The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Rickenbacker Basses => Topic started by: Dave W on May 15, 2013, 10:26:47 PM
-
Thread at the Steel Guitar Forum (http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=246169)
The only reason RIC was able to get a trade dress trademark on the horseshoe is because the USPTO has become so lax in approving patents and trademark applications that clearly don't qualify under the law. You can't trademark function, you can't trademark the appearance of an item unless it has a trade dress distinct from its functionality, and you can almost never trademark an item that has previously been patented -- yet they got their trademark. Problem is, it takes big money to defend yourself against a trademark suit -- recently I've read anywhere from $500K to $2 million -- and RIC knows that Lollar almost surely doesn't have the wherewithal. Even taking action to get their trademark cancelled would take big bucks. This is why Rick Aiello stopped making horseshoes a few years ago.
It's a shame. And RIC doesn't even make a real horseshoe pickup.
-
The cool way to do this would be to ask for a symbolic license fee from Herr Lollar and be done with it. But Ric has never been cool about anything.
-
The cooler thing to do would be not to abuse the broken trademark process in the first place.
-
The cooler thing to do would be not to abuse the broken trademark process in the first place.
Totally agree, Dave.
Uwe, please become familiar with the ORIGINAL intent of U.S. intellectual property laws. They have been totally subverted by corporations to give them unfair advantage.
-
I assume that not doing anything against Herr Lollar gives them the fear of relinquishing something for the future - offering him a license fee arrangement for sales going forward would solve that and he could always add it to the sales price. Let's face it, if anybody wants a horsehoe that won't deter him, he'll pay the asked for price. It's a product for disciples.
Hey, I'm not just a litigator, I'm also an amicable dispute resolver! And I'm neither an IP rights basher who thinks everything should be free (coming from an engineering and inventions country like Germany, that could hardly be expected, could it? 8) ) nor someone who thinks you should knock'em dead for any and all infringements. I'm somewhere comfortably numb in between.
-
I quit designing furniture when I walked into Target and saw a chair for which I owned a design patent. I knew the (China/Taiwan) factory I designed it for had presented it to them. They took the sample to another manufacturer to copy instead of paying at most the 2% more it would have cost them to buy it from my factory. I couldn't afford lawyers to match Target's so my 'innovation' became their profit. A similar thing happened with Walmart. Needless to say, if I could shoplift at either store and get away with it I would.
Many established companies devote less capital to innovation than they do to strategies to stifle competition. By and large they believe in laws only as a means to an end.
-
Needless to say, if I could shoplift at either store and get away with it I would.
They have cameras everywhere.
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Man-charged-with-theft-after-wallet-goes-unreturned-165500846.html
-
Did he really believe that someone else had left a wallet with 2.000 bucks for him to find?
-
This is exactly why I didn't patent the Badbird. I if did the patent I could not afford to litigate on it's behalf nor could I build it. Patents are great for corps. with deep pockets.
I quit designing furniture when I walked into Target and saw a chair for which I owned a design patent. I knew the (China/Taiwan) factory I designed it for had presented it to them. They took the sample to another manufacturer to copy instead of paying at most the 2% more it would have cost them to buy it from my factory. I couldn't afford lawyers to match Target's so my 'innovation' became their profit. A similar thing happened with Walmart. Needless to say, if I could shoplift at either store and get away with it I would.
Many established companies devote less capital to innovation than they do to strategies to stifle competition. By and large they believe in laws only as a means to an end.
-
Btw I think Rickenbaker is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.
-
Did he really believe that someone else had left a wallet with 2.000 bucks for him to find?
And he would have gotten away with the theft if not for all the surveillance cameras.
-
In my opinion. John Hall cuts off his nose despite his face everyday. He doesn't care what anyone thinks or feels. He is all about money. That is why I will never, ever, buy a new rick! I will not support his facist regime! I wish the average consumer would do their homework as well.If they did, Hall would be panhandling on the street! >:(
-
I won't buy another new Rick, that's for sure. He's entitled to protect his brand, but this is the worst kind of trademark bullying, and it's a bogus trademark to boot.
-
It would be different if it Was his brand! He inherited rick thru his Dad who isn't his real dad at all. He was adopted! Your right though. He is a major bully.Hall is the worst kind of business owner! GREEDY!!
-
It's also about power and pushing people around.
