The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: godofthunder on November 14, 2009, 12:19:46 PM
-
Geeze I checked out Lulls site and he describes how he developed a intonatable bridge for Thunderbirds :rolleyes: These were built by Hipshot, about two years ago some guys who worked at Hipshot showed up at a gig and eyeballed my bridge, also Mike Lull had one of my bridges on site while he was building prototypes. I designed and had my first prototype built in 1983, I will have to check my records but I think I started selling bridges in 2004. As I remember he stated he couldn't get my bridge to work ? I am feeling like he stole my idea. I might even be considering legal action. Advice? suggestions? Am I being unreasonable ?
-
No chance for legal action unless you have it patented or had a patent pending before these came out. And I seriously doubt it's patentable anyway. Even if it were, you would have to be prepared to come up with big bucks to take legal action.
It's not eligible for trademark protection, you can't trademark function.
I don't doubt that someone took your idea, it's just that even though you came up with it first, you can't protect it unless it can be patented or trademarked.
-
Believe me I looked into a patent, very expensive along the lines of 5k. My wife Cath works in Kodak legal and one of our friends there is a patent attorney. He advised against a patent due to cost and the return. He however did say that just by it being "out there" on the internet that it would be protected by copyright laws. I have no idea what protection that may offer.
-
Years back, Arthur C Clarke came up with the idea (pre Sputnik) of geo-synchronised satelites being used for telecommunication... he could not register the idea because he could not prove it could be done... now, no-one can patent the idea, because the idea was already "out there"...
there are numerous other examples of such things...
Yours is "THE ORIGINAL", and can be marketed as such, regardless of anyone else's product...
-
Scott, I'd say this bridge at Lindsey Guitars is much closer to your design than the Lull bridge...
(http://www.lindseyguitars.com/IMAGES/Tbird%20Br%202.jpg)
The Lull bridge looks very similar to the BaCHbird bridge if you ask me...
This pic shows notched saddles but the BaCHbirds have unnotched saddles which makes it almost identical to Lull's bridge.
(http://www.bachmusik.com/system/media/products/MBT%20ST%20POH.jpg)
-
I know there is no money in this I guess what bugs me is he talks like the idea was his when he had one of mine in his shop during prototype development.
-
The most cost-effective deisgn is someone elses, especially if it's free... :sad:
-
I think the Lindsey site it the one that mentions my bridge and I am pretty cool with that. What gets me the most is that both Hipshot and Mike knew of my bridge.
-
Mike's bridge is a bit different dimensionally than yours Scott, tho the idea is certainly very similar. At the time I showed him your design he had a Hipshot prototype as well.........Perhaps his mind was already made up.
-
"Maker of the Badbird Bridge, "intonation without modification" for your vintage Gibson Thunderbird..."
Get it out there... just chuck "ORIGINAL" in there...
-
Believe me I looked into a patent, very expensive along the lines of 5k. My wife Cath works in Kodak legal and one of our friends there is a patent attorney. He advised against a patent due to cost and the return. He however did say that just by it being "out there" on the internet that it would be protected by copyright laws. I have no idea what protection that may offer.
I don't know what he could be talking about. Copyright is about content, not about a product. If you wrote an instruction manual for installation of your bridge, that would be copyrighted whether or not you registered it. Otherwise this has nothing to do with copyright at all.
If someone were able to get a patent on a similar bridge, the fact that you're out there would mean you could get his patent canceled because yours is "prior art."
Trademarks don't have to be registered to be valid, you could claim a common law trademark on the name BadBird Bridge.
-
Bottom line is someone out there is a bit dishonest and Scott got hosed. The best recourse is to keep your name and product out there so people can find it. The other best recourse is to make yours the best quality, value and solution for the money. That's the hard part for small operators.
-
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" BAHHHH! Still pisses you off, though! The Doc is right, press on and take the high road. If you were to launch a web site make sure that you have every variation, word and description of your bridge listed so that search engines will list your site predominantly. Make your case and the truth shall set you free!
-
I didn't realize I had so many basses with two point bridges, I've placed Scott's next to several of mine.
This is Curt's (DC10bass) modified Orville
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/bridges005.jpg)
And my still as yet unfinished BaCH Non-Reverse.
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/bridges007.jpg)
Alongside Joe's 8 string.
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/bridges013.jpg)
And by my Lull.
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/bridges015.jpg)
I think Scott's bridge and what Hipshot did for Mike Lull do look very similar as all of these do, how can they not? As they say form follows function. When I worked with Mike on his basses I REALLY wanted to have Scott's bridge on mine, however as you can see his mounting studs are quite different from the others which caused the bridge to tilt when it was tightened down. The reason for it is that Scott's bridge is designed to replace an original Gibson, which it does. Perfectly.
