I can see them going after Tokai and others who make real "knock-offs" of specific models, down to naming them "Love Rock" so that the name screened onto the headstock looks like "Les Paul" (The capital "L", and the script-capital "R" resembles the "P").

 

But going after PRS is wrong. PRS gave a big shot in the arm to the guitar-industry right acrossed the board, and helped raise the bar again for real quality, after "Gibson" and other name-brands (granted, under different ownership) dragged it right into the friggin' mud during the '60s, '70s, and '80s!!

My thoughts exactly. Especially on the PRS Single Cut. This guitar CANNOT be mistaken for a Les Paul. The Love Rock, on the other hand, is just a knock-off (even if it may be higher quality than the original).

[Guitarzan]

an interesting note is that Mr. Billy Gibbons has a Love Rock!!!! that should say something about the quality. i definately agree that the PRS single cut is unjustly being targeted by gibson. they just don't look alike. as for knock offs, that is different. but part of the reason gibsons are so expensive is the added cost of fighting these battles. those lawyers don't come cheap. this whole thing is touchy, even if Gibson was an evil company run by assholes, it wouldn't mean they do not get to protect their investment. anyone can copy a PAF humbucker now but nobody is allowed to manufacture a guitar that resembles the design of a les paul? ripoffs should be prosecuted but i don't believe gibson should be able to stop single cutaway set neck humbucker equipped axes , providing the maker maintains thier own identity.

PRS has kept its singlecut a PRS, Yamaha has done the same with its Weddingtons and now the AES series. in some ways these makers have added to the guitar. hell even Godin has single cutaway guitars that are no way a ripoff.

[gtrmac]

I think Gibson is picking on PRS (sorry, bad pun!) because they (PRS) made a lot of money with designs that are clearly based on Les Pauls. Even the early double cutaway PRS models seem to be based on the double cutaway Les Pauls. My guess is that the double cuts are not as easily defended in a court though.

 

But I agree that Gibson should spend it's time and money on making sure that they are producing the best guitars that they can.

[fantasticsound]

First, I agree Gibson should be allowed to protect their trademarks.

 

Second, the PRS suit and edict from the bench was ridiculous.

 

Look at new cars. The Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, and many others all look pretty much the same. Form following function, to a great extent. Anyone who is not a new car enthusiast is not going to instantly recognize whether the car coming down the road is a Nissan, Toyota, or other.

 

But that seems to be the court's take on the single-cut issue. The judge, rather than base his decision on the information a guitarist would have about various manufacturers instead substituted his own inability to immediately recognize the considerable differences between the PRS and an LP.

 

No one but a total newbie would walk into a music store and mistake a PRS single-cut for a Les Paul. This completely obiterates the main concern he had in his decision.

 

The 4 knob design? I mean, give me a freakin' break! Again, to relate this to cars, you may as well keep every manufactutrer from putting 4 lights across the front rather than 2 with highbeams in the same bulb because Pontiac was so associated with the 4 across design. And someone is associated with the 2 across design, so every other car manufacturer should have to use 6, or 8 across. Hey! Someone could get smart and make 3 across to save them from having to add more lights!

 

4 knobs in a diamond is simple form following function. It shouldn't apply as a trademark. Maybe as a patent, in which case it has long since expired.

 

As for the Love Rock, etc. That, to me, appears to be clear trademark infringement. They've incorporated every element from the headstock shape to immitating the lettering on a Les Paul. Despite the name difference, that should be stopped.

 

Oh, and Billy Gibbons owning a Love Rock doesn't necessarily say much about them. Is there an electric guitar Billy Gibbons doesn't own?

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Dennyf:

If the other guitars they're concerned about were clearly inferior, Gibson wouldn't have anything to worry about. Since some of the others are NOT clearly inferior (like Tokai), then one wonders how come they cost half as much, or even less, so again, Gibson doesn't seem to have much to stand on.

