Gibson v. the whole damn guitar comunity (but starting with PRS)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Light
  • Start date Start date
Light

Light

New member
So I was suppressed that no one had brought this up yet, but Gibson is seeing Paul Reed Smith over trademark infringement. They are saying that the PRS single cut guitars are in violation of Gibson's trademark on the Les Paul. A judge has ruled in Gibson's favor in PRS's motion for a summary judgment to throw out the case. It appears this was the only point of contention, as they are apparently already going to the sixth circuit court of appeals. There is a long discussion about this on the Acoustic Guitar magazine website, in the Gear forum. I am sure there are similar discussions on other electric guitar discussion boards.

I do not plan to give any opinions on this issue, as I am a (parts) dealer and warranty center for Gibson, so my views could be seen biased, or they could be (potentially) damaging to my business (don't bite the hand that feeds you, and all that). I just wanted to hear some feedback on an issue which seems very much on topic, and of current interest. There are, I believe, some guitar builders out there who are watching this case very nervously.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Gibson priced themselves out of the market a long time ago. If their not carefull, they'll end up like the RIAA of the guitar world.
 
Gibson's case would seem to be moot since everybody and their brother has been using the Les Paul shape for eons.

At what point is it too late for Gibson to cry foul?

I agree Track Rat. Gibson (and Fender) prices have been ridiculous for years, and the number of Les Paul, Strat, and Tele models they offer never seems to end.
 
I have to agree with Phyl, the LP shape has been copied for years. Also, Gibson even has some variation in the shape, especially the thickness of the body.

In reality, isn't the shape of the LP just a copy of a classical guitar scaled down for solid body, with a cutaway to get to the higher frets? That form has been used for ages.

As far as pricing themselves out of the market, Gibson is way cheaper than PRS when you compare quality to quality. I have two LPs and two PRSs, all are quality instruments and the PRSs were significantly more than the Gibsons. Besides, Gibson has had a budget line in Epiphone for years. From what I've heard Gibson's biggest problem has been in the way that they treat the small dealers. Several I know have told me that PRS is a lot easier to work with.
 
Nervous?

Could it be that although the shape has been copied for years Gibson knows PRS has perfected if not exceeded the quality of the Les Paul. This is not my opinion I am just putting it out there. IMO the PRS singlecuts do not look that much like a Les Paul at all. The bodies are much more sculpted and there is no pickgaurd. I can think of a dozen guitars that look more like a Les Paul than the PRS...
 
This is the kind of thing that makes me want to puke. Anyone who is a guitar player/lover would NEVER see a single cut PRS and go 'Wow, that looks just like a Les paul'. The instruments sound completely different, look different, play completely different. Its a single cut-away. How the hell else is it going to look. Switch and tone control position? wow, Its damn nice setup so what. I don't see a gibson patent on it. PRS also has the edge shaved down on the cutaway. Obviously different headstock, inlays. The carved maple top is also cut differently.

I used to love gibsons when I was younger. Id just sit in the guitar store looking at the LP stan and custom behind the counter, afraid to ask to play it. Now I think I am going to sell it. No more 'my penis is bigger than your penis'. I think Gibson are just whiners now that another big kid is on the playground. Instead of remarketing their products, trying to make improvements, or make the Les pauls more affordable/desireable they go to the courts and pick on PRS. I think both companies way overprice their guitars. They get away with it though.

I am gonna stick With my Godin-Lg's, rickenbackers, 2nd hand fenders, and pricey taylors(but worth it).
 
gave up on gibson 23 years ago

went to a carvin, and never looked back.

since then, i've played every kind of gibson and PRS that there is, and have never played anything they make that would make me want to toss me DC-200.
 
Re: gave up on gibson 23 years ago

GONZO-X said:
went to a carvin, and never looked back.

since then, i've played every kind of gibson and PRS that there is, and have never played anything they make that would make me want to toss me DC-200.
Click to expand...



Same here...
 
Seems to me a Les Paul is a fundamental shape and sound just like a strat or tele, and it's exact likeness patented and name trademarked. Close shoudn't count. Make an exact copy like a Tokai 'Love Rock' though and you'll get into trouble.

If they allow this then Martin could lay claim to the dreadnaught.
 
This lawsuit is about $.

12 years or so ago PRS was just a small mostly hand made guitar firm in Maryland, and Gibson was king of the high end market. Since that time PRS is now the 3rd largest US maker, and competes directly with Gibson for sales.

Gibson started making the LP in 1952. However they never got around to trying to patent their design until 1987.

Both make great guitars, but Gibson has not introduced a successful new model for quite a while. PRS on the other hand is seen in the arms of many popular artists today.

While the two guitars in question are similar, they are not the same. The body shapes are similar, but not the same. The headstock, fret markers, and electronics are very different. I think few guitar players would confuse one with the other.

It seems that Gibson, unable to advance in the market via their guitar building expertise,has instead chosed to advance through lawyers.

Ed
 
I guess I'll be the lone voice in the wilderness here...

The first time I walked in the local guitar shop and saw one, the first words out of my mouth were, "Hey... it's a Les Paul Reed Smith." I think PRS is in the midst of an indentity crisis of sorts. In my mind, PRS had a very cool, unique thing going with a guitar that was the perfect fusion of the Gibson and Fender schools of thought. As they have grown, they have been gradually slipping more and more into the Gibson camp, perhaps via Ted McCarty. With the release of the single cut it seems the metamorphasis is complete.
While I agree that no guitar player of any experience would confuse the two, I also think it's impossible to look at the PRS and not conclude that it is derivative.
On the other hand, the same could be said about the Gibson Les Paul DC. Gibson obviously saw they were getting their pants beat off in that market and rushed to "develop" a guitar with a fancy top and double cuts that is every bit as derviative of the PRS and the PRS-SC is of the LP.