-
It would be different if it Was his brand! He inherited rick thru his Dad who isn't his real dad at all. He was adopted! Your right though. He is a major bully.Hall is the worst kind of business owner! GREEDY!!
Please, no personal attacks. Of course it's his brand, he owns the company. Whether he bought or inherited it or whether or not he's adopted is completely beside the point.
The way the company chooses to do business is open to discussion.
-
He inherited rick thru his Dad
From what I know he bought it from his father.
-
How the company does it's business may be crappy, it may be par for the course for American business, but I have to say that when I visited the Ric Exchange here, the quality of the instruments was head and shoulders above Fender and Gibson. They are beautifully made.
And, if the company chooses as it's path to sue everyone for trademark infringement, they do it because the law says they can.
-
...
And, if the company chooses as it's path to sue everyone for trademark infringement, they do it because the law says they can.
The law, as written, prohibits almost all trademarks on items that were previously patented. The law, as written, prohibits trade dress trademarks on items that have no "dress" apart from their function (The functionality doctrine). The Supreme Court has ruled that the existence of a prior patent is strong evidence of functionality.
One of Lollar's fellow pickup makers has accused RIC of fraud in their trademark application by omitting facts about the pickup's functionality and expired patent. I haven't seen the application so I can't say whether or not that's accurate. I do know that the trademark has passed the time period for contestability, but a trademark can still be cancelled if it can be shown that it was obtained under false pretenses. Whether or not Lollar has the will or the financial means to do this, I have no idea.
IMHO there's no way this is a legitimate trademark. To make matters worse, they don't even produce a real horseshoe pickup.
-
... the quality of the instruments was head and shoulders above Fender and Gibson. They are beautifully made.
Not being a collector, per se, nor being a music shop hound, and only ever having held a Ric once (same day I bought my 12 string, which was paid for as a gift from M&D for my 21st, so a while back now), since being a post-pest here, that there can be "issues" with some of their instruments: 8 string springs to mind; glue-burst; neck-bow and truss rods; as quality goes I've never liked the look of their method of running the cable from the pup via a number of holes rather than a milled channel can only be said to be "cheap", not "quality" - what the eye does not see does not excuse this imho...
The only thing that surprised me with T'birds (and remember that I've never owned an "original" and only handled one once and that was the same day I picked up the Demetriou - an original T2) was the channel under the guard - PC's answer was to run a small channel along the edge of the lower "wing" - much neater.
I'd be much more concerned buying an old Ric than a Gibson or a Fender, regardless of the quality of the original build, and I seldom hear issues of neck-bow, or glue-migration - Fender's are "slabs" of wood; as Dave has said before, "If you can't do it with a P", etc. I'm aware of quality issues with Gibson (oops, there goes the head - the PC's head has gone through a 12" speaker and all I damaged was a machine, which proceeded to bend back by hitting it against the corner of the wall in the studio I was in :o), and litigation from both, but...
-
The only smart decision I've ever heard of Hall making was pulling Ric's from Guitar Center while I worked there for them selling the supposed-to-be-included, not "extra," cases separately from the instruments. Rickenbacker stopped selling through GC entirely and then refused to honor warrantees on any of them sold there. Even though previously stocked instruments were brand new, GC was required to sell them as used after that. This was just before GC began credit-leveraging (IOW blackmailing) their suppliers which ended up killing Mackie, SWR, and quite a few others. He saw the writing on the wall with that one.
-
I don't want this to come off as fan-boyish, because that's not my intention. Just offering mt perspective. I know they're kind of a wacky organization, but... I've owned, played, and held many Ric basses since 1978. With the exception of 2 bubbles that developed in the finish of one of mine, I never had a problem with any of them. And the bubble got me a complete refinish on a 2 year old instrument, completely free of charge. I have, however, heard a number of legitimate stories of issues ranging from bowed necks to exploding tailpieces. The vast majority of truss rod nightmares you hear about are do to "luthiers" who don't know how to adjust the old style rods. And I do know that customer service can be very hit or miss. JH seems like a somewhat eccentric character, but I like the fact that they've been a family owned company since the early 50s. I also admire the fact that they produce in low quantities rather than just cranking stuff out non-stop and relying on marketing to sell it. And I like that you always know what you're getting with a Ric - Made in USA! There's no "is it a Mexican/Korean/Chinese, etc, etc" model. There's no "faded finish" or "this one gets better QC than that one" nonsense.
