Caveats:
I'm not an Intellectual Property Lawyer at all.
I don't owe Herr Lull, who makes fine guitars and basses, any loyalty.
I thought Scott's invention brilliant at the time and still do. Like the wheel, it's easy to come up with it once you know it exists but think of it first!
That said:
What made and makes the wonderful Dasson Bridge stand out in my mind were two things:
- It gives more intonation range one way than the other if you regard the mounting studs as the middle as its sole purpose of invention at the time was to compensate the fact that all sixties TBirds intonated flat due to the studs being mounted too far back (the Dasson bridge, if reversed, can also make my too sharp Epi Embassy - somebody overcorrected the stud possitions on that one - intonate perfectly, I now have it on all my four sixties TBirds and the Epi).
- It's one massive hunk of steel (my luthier fondled and marvelled at it, muttering "that is one nice piece of metal work") to the extent that it influences the sound of a sixties Bird quite a bit, especially if the Dasson saddles are used and not the original Gibson ones retained, I just noticed that when I switched my last sixties Bird sans Dasson upgrade - a 67 Non Rev II - to the modern, fully intonateable world).
None of the bridges that look akin to Scott's share the above characteristics. They are not nearly as massive (and probably not made of steel) and they don't have that idiosyncratic one-way extension which marks Scott's product as a compensation for what Gibson did wrong.
Consequently, I don't see any of the bridges made for two stud basses as direct copies of what Scott has done. I think it is still very much a stand alone product which, given the minority of sixties TBs and Embassys that are still being actively played, it will probably remain. Only Scott offers the real and original cure, but it's a small market.
My - totally irrelevant - two € cents Wert.
Uwe