Bassman Brad
New member
The biggest threat to Gibson isn't Paul Reed Smith, it's Gibson's own management team.
rpe
NM - Land of Excrement
How hard up is Gibson getting to resort to this BS. A Les Paul is a Les Paul, period. Anyone should be able to compete via similar design and let the instrument's quality, playability, collectability, etc., stand on its own. Good points made by many of you.
rpe
rpe
G
ggunn
Crystal Flavolian
rpe said:
I saw a band last night (9/19) on either Conan or that Scot's show, and both guitarists were using black guitars that looked like Les Pauls, but had different headstocks. I didn't think they looked quite like PRS 'stocks, either, but the way they shot it never gave more than a fleeting glimpse of them. Anyway, I thought maybe that this was the guitar that the hubub was about. I went to the PRS website, but there is a disclaimer posted (http://www.prsguitars.com/showcase/private/ps201.html) about the Singlecut line and no pictures.
I have no dog in this hunt, but FWIW I could readily see what Gibson is pissed about. True, there are a lot of cheapo Paul knockoffs around, but there was no mistaking them for that. These guitars looked great. Hard to tell about the sound over TV.
E
Ed Dixon
New member
I'm guessing that probably 50% of all the solid body electrics ever made and played probably look like a LP, Strat, or Tele from a distance. Those are the shapes that have been popular for decades. So what.
Competition for guitar sales is based on quality, playability, price, and a few other instrument characteristics. It should not be based on the results of lawyers. The latter is the direction that Gibson took, and they may well regret it in a few years.
Ed
Competition for guitar sales is based on quality, playability, price, and a few other instrument characteristics. It should not be based on the results of lawyers. The latter is the direction that Gibson took, and they may well regret it in a few years.
Ed
G
garykeller15
New member
gibson and all who support their body/headstock trademark needs to be stopped
gibson is illegally,yes illegally come up with an unconstitution and monopolizing trademark where they say they own certain body shapes/headstock shapes.you know why no other company tried this because not only is it bad for business.its under monopolizing.you can have only certain amount of body shapes. and alot are not useable.gibson can say they cant use the names to describe their versions such as les pual.but they have no legal right to sue or stop other companies from making their versions.plus under trademark it has to be exact right down to the micrcentimeter but i guess nobody goes by the exact definitions of the words written in the trademark laws.gibson must be cowards to sue and come up with some unconstitutional law like that.they must be going to lower the quality of their product way down to the quality of series 10 or lower so they can have more profit.plus this way when they do there will be no competiton making a better version.as for those lies saying they lost big money when esp built explorers for hetfield.fact there was more gibson explorers sold during esps selling making their versions then esp explorers.so why is gibson acting like a spoiled brat.if i ran gibson i would allow and encourage the other guitar companies make versions of my guitars/basses.by this will keep my builders on their toes,keeping quality at its highest for all you musicians.and also thats how new techniques on building and new technology is created.by competiton.not monoploizing.by what gibson did is maked them hypocrites.if you check they bought kramer and have in the kramer line a randy rhoades and a strat model guitars so jackson/fender could sue them.its called whats good for the goose is good for the gander.personally i just want gibson to allow other companies to make their versions.since gibson wont have nothing to do with 24 fret guitars but you could have gotten them at esp or jacksons custom shop.gibson is not interested in bolt ons or neck thur or have a dozen other options jackson and esp custom shops offer.my belief is guitar companies should be able and allowed to build you a guitar of your dreams right down to the smallest detail.but gibson is nixed that.want to whats next for gibson.is to sue all of those who home built explorers or other gibson based guitars/bass bodies.just wait for those who agree with me write to gibson tell thenm your disgust.and start a petition to get their body/headstock trademarked revoked.gibson should want others to build versions of their guitars because when gibsons sell more,then thats better then all the press in the world,but when you have no competition oh yeah they can go up against a strat but thats a diferent catagorie.thats like a long distence runner racing a long jumper too different catagories where you cant judge acurately.you have to judge a les paul with another les paul.and judging against the same companies guitars is not competition either.it would have to be a esp version of an explorer vs a gibson explorer..what gibson has done will seal the fate of the whole music industry.we need to ban together and get gibsons body/headstock trademark repelled.before for gibson goes too far over the edge.remember power corrupts.gibson seems trying to get all the power.