-
Bottom line is someone out there is a bit dishonest and Scott got hosed. The best recourse is to keep your name and product out there so people can find it. The other best recourse is to make yours the best quality, value and solution for the money. That's the hard part for small operators.
I agree with your ideas for Scott's best recourses.
OTOH unless someone else is making a false claim of being the original or using the BadBird name, I don't it's being dishonest by making another version of a product that's clearly not patentable and doesn't have any trade dress to trademark. It's just something that happens.
I have thought about making a product that I think would fill a niche. It's not a protectable idea, just something that I think there's a small market for. I know that if I do it and it sells, somebody will jump in and make something similar, and probably for much less in China. It's just the way of the world. You emphasize your strong points and hope enough people will buy from you.
Most products you own have parts or components in them that were first thought of by someone other than who makes it now. Every TV set, every refrigerator, etc.
-
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
-
I would also like to add thats Scott's bridge is a superior design and the precision of it is amazing. I would swear it was German engineered, not "Ginger" engineered.
It's a thing of beauty & superior function.
-
Thanks guys for all you input, Uwe inparticular. I know that my idea will be copied. Tony Carl makes a bridge and he was kind enough to call me and talk to me about it. When the Bachbirds were being developed Rob also extended the same thoughtfulness. There is even another maker Lindsey I think, who mention mine on there site. What galls me is that Mike seems to be taking credit for the idea of extra saddle travel on a Thunderbird style bridge. This is a idea I developed in 1983. Hipshot who make his bridges showed up at a gig and schmoozed me and I showed them mine (dumb move but I am sure they had seen it on the web anyhow). While the bridges Mike uses may well have been delivered before mine arrived at his shop one can only presume that him being such a big Thunderbird fan he was already aware of mine. I know a patent may may have help make things clear but the cost was over 2x what the first run cost me. If I had taken a patent out there would be no bridges, I simply could not have afforded to make them. Even with a patent it would not make any sense to litigate, it would not be cost effective. Mark please know that I truly am greatful for you trying to get Mike to use one of my bridges on you bass. I do have a hard time understanding how it could not be installed on your bass with the correct mounting studs and without technical explanation from Mike, I can only presume he just wanted to use his. If Mike had called me and talked it over I would not feel so "hosed" as Bill so aptly put it.
-
btw the bridge is made of machined brass and nickel plated. :)
-
Honesty and integrity are so hard to find these days. It's not rocket science.
-
.. What galls me is that Mike seems to be taking credit for the idea of extra saddle travel on a Thunderbird style bridge. This is a idea I developed in 1983. Hipshot who make his bridges showed up at a gig and schmoozed me and I showed them mine (dumb move but I am sure they had seen it on the web anyhow). While the bridges Mike uses may well have been delivered before mine arrived at his shop one can only presume that him being such a big Thunderbird fan he was already aware of mine. .... Mark please know that I truly am greatful for you trying to get Mike to use one of my bridges on you bass. I do have a hard time understanding how it could not be installed on your bass with the correct mounting studs and without technical explanation from Mike, I can only presume he just wanted to use his. If Mike had called me and talked it over I would not feel so "hosed" as Bill so aptly put it.
Now I see what's really bothering you. And I understand why.
When you (or anyone else) thought of the idea really isn't the issue. What is relevant is that you were the first to design, produce and market a bridge with extra saddle travel, and you deserve the credit for that.
-
Kick him in the nuts.
-
Kick him in the nuts.
+1
-
Now I see what's really bothering you. And I understand why.
When you (or anyone else) thought of the idea really isn't the issue. What is relevant is that you were the first to design, produce and market a bridge with extra saddle travel, and you deserve the credit for that.
Yep that's whats bugging me.
-
Kick him in the nuts.
I don't want to turn this into a Lull bashing. He makes fine basses and I really admire him for reverse engineering our beloved Thunderbird pickups.
-
Still gotta change your "byline", Scott, to include "THE ORIGINAL, AND THE BEST", in nice BIG friendly letters... ;)
... and maybe, "ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTE..."
-
Still gotta change your "byline", Scott, to include "THE ORIGINAL, AND THE BEST", in nice BIG friendly letters... ;)
... and maybe, "ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTE..."
Aside from those in the know on this forum, where's the website that promotes these? I understand the consternation, but after a keyword search I don't see much "footprint" for these. A blogspot page would be easy to build if you don't have resources for a website.