 

I certainly don't think that every Agile Les Paul sold = one less Gibson Les Paul sold. I don't think every kid who got a cheap knockoff would have persuaded mom&dad to buy the real thing for 10X the price.

 

Just gives me the impression that they're desperate to preserve/enhance market share by jealously guarding superficialities rather than relying on their substance. Makes one suspect how much substance there really is.

It looks like all Gibson has to hold on to is their name and labels.

 

It's all bout logo's and image...and not much about quality and performance vs. price.

 

They are protecting their future potential to sell outrageously priced guitars that focus mostly on the name/label and not on the actual quality.

 

Fender makes some nice guitars that use their classic names/labelswithout charging ridiculous prices like Gibson does.

[tiger85]

Gibson, with the faded LP, SG, and LP Studio; Fender with its Highway 1 Strats and Teles; G&L with its Tribute models, PRS with its SEs, Taylor with its Big Babys, are all aiming for a specific market: first time guitar players who want brand name quality. But they also know there's a market for guitarists who want newer, better guitars at an affordable price, or want to add to their personal inventory of instruments. The name of the game is competition. If Gibson offers faded LPs and SGs for less money it wants to protect these investments. As for the single cut, well its still competition!

[Guitarzan]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

First, I agree Gibson should be allowed to protect their trademarks.

 

Second, the PRS suit and edict from the bench was ridiculous.

 

Look at new cars. The Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, and many others all look pretty much the same. Form following function, to a great extent. Anyone who is not a new car enthusiast is not going to instantly recognize whether the car coming down the road is a Nissan, Toyota, or other.

 

But that seems to be the court's take on the single-cut issue. The judge, rather than base his decision on the information a guitarist would have about various manufacturers instead substituted his own inability to immediately recognize the considerable differences between the PRS and an LP.

 

No one but a total newbie would walk into a music store and mistake a PRS single-cut for a Les Paul. This completely obiterates the main concern he had in his decision.

 

The 4 knob design? I mean, give me a freakin' break! Again, to relate this to cars, you may as well keep every manufactutrer from putting 4 lights across the front rather than 2 with highbeams in the same bulb because Pontiac was so associated with the 4 across design. And someone is associated with the 2 across design, so every other car manufacturer should have to use 6, or 8 across. Hey! Someone could get smart and make 3 across to save them from having to add more lights!

 

4 knobs in a diamond is simple form following function. It shouldn't apply as a trademark. Maybe as a patent, in which case it has long since expired.

 

As for the Love Rock, etc. That, to me, appears to be clear trademark infringement. They've incorporated every element from the headstock shape to immitating the lettering on a Les Paul. Despite the name difference, that should be stopped.

 

Oh, and Billy Gibbons owning a Love Rock doesn't necessarily say much about them. Is there an electric guitar Billy Gibbons doesn't own?

are you reading my mind? this is exactly what i was going to write. thanks Neil.

 

oh the bit about Billy Gibbons was a point i made because i have seen his road guitars in a stage photo. in amongst several pricy Les Pauls was his Love Rock. he may own alot but he wouldn't use it unless it was good.

this last statement has nothing to do with the subject, but i think its neat.

 

i would have suggested that a judge who played guitar make the decision.

[fantasticsound]

I was laughing, Guitarzan.. really! Billy may be a guitar whore, but he's a conisseur. He'll play a lot of guitars, but as you pointed out, he's out for something special with each axe. Not a snob. But he won't take one just because it's there.

[Guitarzan]

you wouldn't believe how close you were to actually writing my thoughts down. i was up late last night and was too tired to finish what i was writing so i quit.

if i had Mr Gibbons money i would be a gear whore too!!!!

he has so many, if i took just one would he notice?

[fantasticsound]

Depends which one you took!

 

I read a column in some magazine about Billy inviting the columnist to meet him in Russia or some other Eastern European country because he had a line on a certain interesting guitar.

 

The columnist agreed to fly there, of course!

