Gibson vs Everyone

  • Thread starter Thread starter gvarko
  • Start date Start date
Well, none of this has to do with the USA vs. the world. It has to do with someone stealing ideas from others. I don't care what country you come from, if you steal my design I will go after you.

Can anyone out here say that if they wrote a song and someone else took it, made millions off it,and didn't give you anything, that it would be ok with you? Just because you steal from a big company does not make it right. It is still stealing!!
 
There are a lot of issues being brought up in this thread. I'm not citing people specifically, but some people need to learn about the economy before they blame everything on the government.

Whoever mentioned how much we americans love the fruits of chinese labor was right. In capitalism that's the way things work. Resources are moved to their most highly valued uses. I.E. you don't have a guy with a Phd in engineering making nike socks. You have the person with no other skills do that job. I know that sounds bad, but I don't think anybody would be too happy paying $50 for a k-mart quality t-shirt. If you want your standard of living to go way down, then by all means start insisting that products requiring low-skill production be made in the U.S. But I just don't see a lot of people anxious to have less money in their pockets.

And whoever talked about America not playing nice with others was just a little misguided. International economics basically works like this. American goods are relatively more expensive to other countries, therefore America is a net IMPORTER and other countries are net EXPORTERS. This is part of why the U.S. has such a huge trade deficit. The larger our trade deficit, the more our currency declines against other currencies. This leads to our goods being relatively LESS expensive to other countries, causing other countries to resume buying from us, and thus bring us back into balance. However, this process has not been allowed to take place because Japan and China have been buying huge amounts of U.S. debt, which has caused our currency to stay inflated for far too long. Only recently (last year or so) has our currency fallen significantly. The moral of the story is: Other countries are working very hard to keep the U.S. out of the competitive labor market.

Allowing market forces to equalize countries would actually be better for everyone in the long run, but as is evidenced by China the overwhelming motive in economic policy for many countries has nothing to do with standard of living or economics. Sorry for the rant, I just get bothered when people act like everything is America's fault. We're controlling all of these other countries. If anything, China is exerting quite a bit of control over the U.S. by allowing virtually no foreign access to it's market.
 
Getting back on topic...

Of interest, I think, is the fact that the judge in the Gibson v. PRS suit is in Nashville (Gibson's home town, these days), though it is, as yet, just a denial of a summery judgment. The actual trial, last I had heard, has not happened yet.

As I have said before, the case is bogus, in my professional judgment. The instruments are VERY different in shape, if you have any eye for the design of a guitar. There are certainly very few guitarists who have trouble telling the difference.

The one I really like, though, is when Gibson tried to sue Heritage. For those who don't know the history, Gibson used to be manufactured in Michigan, and when they moved to Nashville, they sold all of their jigs, fixtures, and machines to their employees, who started the Heritage company. Heritage immediately started making pretty much the same guitars they had always been making for years, and shortly there after, Gibson sued. The ruling handed down, which unfortunately has no bearing on the current cases, was that when Gibson sold their jigs, fixtures, and such to their employees, they also sold an implied warranty that those items would be useful. Heritage had to change to a different headstock, but beyond that, Gibson was told to go stuff it. Personally, I liked that one. Heritage, to this day, makes a far superior instrument, in my opinion. They are the original factory, the original employees (or they were, though by now most of them must have retired), and they made some improvements on the Gibson designs (For instance, they tap tune the tops on their arch top guitars, something which Gibson has never done. While this is of dubious value on a flattop, I think it does make a difference in archtops). And because the name is not Gibson, they cost about half, last time I checked.

As for the headstock thing, my understanding is that Fender chose not to go after body shape, though why I am not sure, nor am I completely confident that is the case.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Look, we live in an industry that thrives on competition. If you have no competition, you have a monopoly. If a select few run the market, it's the next worst thing, an oligopoly. There are only so many shapes that a guitar can have and still be a guitar. Alot of SUV vehicles look the same. I don't know what brand alot of them are anymore until I look. Does that mean that the first company who made SUV's should sue every company who has made one since because they have made vehicles that look similar to their original design? No. You can patent a specific thing, but not a general idea. Some guy couldn't patent the concept of solar power and then get royalties from anything that's invented related to solar power in the next 20 years. It doesn't work that way. PRS single cut guitars look remotely similar to less pauls. However, isn't a guitar more about sound than looks? I can tell you one thing, they may look similar, but they sure don't sound the same. Totally different electronics. Then the next important thing. Feel and weight. Again, the two are totally different. Every SUV looks the similar (to me anyway), but they are all slightly different too. Therefore, the original creator of the SUV has no grounds to sue any competitors. Like I said before, this country thrives on competition. Without it, you have a monopoly/oligopoly, and that, I'll bet, is something NOBODY wants.
 
