Gibson vs Everyone

  • Thread starter Thread starter gvarko
  • Start date Start date
Witch hunt? Gibson invented the Les Paul guitar, and it is obviously a serious commercial success. I'd say they were protecting their interests.
 
It seems to me that Gibson, being somewhat unsuccessful in competing with other firms on quality and price, has now moved towards lawsuits and attorneys as their approach.

I don't think that many guitar players have any trouble telling a PRS from Gibson. If anything, PRS success may have helped the Les Paul.

10+ years ago, Gibson was king of the hill. Lots of firms make copy models, but most were very low in quality and just not the same. In those years things have changed. In the same time frame the quality of Gibson products has gone done somewhat, and that too has been a factor.

Now firms like PRS are very successful in reaching performing artists. Watch a music channel for short time, and it doesn't take long before you see a PRS in the arms of some talented player. Use the same approach to see how long you have to watch before you see a player using a new Gibson model (other than the LP or other 20+ year old models). You'll be sitting there a while.

That does not mean that Gibson should not protect their interests. In the PRS case, I felt they had no case. The newer copycat cases may be different (as I do not know the other firms).

Ed
 
Gibson's lawsuit is so bogus. I contend that no real guitarist will ever confuse any guitar with a genuine Les Paul. Any beginning guitarist will not be shopping in the price-range of a real Les Paul and, certainly, no Les Paul copy will take any $$$ away from Gibson for the reasons above. If Gibson really thinks that by squashing any competition from copy cats, for the sole prupose of getting more buisiness from sales of a real Les Paul, well.......... they are really wrong.

Parent and kid goes to music store:
Kid:Mommy, I want that one (Les Paul, no copies anywhere anymore)
Mommy: Son, you are not getting that one. I can't afford it in any way,shape,manner or form.

Done.
 
Personally, I think Gibson should take the funds they're spending on legal fees and put it into quality control. Besides ... Gibson has done NOTHING in terms of inovation many, many years! In my opinion, PRS in the industy's leader in inovation and craftsmanship. The only "new" models I see from Gibson or Fender are the same ol' models with some famous players name on it. Examples from Gibson include the Joe Perry, Peter Frampton, and Slash models (all the same guitar ... an LP) and from Fender, the Yngwie, SRV, Clapton, Beck, etc ... models. AGAIN, all the same models ... a Strat.

BTW ... I own a PRS Singlecut Trem
Les Paul "clone"? ... LOL ... I don't think so.
 
What is the point?

lpdeluxe said:
Witch hunt? Gibson invented the Les Paul guitar, and it is obviously a serious commercial success. I'd say they were protecting their interests.
Click to expand...


Ford invented the car, should they sue all automakers?

I would argue the Strat is more recognizable and a more copied design.
If anything Fender should have their panties in a bunch....
 
I agree. Think if Gibson actually won that and then Fender followed suit. There would be very few guitars left in the market. I think if they wanted to actually succeed at this, they should have done it in the 60's when jap copies started showing up of each of those guitars. Anyways, I thought this had all been done before and it was ilmited down to headstock design, thats why the headstocks are all different. Am I wrong here, or didn't the headstock ruling answer all of this?

H2H
 
gvarko said:
I would argue the Strat is more recognizable and a more copied design.
If anything Fender should have their panties in a bunch....
Click to expand...

They have. They've made it illegal to use the word "Strat" or "Stratocaster" to describe a guitar in any promotional way, unless its a genuine Fender or Fender-licensed product. This includes going so far as to have eBay auctions shut down for those who were selling "Strat-style" or "Strat-cut" guitars.

As for PRS and innovation...I'm not seeing it. Then again, I don't really follow new guitars. However, I wouldn't really call them sticking a trem on a single cut guitar "innovation". What about the Heavy Metal Tele? I'm pretty sure you can get a LP with a Bigsby as well. PRS, as I see it, are just another well-made but overpriced guitar manufacturer.
 
gvarko said:
Ford invented the car, should they sue all automakers?
Click to expand...

Actually, Henry Ford's invention was the assembly line to make cars affordable. He did not invent the automobile and he did try to sue over 20 companies when they used the assembly line idea.

Enough history, the question you may want to ask is, if you invented something, came up with a revolutionary idea, would you be pissed off if another company came along and made money off it, without giving you anything and took business away from you. I know I would be.