[Werewolf by Night]

I'll take the Reverend Willy G.'s alleged Gibson "Moderne", thank-you!

 

That is... unless "Pearly Gates" is up for grabs!

[Guitarzan]

actually that would be a good time to raid his house!!! yeah i read that too.

[Werewolf by Night]

Hey- fan' 'n' 'zan- couldja throw me a link or a line on this Billy Gibbons and said writer globetrottin' for guits? Sounds interesting...

[Guitarzan]

its in an older issue of guitarplayer i believe, but it could have been guitarworld. i will check.

[Guitarzan]

found it Caevan!!!! it was guitarworld. check it out.

http://www.guitarworld.com/artistindex/9705.gibbons.html

[revorhythm]

i think some of you are forgettin gibson owns epiphone, so epi can make les paul copies. but you know i hear so many people complain bout gibson, that they are too expensive, yet some are syin that gibson should make higher quality guitars so people will buy gibson. then their guitars will just go up in price. i think gibson has every right to do what they are doin. if someone wants to make an lp copy get approval from gibson. dont just go behind theres and les pauls backs

[Dave da Dude]

The auto industry was creamed in the 60's and 70's; the steel industry in the 80's (?).

 

The jobs are leaving the US every day. IMHO, we need to protect American Industry the same way that other countries protect their industries.

 

In Japan, the companies are HEAVILY subsidised by the government.

 

My two cents.

 

Dave

[Guitarzan]

competition is healthy, if the japanese didn't do what they did in the auto and guitar industry we would all be playing some sad pieces of gear and driving some damn crappy autos.

corporate greed is part of the problem, there are tons of northamerican companies who get cheap labour to build products for our market and the only benefit to northamerica is more money for shareholders, not actual jobs.

in the case of epiphone, contracted guitars give some musicians the oportunity to own a decent guitar that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

but on the other hand when you pay big bucks for an item that is sold under a Brand (like Nike) that is stupidly marked up no one but the big guys win.

look at Levi Straus, no longer made in north america. for what they were charging i would have guessed they didn't need to move. BUT they know what kind of profit margin other brands are getting so they join the club.

 

Godin is employing both Canadians and Americans, giving us great guitars made with quality. why the hell can't the other makers do that without farming abroad? two words..Profit margins.

the real villain is greed.

MJ Guitars, Macinturf and many other makers build great guitars with far more hand work. its funny how these are usually cheaper than mass produced PRS's and Gibsons.

i wouldn't say the enemy is foreign products but rather or own need for more profit than yesterday.

As more people get employment in far off countries , then they will have the need to buy the products as well. i would bet there are tons of koreans and japanese who would love to have a strat or les paul.

excuse my rambling, there are so many angles to this. but i do agree that its time to crack down on illegal copies.

[ActorJ]

About the PRS singlecut:

The guitar is obviously inspired by the Les Paul. No question. The knobs are in the same place, the overall shape is the same. It's built of the same combination of materials. But honestly there are only so many shapes you can make a guitar into, so what's the big deal? The carved top, and different headstock, are surely different enough that it can't be considered a copy. Frankly I don't think it's an especially attractive guitar anyway, I think Yamamha did a better job with their singlecuts.

[Guitarzan]

[Bbach1]

Well my humble opinion such as it is, tells me that there are some things that just shouldn't be able to be patented. Logos and the way something works electronically or physically should be patentable. But shapes? How can you patent a shape? Can someone build a house and patent the shape? What happens if a tire manufacturer patents the round shape? I think each guitar company should use distinctive logos and serial numbers to identify their product and then rely on quality, service, and sound to attract buyers. I know that doesn't help buyers who don't do their homework, but it is just my feeling about patents. Another question is this: should you be allowed to patent a design that has been used by other for years previous to the patent? I suppose that the legalities of it all will be worked out in court, but I had to throw in my two Deutchmarks. Gutten auben.