well maybe we dont want it but gibson sure does.....i can understand companies patenting their headstocks but! gibson has a generic headstock so i'm not sure what gibson could patent....they can have the original les paul design but deviations that are close enough but not exactly shouldnt be sued......look at coffee cups, wrenches, screwdrivers, key rings, a basic white t-shirt, trash bins, and guitar stands. i have to find the name on it to tell them apart but does that stop me from buying it? no...i dont care who makes them honestly
 
I just looked at a picture of a single cut PRS to refresh my memory, and I must say that it bears more resemblance to a Les Paul than I remembered. Sure, I can tell the difference. Of course Light, someone who grew up around the trade of lutherie, can tell the difference. I would venture a guess that just about every person that browses this forum could tell the difference. However, we've been living this thing called the electric guitar for 5, 10, 20, maybe even more than 40 years. I think the real test is going to be whether or not a jury comprised of average citizens will deem them different enough. I'm sure that if I put a Les Paul and a PRS single cut side by side in front of my dad, a practicing civil litigation attorney for over 20 years, he would have trouble telling them apart. In fact, maybe I'll as him his perspective on this when I go home this weekend.

As for Gibson filing suit against foreign knock-offs, I think we all agree that this suit holds more water than the PRS suit. I think part of it has to do with Gibson protecting their reputation. The Les Paul body shape is a creation of Gibson, and has for decades been associated with Gibson. I don't think any of us think "Hondo!" when we see a guitar with the Les Paul body shape. Take, for example, the thread made about the "Epiphone" with the neck that broke off. If the average person (again, it comes down to the average person, not a well trained expert) sees a guitar with the Les Paul body shape, and the neck breaks off of it, they may associate that apparent lack of quality with the style of guitar, and because so many associate that particular style with Gibson, it could be construed as a lack of quality on Gibson's behalf (maybe their quality has declined, whatever, you know what I'm saying).

As for the Heritage guitars, the ones I've played have felt great. However, while being less than Gibsons, I believe they still start in the >$1000 price range. I could be wrong, though. The only dealer I've seen was a mom and pop store that had a penchant for beefing up their prices. One day I'll buy that used Bandmaster half stack they have in the back though...
 
jchahn said:
You can patent a specific thing, but not a general idea
Click to expand...

The issue is that Gibson DID pattent the LP shape.

Though I do agree with a lot of what you wrote about competition, you still need to obey the laws. If someone had pattented the SUV shape then they would have a case. As far as an idea goes, Kodak managed to pattent the instant photography concept and therefore, no one else could create a poloroid type camera or film. A concept, shape or a process are all intelectual property and need to be protected.

Is a PRS the same as an LP, no. Anyone can see that. Did PRS decide to make a similar design to make marketting easier, or to steel a classic shape to sell more, well that's what the judge needs to decide.

As far as the shape being one of the few that a guitar has to be, That's total bullshit. Unlike an accoustic, the shape of an electric has nothing to do with the sound or playability. It has to do with looks and marketting. BC Rich managed to make some interesting gothic type designs. Gene Simmons plays a bass that looks like an axe. Now if a company comes up with a new design, they need to sell the consumers on it and that costs money. But if they use a strat, LP or SG design, then the public is already sold on it, so they don't have to sell the public on it, so it will cost less. Of course, it takes sales away from the people who did spend the money to sell the market on it, and design it.Can we all say Theives? How much did Gibson pay for the pattent lawyers, designers, sales staff, give aways to groups, sales brochers, commercials, ads in papers, etc... I really think they should be the ones to profit from their expenses.

This is why we have judges and jurries, to look at the evidence and make a decision. Let's just hope it's an informed decision. I am not privilaged to the evidence, so I should not try to judge or second guess what the courts decide. If PRS can show they designed it that way for a certain reason, then Gibson should pound sand. But if PRS has a memo that says "Let's use an LP shape" then I say hang the fuckers.
 
I understand what your saying, but how many jazz players want a guitar shaped like an axe? There are only so many body shapes that conservative players will go for. If a company wants to compete in the conservative guitar market, they will have to make a guitar that looks more conservative. Secondly, PRS was making their normal body style (a double cutaway archtop) a long time ago, and if I'm not mistaken Gibson copied (or was inspired by) that design when they introduced the double cutaway les paul a few years ago. They saw how many new guitarists were playing those double cutaway archtops, and so they wanted a piece of the market. That's how capitalism works. You see a market that you aren't in, and you want a piece of it, so you make something similar.
 
jchahn said:
There are only so many body shapes that conservative players will go for.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am saying. The issue is that Gibson and Fender were the ones who paid to create those followings. In Gibson's case, they pattented it. That measn that no one is allowed to copy it without their permission. If PRS had spent the money to pattent thier double cut designs, then Gibson should pay, but since they didn't, it's a non-issue.