-
Scott and all,
Since I was involved with this it's pretty important to state what happened as some of these comments are way out of line. When Mike told me about his project he was pretty far along with the R&D side of it (esp. the pickups) and no doubt had Hipshot working on the bridge as well. One of my first thoughts was of Scott's bridge and that it would be really cool if he could be the supplier of this part for Mike. It's important to state that Mike knew nothing of Scott's bridge until I told him. I contacted Scott and had him send two pieces out to me and I took them to Mike and left them with him - and at that point Mike did have a Hipshot prototype as well. The first two basses were already spec'd at this point, one for Mike and one for the '63 'Birds donor, I told Mike that I really wanted to use Scott's bridge on my bass if it was possible. When my bass was ready Mike tried to use Scott's bridge but when tightened down and under string tension it wanted to tilt, so a Hipshot was used on mine.
If you look at the photos I posted you'll notice that the slots cut for the mounting posts are in different places, that is the reason the bridge would not work on Mike's bass. It is also part of why Scott's design is the perfect solution for a vintage Gibson.
Mike of course gave me Scott's bridges back, I paid for and kept one to use on my Greco Thunderbird and sent the other back to Scott.
I don't know anything of Mike's dealing with Hipshot other than that he uses their parts (i.e. tuners) on his basses so turning to them as a reliable parts supplier seems pretty logical to me. What Hipshot did for R&D seems to have included seeing Scott's work, weather or not it was directly connected to Mike's project I don't know.
I do know that Mike is as passionate about Thunderbirds as any of us are
and while I and several others prodded him about making such a bass the decision and all the risks involved were his. He is a fine person and has always been very good to work with, I personally have spent over $10,000 of my money with him for work on my Thunderbirds and would never hesitate in recomending him - The only other person on this forum that's dealt with him directly is Dave (PWV) and I know he shares my high opinion of Mike and his work.
I also need to state that I hold Scott in the exact same high regard and hope to be able to buy a bass from him when my finances allow it.
-
Nice post Fraulein! I remember back in 1982 I was having my Fender P bass worked on at Heart Of Texas Music. Steve Crisp was the tech and I wanted a Jazz pickup added to the bass. (I know....) I brought up the idea of a Jazz bass pickup being humbucking and he said there was no way. I said "what about if you stack the coils on top of each other?" He looked at me like I was crazy. A few months later he was installing some of Seymour Duncan's new "stack" pickups on a strat for SRV to try out. (Stevie was there) I always wonder if he suggested the idea to Duncan as this was before they were out. SRV didn't like the pickups anyway. :mrgreen:
-
Thanks, Mark. And as Scott says, he doesn't want any Lull bashing.
Those of us who were at the Pit know that Scott has been making his bridge for several years. OTOH I can understand how someone outside that circle wouldn't have heard of Scott's bridge.
Mike's site says "I wanted to keep the same classic look and tonality so I developed a bridge that was slightly wider and intonates correctly." Now it's likely that Hipshot's input into Mike's design was influenced by them having seen Scott's bridge, but Mike wasn't aware of that. Under the circumstances, I don't think Mike's statement is inaccurate. He developed a bridge as part of his T-Bass project.
We all ought to keep this in mind: the original design is Gibson's. All these aftermarket products, from the cheapest Chinese pickups to the most expensive custom hardware, are only possible because of Gibson, Fender and other manufacturers making the original products that became popular.
-
Well said Mark! Scott's got a great product and I'm sure he'll do well with it as will Mike with his.
Ok, I've taken my last lash at this dead horse - we about done? (Cripes I'm turning into Ross Perot...)
-
I'm finished. Scott was first. No bashing here.
-
"Advice? suggestions? Am I being unreasonable ?" I ended my opening post with this line. I really wanted the forums opinion to help me sort out how I really should be feeling about this. Mark thank you for your clarification but I do not feel my comments are out of line and I have made every attempt keep my post civil. Is still can't help but feel how Orville and Wilbur right must have felt once powered flight was out in the public, they spent most of their career in litigation trying to protect their work. Dave you can lock this up or delete it if you like.
-
Scott,
Your comments about this are not out of line, my comment was really directed at some of the others made, I understand and respect your feelings about this. At the time all this was happening I thought I had explained it, obviously I didn't do a good job of it and for that I apologize, the failure is mine.
I've had the pleasure of talking on the phone with you several times and I know you're a person of integrity, have a great passion for Thunderbirds and that you're a great guy.
I think Dave's post sums it up better than I can.
-
I think we should put this to rest now.