Ideas and designs are something that is protected by law. If you want to enable people to steal other's ideas, just because they can give it to you cheaper and not necessarly better, then move to another country where that is common practice. Personnaly, I want my ideas protected.
 
juststartingout said:
Ideas and designs are something that is protected by law. If you want to enable people to steal other's ideas, just because they can give it to you cheaper and not necessarly better, then move to another country where that is common practice. Personnaly, I want my ideas protected.
Click to expand...

I think most would agree with this concept. In the case of guitars, the question is where the protection should stop and where common concepts start.

Clearly Gibson has the name Les Paul. However PRS did not use that name. The PRS neck, head stock, and electronics are very different from the LP. The common point is that they have a similar body shape. The shapes are similar, but not the same. So the question is when is similar too similar?

Ed
 
Good point...

Ed Dixon said:
The shapes are similar, but not the same. So the question is when is similar too similar?
Click to expand...

Also how many design concepts would really be comfortable to play? How many ways can you shape a body and still have function? Take BC Rich for example, they have some wicked shapes but try holding one seated and playing. Good luck....
 
Capitalist litigiousness of the highest order.
I think the court was wrong. The guy who said that experienced players would mistake a PRS single cut for an LP is a buffoon. Obviously, he does'nt play. He'd probably think an Ibanez RG was a strat too.

When will we start seeing suits over guitars with the same color on them? Or keyboard manufacturers suing over black cases with black and white keys? They're similar, are'nt they?

This whole thing is ridiculous.
Gibson needs to get off it's fat lazy ass and build some innovative products. they have the same mindset as alot of amerikan companies, such as GM, Harley-Davidson, and Microsoft, to name a few. Once brand recognition becomes a factor, they do nothing new, and complain about everyone else.

Companies need to stand or fall on their own merit, and without the help of courts and government. If you can't build a product that enough people want to buy in large enough numbers to keep you afloat, then get out of business and quit crying about it.

Just my take.
Peace.
 
Harley-Davidson isn't innovating enough??? Gee, their bikes are sold before they're even manufactured.

And WTF needs to be improved on a Les Paul?

You guys just kill me.

It's like saying all the prewar D-28's should be refinished because the laquer has checked.

Gibson did a lot of innovating in the 70's and 80's. And they fell flat because folks like the tried and true of LP's and SG's.

If Jimmy Buffet can shut down a bar for calling it's outdoor deck Margaritaville, then I guess it's okay for Gibson to protect their trademarks.

Also, there are patentable and trademark-able design details in all of the major builder's instruments. Think PRS would let somebody bootleg their processes and designs without paying a license???

Better yet, how about MSFT.

What REALLY cracks me up are the "law-and-order" factions here chiming in to say how Gibson is more interested in litigation than building good guitars.

You guys are all for law and order until you have to break out the checkbook.

"What's the best LD condensor under $100?"

Spare me.
 
just because people spend excessive amounts of money for antiquated consumer objects after waiting in line for them does not make said objects innovative. This speaks more towards the fashion consciousness of the buyers, especially in the case of H-D. And the association of H-D and Gibson is kinda funny too, in light of both companies business practices.

As for what needs to be improved on a Gibson, this has been discussed in here plenty.

What pre-war guitars and chequed lacquer have to do with a new guitar being built poorly, I don't know.

Maybe you answered your own question about all this, c7sus. Maybe enough people are'nt interested in shelling out thousands of dollars for a guitar just because it has Gibson on the headstock. I know I'd never buy one. I did actually buy a PRS once, but i took it back after hating the sound of it. I did'nt feel the need to change pickups in something I paid that much money for. But thats just my taste.

By your logic, we should be seeing suits by everyone in an industry against everyone else in that industry due to similarities in products. This is stupid. But this is what exists here in the hallowed U.S.A. If someone threatens your business with a decent product along similar lines, even though theres enough difference to tell the two apart, you can still sue and win. Nevermind reality. Whoever spins the best line wins in a courtroom. Obviously, Gibson's lawyers did a better job of spinning the lines.

This whole thing is a farce. But it is the amerikan way.

Peace.
 
Why would you ever buy a guitar that you didn't like the sound of?

People, or companies, spend all they have sometimes, put themselves and their reputation and their future on the line to come up with something new. Most of the time it fails, and you never hear from them again. For the few that DO make it and succeed, I think they have every right to gain from then on whatever they can. As soon as people see something making money they try to steal it.

