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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Light
  • Start date Start date
OMFG............Have PRS become that greedy for market share that they need to do that. I wonder whether Fender will follow Gibson's lead and take them to court...............I hate to say this but I really hope they do and that both G and F win.

And before anyone jumps me for that opinion, this house has Gibsons, Fenders and a PRS and I appreciate all of them..........I just feel that someone at PRS has lost sight of what PRS was all about.

:cool:
 
I think the real issue here is snob appeal!

to play a "real" gibson now days... you cannot really be a working musician... (you need to practice medicine or law) the same goes for martin! and PRS has definitively jumped on that bandwagon!

now the law battle seems to ensue (pun?) the issue of who can/ should have the greatest snob factor in their guitars.

Sheesh... let the doctors and lawyers have them... and let's find alternatives

Shred
 
As was said before, most of this will boil down to how similar shapes have to be to create a problem.

The PRS SE EG model is similar to a strat style, but still very different. The body shape are clearly different and the headstock completely different.

There are probably at least 2 dozen companies making strat style guitars that are much closer in appearance.

I also own models from all three vendors, and have no problem with the PRS models.

Ed
 
PRS tried to go the Fender route years ago with their CE series. They looked remarkably like the new imports.
 
Light said:
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
Click to expand...

I think that if I were PRS, I would immediately sue Gibson. Although the single cutaway PRS does'nt look like (or could ever be confused with) a Les Paul, the Gibson DC Les Paul is a DEAD RINGER for a PRS which came first.
 
Actually, that body shape dates back to the LP Special. PRS used that shape originally(The Santana Guitar), but changed to their current DC body sometime in the 80's.
 
Aaron Cheney said:
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.
Click to expand...


I got this in November of last year. Paid 1,231 including case. It's a semihollow Carvin Holdsworth model. Flamed koa top, alder back and body sides, ebony board with one of the most incredible fretjobs I've seen in my 23 years of playing.
 

Attachments

  • fb1[1].webp
    fb1[1].webp
    63.6 KB · Views: 175
shredfit said:

to play a "real" gibson now days... you cannot really be a working musician... (you need to practice medicine or law) the same goes for martin! and PRS has definitively jumped on that bandwagon!

Shred
Click to expand...

On the contrary. A working musician ( defined as one who earns all his income from music ), won't even blink at the price. Even if he only averages $100 a night, a $2000 axe pays for itself in 20 nights. Plus the expense is for work tools, so it qualifies as a tax deduction.

Take a "weekend warrior" like me even. Three weekends paid for my Gibson Faded Double Cut. A great axe makes it easier to earn money with it, by making your job easier.
 
shredfit said:
to play a "real" gibson now days... you cannot really be a working musician... (you need to practice medicine or law) the same goes for martin! and PRS has definitively jumped on that bandwagon!
Click to expand...

Turn on the TV to any music channel. See how long it takes before you see someone playing a Gibson, a PRS, a Martin, etc. It usually does not take long.

Working musicians come in all varieties. Some tour, some play sessions, some play small gigs, some just record. Most are looking for the same thing, a guitar that has the sound and feel they want. Gibson, PRS, and Fenders are common place in their hands.

Ed
 
Moonrider said:
A great axe makes it easier to earn money with it, by making your job easier.
Click to expand...


Damn straight. I am so sick of hearing guys who are making there living playing tell me, "I can't afford your guitars." It is called a capital investment, a business expense, or a tool of the trade. There is no reason not to get the best tools available when you use them to make your living. They last longer, do a better job, and are much easier to use.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
I'm a working musician and although I own a Gibson Les Paul custom, and several fenders... I don't even play them out any more... I currently using 2 Jackson Juniors (American) which are kicking butt live!

Rock Stars/Lawyers/Doctors aside... I think spending big $$$ on a axe that you use "your tool of the trade" when clearly there are great substitutes is just plain foolish... and bad business...

Don't get me wrong... I have really nothing against Gibson, PRS, or Martin but they are just way over priced... are they great guitars? well hell yes... I own a gibson (fortunately bought many years ago before snob appeal kicked in to full assualt)

My, buddy just picked up a Kramer pacer for $125 ... a few dings but totally gig worthy... (and he's gonna do just that with it)

BTW: my reference to a "real gibson" was at minimum a Standard... For martin at least a D-28... ya get the picture

Shred
 
shredfit said:
For martin at least a D-28... ya get the picture

Shred
Click to expand...


I disagree with basically your whole post, but the only thing I haven't stated yet is that you should not discount the D-18. Great guitars.


But the reason I am digging up this long dead thread is because Gibson lost the appeal in the tradmark case against PRS. My favorite thing about the trial was when one of Gibson's attournies said, in trial, something to the effect of, "only an idiot would mistake the two guitars at the point of sale."


“Gibson essentially argues that the shape of the PRS guitar leads consumers standing on the far side of the room in a guitar store to believe they see Gibson guitars and walk over to examine what they soon realize are PRS guitars,” Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote in the appeals opinion. “We decline to adopt such a broad reading … of doctrine. Many, if not most consumer products will tend to appear like their competitors at a sufficient distance.”
Click to expand...



A link to an article.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
gvarko said:
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...
Click to expand...

bingo. gibson didn't bother to sue LOTUS because they quality was nowhere close. now that someone is making gibson-like guitars at equal or better quality it has become an issue.
 
Esp??

I recently purchased an ESP-EC400AT that looks more like a Les Paul than a Les Paul. I am not sure why they are attacking only PRS. It would seem there are plenty of other guitar companies using that shape and selling more guitars.
 
I am not sure why they are attacking only PRS.

This is not exactly scientific, but the younger players I see think PRS guitars are hot and that Gibsons are for old fogies like Slash...

I don't think there's any question that PRS guitars exhibit a consistent level of high quality where Les Pauls are divided into Monday, Wednesday, and Friday-at-4:30pm guitars.
 
Here is the PRS link about the current status of this lawsuit:

http://www.prsguitars.com/news/stories/091205_victory.html

This suit was about $. Gibson went after PRS legally, because they had already mostly lost the battle of quality/image. PRS was getting much of their high end market, and this was Gibsons attempt to get it back through lawyers rather than quality guitars. When the dust settled, they failed again.

Ed
 
It all makes me wonder if when they finish the Les Paul legal battles, will they go after all the makers of SG copies? They already went around with Ibanez, I have to wonder who will Gibson pick on next?
 
I think they will be done with suits for a while. They have capitol to spend, and have some other real plan in mind.

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