It may sound like I am a Gibson supporter, but my support is for the concept of protecting pattents and copyrights. I write music, write programs, design systems and design machinery. I just want to make sure that they are protected from someone else profitting from them without me getting paid.
 
jchahn said:
Secondly, PRS was making their normal body style (a double cutaway archtop) a long time ago, and if I'm not mistaken Gibson copied (or was inspired by) that design when they introduced the double cutaway les paul a few years ago. .
Click to expand...

No, the original PRS was copied off of that double cutaway, which was introduced in the 60's. The original PRS were the ones that looked like the Santana guitar now, more symmetrical, rather than offset. The modern PRS shape came along later.

H2H
 
To correct myself, Gibson introduced the doublecut in 1958, not the 60's.

H2H
 
You know, the more I think about it, what irritates me about Gibson is the fact that Gibson isn't Gibson anymore. When a guitar company is owned by a guitar craftsman, he spends more money to make a higher quality instrument, even if it means he has a lower profit margin because it's a matter of his pride and reputation. When a company gets taken over by a corporate entity, they could care less what they are selling or the quality of it, they just want to decrease cost as much as possible, and increase profit as much as possible. Corners are cut, lower quality methods are used, etc. This is what happened to Gibson (and Fender for that matter).

Someone earlier in the post said something along the lines of "if I made something, I wouldn't want someone else to copy it and make a profit." That is completely true. However, the business men (I stress business men because the corporate owners don't know the first thing about making a guitar) who own the company, and the factory workers on the production lines didn't invent the les paul. Someone from a bygone era of handcrafting did. "Gibson" owns the rights to the Les Paul, but the modern "Gibson" didn't invent the Les Paul.

What I'm saying is more of a moral argument than a legal argument, I know, but it still bothers me.
 
jchahn said:
You know, the more I think about it, what irritates me about Gibson is the fact that Gibson isn't Gibson anymore. When a guitar company is owned by a guitar craftsman, he spends more money to make a higher quality instrument, even if it means he has a lower profit margin because it's a matter of his pride and reputation. When a company gets taken over by a corporate entity, they could care less what they are selling or the quality of it, they just want to decrease cost as much as possible, and increase profit as much as possible. Corners are cut, lower quality methods are used, etc. This is what happened to Gibson (and Fender for that matter).

Someone earlier in the post said something along the lines of "if I made something, I wouldn't want someone else to copy it and make a profit." That is completely true. However, the business men (I stress business men because the corporate owners don't know the first thing about making a guitar) who own the company, and the factory workers on the production lines didn't invent the les paul. Someone from a bygone era of handcrafting did. "Gibson" owns the rights to the Les Paul, but the modern "Gibson" didn't invent the Les Paul.

What I'm saying is more of a moral argument than a legal argument, I know, but it still bothers me.
Click to expand...


Gibson hasn't been owned by a Gibson since around 1900. Orville sold the company a long time ago, and it has always been owned by businessmen. That has either never been a problem at Gibson, or has always been the problem with Gibson. I can't decide which.

BTW, the issue at hand is NOT a patent. Even if Gibson had patented the LP, the patent protection would have ended 10-20 years ago. The issue is Trademark, which is a different thing all together. A trade mark lasts forever.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
No, because Paul wouldn't have had anything to work on in the 70's and learn from.

H2H
 
lpdeluxe said:
Realistically, would PRS exist without the LP?
Click to expand...


Absoulutly. His is a unique design. Sure there are ideas which came from other builders in before him (such as using Humbucking pickups), but the biggest influence of the LP on PRS is the things he changed. The 25 inch scale length, the (originally) simplified controls, things like that. The PRS guitars, the ones he first became well known for, are not copies of anything. I mean, he was influenced by the LP, but he was equally influenced by Fenders. While I am not a fan of his guitars (just not the sound I am after), there is no question in my mind that they are their own thing.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
well, it seems to me that prs had their own original style guitars (influenced by Gibson and Fender of course) but still original guitars, and great guitars in their own right. Then in the mid nineties they changed to a different body shape to something more similar to a LP as well as a 22 fret scale rather than a 24 fret like all the older ones were. It seems obvious they were doing this to gain the favor of the LP crowd. Now, the question is, did they invade any of Gibson's trademarks, and does the PRS guitar look enough like a Gibson to say that it's a copy?

I don't think so. What are the most important things to a good guitar player? I would argue that a good guitar player would rather have a guitar that sounded and felt good, but looked ugly, rather than a guitar that was pretty but felt and sounded like crap. Therefore, I would say the most important things to guitar players are feel and sound. In these respects, PRS and Gibson are completely different. The electronics are different, the neckshape is different, the weight is different, etc, etc. In my opinion, even the body shape is different enough to say that the PRS isn't a copy.
 
There were NO electric solid bodies with figured tops until the Les Paul. This may be the feature Gibson is upset about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top