My only issue is that Gibson didn't start this in the 60's when the jap copies of les pauls started appearing. They should have done it then and it would have made more sense. If I was Gibson, I'd do it too.

By the way, I think this HAS come to a head cause there are guys running gibson who care about the guitars and the Gibson name. They seem to know the bad image they have gotten and are trying, albeit slowly, to change it back. Kind of the way Fender did several years ago.

This is one subject I always actually side with C7 on.

As for innovation....remember the Nighthawk and the Blueshawk? Yeah, didnt think so. They really were innovative guitars for gibson, but no-one liked them at all. And they lost alot of money on the design of it and went back to making more les pauls.

H2H
 
Yes H2H, I remember those guitars.

My whole point is this.

If all a company has to do is go to court and say "so and so other company is building a widget that looks kinda sorta like mine, and I want them to stop because it takes money from my pocket" then theres a problem with both the legal system and the company bringing the suit. Plain and simple.

PRS's and LP's do not look the same. There are differences. Maybe minor differences in the grand scheme of things, but the differences are there. This is not a case of Vanilla Ice ripping off Freddy Mrecury and David Bowie. What PRS has done is clearer than that. The distinctions are enough to separate the two guitars.

Why did I buy a PRS and then take it back? Because it sounded ok playing it through what I played it through in the store, and I had that buyers euphoria thing we all get when we think we're getting something nice for ourselves. Needless to say it did'nt sound as nice through my rig, and I was probably biased from playing Fenders with humbuckers in them. I just did'nt like it after a few days. It played nice. I loved the feel, but not the tone. It was'nt what I was looking for. Just a subjective thing, thats all. Nothing wrong with that PRS.

Nor is there anything wrong with what an LP sounds like, if thats what you want. Not everybody wants that particular sound, especially at that price. If you're spending the money, you should get what you want, not what someone else tells you to want. It was my money and I bought what I wanted and liked after trying something different.

And by the way, after all those guitars I used to have, I play a cheap ass Ibanez RG with DiMarzio's in it now. It does what I need it to do and offers no hassles, and plays very well. Way better than any LP I've tried. And it does'nt make my shoulder ache after 30 minutes of playing it.


Peace.
 
does gibson own miller guitars? miller is the closest damn thing to gibson lespauls right beside epiphone..the only difference there is that epiphone is allowed to say lespaul.
 
Gibson

I've never owned a Les Paul. But my first two guitars were an 69 SG and 76 Explorer. Sold both when I was broke. Have been playing a modified 88 Kramer Focus with a Floyd Rose for the past 15 years. Doesn't sound like a LP but damn close. And the best sounding guitar I've owned. The reason I don't own one-They are too much money. PRS guitars are made 40 miles from my house. Great guitars-too much money. I play music with a guy that has the 211th blue bird inlay PRS made. $1300.00 in 1988. Has had the electronics replaced 4 times. Not because he wanted too, because they went bad. I do have a Epiphone LP copy-$200.00. Very clean with a nice crunch, but not the real. For guys like me who do music as a hobby and extra money, A LP or PRS are not practical choices. My $400.00 Kramer w/case has never had anything replaced, besides bridge saddles, and routine maintenance/setups. Let them two companies blow their money on lawyers and legal shit.
 
Gibson have every right to pursue this matter. FFS didn't Harley trade mark the sound of the bikes? And I'm sure I read somewhere that Fender were looking to protect the Strat shape.

If you don't like Gibson or Fender or PRS then fine, but they all have the right to protect their original intellectual property................maybe some of it should have been done years ago but that doesn't mean they shouldn't act now to correct the situation.

Also, if I recall from that news article correctly, the comment from the court was that experienced players HAVE confused the two guitars..........what they didn't say was in what circumstances. Of course even fucking Stevie Wonder would be able to identify one from another at close or intimate range, but put yourself in a "concert" situation where you may be some distance from the stage.........at first glance could you reliably and quickly identify which guitar was being played. The same applies for images on music videos..........you see the occasional 1/2 second flash of a guitar.......can you tell in that time if it was a PRS Single Cut or a LP.

C'mon people...............get real!!!

:cool:
 
ah ...see fender strat shape, i think, they can't do anything about....but the fender headstock is all theirs and they'll go after you if you copy that....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top