gibson is illegally,yes illegally come up with an unconstitution and monopolizing trademark where they say they own certain body shapes/headstock shapes.you know why no other company tried this because not only is it bad for business.its under monopolizing.you can have only certain amount of body shapes. and alot are not useable.gibson can say they cant use the names to describe their versions such as les pual.but they have no legal right to sue or stop other companies from making their versions.plus under trademark it has to be exact right down to the micrcentimeter but i guess nobody goes by the exact definitions of the words written in the trademark laws.gibson must be cowards to sue and come up with some unconstitutional law like that.they must be going to lower the quality of their product way down to the quality of series 10 or lower so they can have more profit.plus this way when they do there will be no competiton making a better version.as for those lies saying they lost big money when esp built explorers for hetfield.fact there was more gibson explorers sold during esps selling making their versions then esp explorers.so why is gibson acting like a spoiled brat.if i ran gibson i would allow and encourage the other guitar companies make versions of my guitars/basses.by this will keep my builders on their toes,keeping quality at its highest for all you musicians.and also thats how new techniques on building and new technology is created.by competiton.not monoploizing.by what gibson did is maked them hypocrites.if you check they bought kramer and have in the kramer line a randy rhoades and a strat model guitars so jackson/fender could sue them.its called whats good for the goose is good for the gander.personally i just want gibson to allow other companies to make their versions.since gibson wont have nothing to do with 24 fret guitars but you could have gotten them at esp or jacksons custom shop.gibson is not interested in bolt ons or neck thur or have a dozen other options jackson and esp custom shops offer.my belief is guitar companies should be able and allowed to build you a guitar of your dreams right down to the smallest detail.but gibson is nixed that.want to whats next for gibson.is to sue all of those who home built explorers or other gibson based guitars/bass bodies.just wait for those who agree with me write to gibson tell thenm your disgust.and start a petition to get their body/headstock trademarked revoked.gibson should want others to build versions of their guitars because when gibsons sell more,then thats better then all the press in the world,but when you have no competition oh yeah they can go up against a strat but thats a diferent catagorie.thats like a long distence runner racing a long jumper too different catagories where you cant judge acurately.you have to judge a les paul with another les paul.and judging against the same companies guitars is not competition either.it would have to be a esp version of an explorer vs a gibson explorer..what gibson has done will seal the fate of the whole music industry.we need to ban together and get gibsons body/headstock trademark repelled.before for gibson goes too far over the edge.remember power corrupts.gibson seems trying to get all the power.
DogFood
New member
Gibson wants to have the whole pie. This is greed, pure greed. Screw'm, they treat my local mom and pop guitar store like cockroaches. Their QC is crap if you look deeper than the finish. And, companies like Hamer put out an amazing guitar at a comparable price. Morally bankrupt and no heart for the buisness that has treated them like kings for so long.
ausrock
Well-known member
Well welcome to HR.com Gary........now how about learning some fucking grammar so people can make some sense of your ravings. If that's possible.
Years before Gibson tried to hit on PRS over the LP thing, PRS had tried the same game with another guitar maker.....and lost. I guess it proves the old saying "win some, lose some".
Years before Gibson tried to hit on PRS over the LP thing, PRS had tried the same game with another guitar maker.....and lost. I guess it proves the old saying "win some, lose some".
G
ggunn
Crystal Flavolian
garykeller15 said:
Wrong. Anyone can sue anyone over whatever they want to. The courts may declare it frivolous and throw it out, or it may get settled out of court, or it may go to court and they can lose, but Gibson absolutely has the right to sue. Like I said, I have no dog in this hunt, but when you copy a design and sell it, you can be sued. I'm sure PRS knows this and has decided to take their chances on the differences in their offering to be "different enough" to win out.
killthepixelnow
Do it right or dont do it
Les Pauls are ugly and PRS are uglier. They're similar, it's true, but... is the same problem with Behringer being sued for copying other brands models.
G
ggunn
Crystal Flavolian
ggunn said:
This just in. Is it merely coincidence that this old thread was dragged up now?
Link
Supreme Court Ends Gibson Lawsuit Against PRS
(STEVENSVILLE, MD) June 5, 2006 — Paul Reed Smith Guitars is very pleased to announce that the United States Supreme Court today denied Gibson Guitar's final appeal of a Court of Appeals decision upholding PRS' right to make a single cutaway-style guitar. When first introduced more than six years ago at the NAMM show, the PRS Singlecut® quickly captured the attention of artists and critics, winning awards for its design and quality. Seeking to stop competition to its Les Paul brand single cutaway-style guitar, Gibson moved aggressively, filing a suit in Nashville that asserted trademark infringement. After several years of expensive and drawn-out litigation, the local federal district court judge initially sided with Gibson. That court ordered PRS to stop sales of its Singlecut®. Several companies joined PRS in urging the appellate court--the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit--to reverse the decision. Last year, the Sixth Circuit ruled that an injunction should never have been issued by the lower court. The court observed that Gibson conceded that only "an idiot" would ever confuse a PRS Singlecut® and a Gibson Les Paul. Based on that concession and the overwhelming evidence, the Sixth Circuit found that Gibson's trademark case had no merit and summarily dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court's decision today leaves the Sixth Circuit opinion in place and ends Gibson's multi-year effort to thwart legitimate competition under the guise of intellectual property law.
Paul Reed Smith, the company founder, stated: "I am delighted for our employees, our dealers, our customers and the industry. Everyone was extremely supportive of our cause and our company over the last six years, fully embracing our decision to fight back against Gibson's charges." Smith added: "My thanks especially go to those in the industry who helped educate the court: the media, our industry peers, guitar craftsmen and industry scholars. Their help was invaluable.”