Now, having said all that, I must also say that I don't think Gibson has legs to stand on here. I have pegged Gibson a "has-been" company for years, and for years they have done nothing to change my impression. This lawsuit is a desperate act by a desperate company that is watching their market-share slip away, and unable to regain it with innovative products, new designs, higher quality, or fair pricing, is choosing instead to try and regain it by throwing elbows.
If they were were truly concerned about protecting the sanctity of their designs, they would be going after other companies with designs that are much more similiar. <cough>Heritage</cough>. The reason they aren't is obvious: because Gibson isn't standing in their shadows yet. PRS is what Gibson now aspires to be.

Lastly, I think that both brands are shamefully overpriced. If someone were giving me one for free and I had to choose, it would be a PRS without question. If I had to spend my own money, I'd buy two of something else.

Aaron
www.aaroncheney.com
 
Aaron Cheney said:
Lastly, I think that both brands are shamefully overpriced...
www.aaroncheney.com
Click to expand...

Agree with your comments, but am not so sure about pricing info.

I own two Gibsons and 1 PRS, all top of the line. I bought the LP and Lucille abou 22 years ago. Paid something like $1200 for each. Today the're higher, but it's been 20+ years.

I got the PRS last year and paid about $2400. Quality was very high on all three. However the PRS was more ready to play than either Gibson, and required nothing but plugging it in.

I have yet to see a US made guitar from anyone else, with the same fit and finish as the PRS, for much less. I just don't have any other good data on what a fair price should be for such high end intruments.

Ed
 
I must admit I was exagerating just a little to make a point. Let me tell you the kinds of guitars that I have spent my own money on, and you can decide wether I'm talking out the side of my head or not...:)

Just last year I got a Melancon Classic Artist. Made in Louisianana. The fit/finish/build quality is on par w/ anyone you can name. The top is better than any PRS 10 top you can find, on par with the private reserve stuff. I paid $1500 for it brand new.

Last year I also got an EBMM Axis Super Sport. Made in California. A fantastic playing guitar. EBMM quality is highly regarded. Mine does not have a fancy top, but that's OK becuase truthfully EBMM tops aren't all that great. I got it brand new for $399! I know that's an exceptional deal, so let's say I got it for the more common price of $1300 just for the sake of discussion.

There are two US made, world-class guitars for $300 more than you paid for the PRS. Now, I know that both my guitars are from the strat camp (or should I say the "strat-style" camp), with bolt on necks and such, so you may feel it's an invalid comparison, and you may be right. Still, I think there are plenty of alternatives that are more fairly priced - Heritage, Washburn, and Hamer come to mind (if only Hamer would change those big ugly headstocks to something a little more regal and refined looking!).

A
www.aaroncheney.com

p.s. both the guitars I mentioned can be seen on my website if you're curious
 
Most of those are brands I have not seen, so it's hard to comment. I suspect there are some other very good US guitars for less $. I have seen a number of comments about Carvin high end models from owners.

Part of the issue we sometimes encounter is that some players, like me, go to a store to buy a specific model from a specific vendor. Logic somewhat leaves the picture here as the model and vendor has already been determined, and it boils down to how the model the dealer has feels, and what they want for it$.

Ed
 
Aaron Cheney said:

If they were were truly concerned about protecting the sanctity of their designs, they would be going after other companies with designs that are much more similiar. <cough>Heritage</cough>.
Click to expand...


They did try to sue Heritage. But it was thrown out.

When Gibson moved to Nashville, they auctioned off the machines, jigs, and fixtures from the Michigan factory to their (now former) employees. Those employees started Heritage in the old factory. When Gibson tried to sue Heritage, the court found that when they sold the jigs, there was an implied warranty that the jigs would be useful, and there for the case was thrown out. Heritage did have to change their headstock designs, and a few other minor things, but that is all.

To be honest, Heritage has, since their start, done a much better job, quality wise, than Gibson. Heritage's attention to detail is almost as high as a good hand builders. Also, to my mind, there is a degree of, the old employees, old factory, and the old tooling makes much more of a real Gibson than anything to come out of Nashville.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
The PRS in question linkage to McCarthy is proboly the prob. and how they marketed that linkage..would to me be questionable





Don
 
Henri Devill said:
The PRS in question linkage to McCarthy is proboly the prob. and how they marketed that linkage..would to me be questionable





Don
Click to expand...


No, the claim is that the PRS Single Cut guitars infringe on Gibson's trademark design, the Les Paul. It has nothing to do with Ted McCarthy being involved. He no longer works for Gibson, so they no longer have any say in how his image and reputation are used. The lawsuit is about the design.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
I have to agree with Aaron, the first time I saw a single cut PRS I was totally dumbfounded in the sense that they had developed their own niche in the marketplace, established a justifiably good reputation and produced a consistently good product that from day one was different to other guitars.

And while no one should be confused as to whether one guitar is a LP or a PRS, (there are enough subtle differences to tell them apart), there is no doubt that PRS copied the basic Les Paul characteristics and I can't honestly understand their logic in doing so as their reputation is good enough that they don't need to copy anyone. Have their designers run out of ideas?

I just can't imagine a Strat inspired guitar with a PRS headstock.

:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top