Reading some of this stuff about trademarks and patents has me thinking that Hall's insistence that the horseshoes on the current re-issues actually affect the sound has something to do with protecting whatever right they have to the design. If it were me, I'd either make what the people want, or do a licensing deal with Lollar.
-
Tom, I have no problem with RIC quality. Sure there are occasional problems, and there were some problems with old ones that have been corrected over the years, but for factory built guitars, their quality control is very good.
...,.
Reading some of this stuff about trademarks and patents has me thinking that Hall's insistence that the horseshoes on the current re-issues actually affect the sound has something to do with protecting whatever right they have to the design. If it were me, I'd either make what the people want, or do a licensing deal with Lollar.
The problem is that a pickup is functional, and they got a patent on it in 1937. Their exclusive right to the design ended when the patent expired half a century ago, and many other companies have made horseshoe pickups over the years since, mostly on lap steels.
As pickup maker Wolfe MacLeod has said elsewhere: It is exactly akin to inventing the wheel and patenting it. Then when the patent expired, trademarking the round shape of the wheel. Since a wheel will not roll smoothly unless it is round, you use Trademark law prevent anyone else from making a round wheel, despite your previous patent being expired.
-
The shoes on Ric's current pickup are not functional, so there might be a case for referring to them as trade dress. However Lollar's pickup's shoes are functional and should be covered under the expired patent. I would think anyone with one of each pickups and a bar of steel could readily demonstrate the difference.
-
The shoes on Ric's current pickup are not functional, so there might be a case for referring to them as trade dress. However Lollar's pickup's shoes are functional and should be covered under the expired patent. I would think anyone with one of each pickups and a bar of steel could readily demonstrate the difference.
At one time John Hall claimed (at the RRF) that the shoes were functional in that they helped focus the magnetic field. Even if they aren't functional, it's irrelevant. You can't build a non-functional model of a functional item as a means of preventing others from using your expired patent.
-
At one time John Hall claimed (at the RRF) that the shoes were functional in that they helped focus the magnetic field. Even if they aren't functional, it's irrelevant. You can't build a non-functional model of a functional item as a means of preventing others from using your expired patent.
I took the shoes off two different V-63's and the sound did change a little, they were noisier and less full sounding but I couldn't play with the damn things in the way. I also think Rickenbacker has much better quality control than either Gibson and Fender, (that being said I still like em all!)
-
There was a discussion of this at the TDPRI which has been revived because Rick Turner joined and made a couple of posts, which I'll quote here:
I was probably the first one to make a functional modern version of the double horseshoe pickup back in the mid 1990s for my Model T guitars. They were never a major thing for me, though I did get an editor's choice award and a great review from Tom Wheeler at Guitar Player (back then). I did get "the letter" from Rickenbacker about two years ago, and I just said "screw it"; I don't have the dough to get into a stupid pissing contest with John Hall. I've talked to Jason about this whole thing, and we both agree that Ric's assertion is utter and complete bull****. The horseshoes are part of the magnetic circuit whether they're horseshoe magnets with cut off nails as polepieces (early Ric) or as I did, they're horseshoe polepieces magnetized by Alico magnets in the bobbin...as I did.
It's basically a fraudulent use of trade mark/trade dress. And it's petty as hell since you just really can't get real horseshoe pickups from Rickenbacker.
John and Henry would make a good couple...
------------------
I've been in touch with Jason, and I told him that I'd be happy to write a letter, give a deposition, whatever as an "expert witness" in this case.
Rickenbacker is acting much akin to the patent trolls who are losing cases these days. This is a trademark/trade dress troll case.
It also shows, unfortunately, that someone or a lot of someones at Rickenbacker doesn't/don't have a clue as to how the horseshoe pickups actually work. Maybe there aren't any real pickup designers there these days. Winding is one thing; knowing what you're winding is another! It's not about a look, it's about a function...shaping the magnetic field in which the strings vibrate and also in conducting of the flux variations through the horseshoes down to the lower turns of the coil, making the pickup very hot for the magnet strength and number of turns. These types of pickups (which would include the National/Supro style) are very efficient in delivering a lot of flux modulation to each turn of wire in the coil. It's a clever design that really delivered the goods back in 1933 and still sounds great today. It's also a design that can be carefully altered to take advantage of modern materials and still deliver that huge bell-like sound. But you do have to know what you're doing...