G
garykeller15
New member
ggunn said:
only cowards sue.real men welcome the competition or knock the crap out of the persons.but using lawyers is a cowards tool.lawyers and guns two cowards tools to fulfill a cowards greed.gibson is oil company wannabes and their so called trademark of body shapes will be overturned.i bet the same idiot in the trademark office who allow gibson trademark thru would allow me to trademark the circle shape.which mean nobody will be able to use anything circular.see how fucking stupid that is.no stupid people have no rights to bring stupid trademarks,lawsuits,etc.everytime a pathetic lretarded lawsuit comes up taxpayers has to pay for it.ill be damned if my money goes to fucking retards.if you home build guitars,you soon may have a dog in the fight because this gives gibson the ability to sue anyone with an non gibson explorer or other gibson version of their guitars or basses.but they are hypocrites becase they own kramer and kramer line has a randy rhoades body shape and a strat body shape so fender/jacson could threaten them the same way.but this trademarking body/headstock shapes is unethical and monopolizing the industry.gibso was never threatened by esps explorers because there were more gibsons versions sold then esp versions.if gibson says otherwise then they are fools.they have more dealers than esp or jackson,a by that sell more of their versions because people would have to go to jackson or esp dealer to order ajackson/esp version of a gibson model. most people dont live around close to any jackson/esp dealers but there most certain a gibson dealer in the area.personally i am going to do what i can to fight this for the future of all guitar/bass companies big and small.and if gibson wants to believe it or not to save the future of gibson guitars.because if this keeps up.gibson will be out of business.like other business that tried to eliminate competition by this method,and monopolize the industry.true musicians who actually care for the customer should run these guitar companies.they need to give the customer exactly what he or she wants plain and simple.or simply get out of the business period.
G
ggunn
Crystal Flavolian
garykeller15 said:
Dude, please use some punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing. I am not going to slog through all that to try to figure out the finer points in what you are saying.
I absolutely do not take a position on either Gibson's or PRS' side in this; I was only taking issue with your assertion that Gibson has no legal right to sue, which is incorrect. They have the right to sue, and to lose, which they did. You can rant about them not being manly or whatever (again I take no position) if they sue, but it has no relevance to the point. They were acting within their rights.
E
Ed Dixon
New member
garykeller15 said:
Unfortunately not true. Lots of people and groups sue other parties for a variety of reasons. Some are very justified and others not. All are not cowards. The courts decide in each case.
In this case, Gibson won the first round, which seems to show the case had some merit. However on appeal, the decision was overturned.
I believe Gibson was grasping at straws with this suit. They have not introduced a popular model in a few decades and firms like PRS were beginning to eat their lunch. They choose to compete with lawyers rather than good guitars, and lost in the process.
Ed
G
garykeller15
New member
yeah but stopping jackson and other from making versions of certain guitar shapes is basically stupid.plus since gibson wont build their versions they way customers exactly want them(fact thats why mustaine choose esp because gibson wouldnt make a 24 fret flying v.)thats not all the options gibson will not do either.but gibson gets away with using a jackson model randy rhoades body shape in their kramer line.hypacritical is what gibson is.i bet the next lawsuit that gibson will do is on all those home built guitars using gibsons so called trademarked body shapes.then it will be too late to do anything about them.this will drive all other small guitar companies if it hasnt already out of business.the same morons who say gibson has the right to trademark body and headstock shapes say that gas companies making 1000 percent profits it capitalism.yes you can makes profits but when it reaches over 100 percent then its criminal.gibson wants to stop competition and wants to monopolize the industry,which honest businesses will be forced out of business.prs just got lucky.gibson will try again and again till they succeed.like they did with jackson,esp.pretty soon you wont be able to buy gibson style body shaped bodies from warmouth,etc. it will get that bad.its done it in other areas of the business world.personally i will not tolerate my or my family tax money going to some phoney trademak lawsuit for gibson/fender,etc.no retards have a right to bring a phony lawsuit and waste tax payers money on it.under common sense terms those would be fraudulent lawsuits.i support all guitar companies being able to make what ever body shape and headstock shape they want or the customer chooses from them,but i those companies lets say jackson for instance if to make an explorer could not use the name explorer but could use another name for it.then it would be legal.maybe somebody who actually cares more for the customers than profits should be running gibson.instead of greedy ,people who are ruining the name of gibson.
hixmix
Halibut, North Dakota
ggunn said:
garykeller15 said:
..................
Last edited:
G
ggunn
Crystal Flavolian
Nice parsing.
hixmix
Halibut, North Dakota
I couldn't resist. 
hixmix
Halibut, North Dakota
garykeller15 said:
..........................
Light
New member
You know, I thought it was just the lack of punctuation and capitalization that made him incomprehensable.
Guess I was wrong.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Guess I was wrong.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Light
New member
Oh, and by the way, it is a long standing precident that it IS legal to trademark the shape of a peg head.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi