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

[freshmattyp]

It is absolutely the right of a company to protect their intellectual property and trade dress. When was the last time you saw a Rickenbacker clone? Ric goes after them immediately. That being said, I think this was foolish on Gibson's part to pursue this. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

 

[Clive Hugh]

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

Light,
Methinks the lawsuit could more than possibly be about money, right or wrong has no place in law, there was recently a case where some idiot stuck a drill bit up his nose and squeezed the trigger to relieve an itch. The stupid prick removed most of his nose and then sued the manufacturer for failing to specify that was dangerous on their packaging, the last I heard it was not settled but opinion was that he could win based on precident. If I was the judge I'd fine him for wasting the courts time but you know that won't happen. It's all about money.

 

[Light]

Light,
Methinks the lawsuit could more than possibly be about money, right or wrong has no place in law, there was recently a case where some idiot stuck a drill bit up his nose and squeezed the trigger to relieve an itch. The stupid prick removed most of his nose and then sued the manufacturer for failing to specify that was dangerous on their packaging, the last I heard it was not settled but opinion was that he could win based on precident. If I was the judge I'd fine him for wasting the courts time but you know that won't happen. It's all about money.

Certainly, the suit was based primarily on Gibson's desire to limit competition, which is of course based on their share holder's desire to make money. I should instead have said that the CONTEXT of the suit was a trademark infringment case.

One which, according to the courts, has no merit, of course, but it was unquestionably a trademark infringment case.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Light]

It is absolutely the right of a company to protect their intellectual property and trade dress. When was the last time you saw a Rickenbacker clone? Ric goes after them immediately. That being said, I think this was foolish on Gibson's part to pursue this. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

In point of fact, it is not just their right, but their responsability to do so. If they do not rigorously protect their trademark, they are doing an actionable disservice to their shareholders.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[YeshuasFan]

Obviously, PRS has one since it is now news that the Supreme Court has ruled that Gibson's claim lacked merit--and Gibson's own attorneys basically lost the case for them when the attorneys agreed that only an idiot would be unable to tell the difference between a Gibson Les Paul and a PRS Single.

Someone pointed out Behringer's legal difficulties but legally it is comparing apples to corn. In the Gibson/PRS brouhaha, the issue was trademark infringement--which is harder to prove to begin with--and Gibson made it harder by using lawyers whose thought processes must have been the result of family trees which lack forked trunks.

In Behringer's case--their problems are the result of patent infringement and are much easier to prove. Of course Behringer winds up settling each time because they figure the settlements are cheaper than paying to maintain their own R&D engineering team.

 

[Ed Dixon]

In Behringer's case--their problems are the result of patent infringement and are much easier to prove. Of course Behringer winds up settling each time because they figure the settlements are cheaper than paying to maintain their own R&D engineering team.

Interesting. Do you have some links or references on these cases and their outcomes against Behringer?

Ed

 

[dgatwood]

Interesting. Do you have some links or references on these cases and their outcomes against Behringer?

Settling means that they pay the injured company a (generally undisclosed) chunk of change to make the suite go away. Therefore, by definition, a lawsuit ending in a settlement never makes it to court, and thus, has no outcome other than a contract and a private transfer of funds between the two companies....

 

[Ed Dixon]

Settling means that they pay the injured company a (generally undisclosed) chunk of change to make the suite go away. Therefore, by definition, a lawsuit ending in a settlement never makes it to court, and thus, has no outcome other than a contract and a private transfer of funds between the two companies....

Unfortunately not true. Many cases first go to court, but get settled during the proceedings.

However if a private transfer did take place, it's unlikely you would have any information on that as it would have been a "private transfer".

So the question remains as to whether you have any real referfences or information for cases where they actually settled with someone. If not, then your statement would not be fact based and just another opinion.

Ed

 

[Light]

Unfortunately not true. Many cases first go to court, but get settled during the proceedings.

However if a private transfer did take place, it's unlikely you would have any information on that as it would have been a "private transfer".

So the question remains as to whether you have any real referfences or information for cases where they actually settled with someone. If not, then your statement would not be fact based and just another opinion.

Ed

I've probably seen dozens of notices in trade magazines to the effect of, "(insert company name here) settled with Behringer for an undisclosed amount." The most recent one was with Roland over the whole Boss trade dress issue. Or at least, that was the most recent one I noticed.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Ed Dixon]

The original post stated:

"In Behringer's case--their problems are the result of patent infringement and are much easier to prove. Of course Behringer winds up settling each time because they figure the settlements are cheaper than paying to maintain their own R&D engineering team."

I too see references in trade journals about settlements. However most such notes make little reference to proof, details of the original legal claim, facts about the $ involved, or the intent of why the firm in question settled. All of these items are conjecture, unless one has real facts.

I remember the Roland note, which was recent. They basically complained that the new Behringer pedals were too similar in appearance to the Roland pedals that were being "copied". Behringer changes the color scheme and face design shortly thereafter. I remember nothing mentioned about patent infingement on the electonic design inside the box.

Ed

 

[Light]

I remember the Roland note, which was recent. They basically complained that the new Behringer pedals were too similar in appearance to the Roland pedals that were being "copied". Behringer changes the color scheme and face design shortly thereafter. I remember nothing mentioned about patent infingement on the electonic design inside the box.

Ed

Not quite. Behringer introduced their new line of pedels, which looked EXACTLY like the classic Boss trade dress (a well established form of intelectual property). They introduced it at NAMM. When questioned by dealers as to the apperence, they told potential customers flat out that they pedals were licensed by Roland. THIS WAS A BALD FACED LIE. Roland had never heard a damn thing about these pedals, and are not nearly stupid enough to OK a cheap clone of their product. One (or more) of the dealers in attendence brought this to the attention of the folks at the the Boss both. This, of course, brought about the law suit. There were many reports in the trades about the early aspects of the suit, including at least a couple of big articles in MMR and the NAMM magazine. The case was a trade dress case, and my recolection (which may be flawed, as I only ever skim those magazines before they go in the trash, as they have pretty much nothing to do with my business model) is that a restraining order was brought against Behringer to keep them from selling the pedals in the USA. Behringer changed the trade dress of the pedals (not by much), and then kept on selling them. Then one day I open up MMR and see a notice that the case was settled with a non-disclosure agreement as to the amount that Behringer paid to Roland. Niether Roland or Behringer had any further coment (obviously, non-disclosure agreement and all).

Now, if this was a isolated situation, or if Behringer had EVER come out with a product which looked at all original (or, aparently, which had actually gone through legaly required safty testing), then MAYBE I could see your standing up for them, or what ever you're doing. But all things considered, I would say that the original post was pretty much right on with reguard to Behringer's business model.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[espskully]

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.

Gibson will ALWAYS have customers who buy. Me included.

 

[Ed Dixon]

Not quite. Behringer introduced their new line of pedels, which looked EXACTLY like the classic Boss trade dress (a well established form of intelectual property). They introduced it at NAMM.

That's the same case I remember. Had not seen the details about who said what to whom, but knew the fact that the design changed from intro at NAMM to the point they were advertised and sold by B. Clearly legal issues caused this. When I first saw the images, my initial reaction was that the Boss folks would be complaining pretty quickly.

My point is not to stand up for B one way or the other in these cases, but to point out that the original statement of "Of course Behringer winds up settling each time because they figure the settlements are cheaper than paying to maintain their own R&D engineering team." seems complete conjecture on the part of the poster.

As a general rule, companies settle in legal cases because they believe that is less costly that continuing the legal battle, which they might lose and cost many times more.

Behringer makes a lot of gear. Like many other firms, much of their gear is similar in features and design to other firms. Their approach seems to be to make it similar, but lower in cost. I have lots of their stuff, and have few complaints.

Ed