Not bass related - yet.
http://www.andersonforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=10140&page=2
http://www.andersonguitars.com/product_information/models/bulldog_family/bulldog_over.cfm
To be fair, that is just an LP, with a slightly shorter cutaway horn, minor headstock shape change, 2 endpins, and countersunk hardware (a la PRS) - those are pretty minor details. They are explicitly trading on the LP legacy.
I had to look really hard to spot all that; at a glance (headstock not seen) I could have assumed it was Gibson. ... well maybe if not for the insane high gloss (looks really thick) finish.
.... they even have a flat top 'special' model variant. Case closed.
Gibson has separate trademarks on the headstock and body shapes. No one looking at the whole guitar would mistake it for a Gibson, but that body is obviously too close for Gibson's attorneys.
Trademark bullies are usually bigger companies with deeper pockets than the ones they're threatening. They have the edge b/c they know it will cost at least $250K to fight an actual lawsuit. And in Tom Anderson's case, he could easily lose the lawsuit even if he chose to fight it.
The money they spend on lawyers would be better used to redesign or make a new model.
I wonder how Heritage is still making these?
(I once played a Heritage LP-style guitar... it was really quite nice. It's too bad they don't make basses.)
(http://www.heritageguitar.com/models/images/alexskolnicksigh150_h.jpg)
(http://www.heritageguitar.com/models/images/h137_tv_h.jpg)
Quote from: Blackbird on March 10, 2015, 03:33:27 PM
The money they spend on lawyers would be better used to redesign or make a new model.
AMEN!
Agreed, but I have little sympathy for Anderson.
Good poing re Heritage Slinkster. I am assuming that there's some complications there regarding the IP due to the nature/origin of that company.
edited to add: "little", somehow I missed the operative word. Sorry for the doi.
Not sure about Heritage; I suspect it's because they were making those shapes well before Gibson got its body shape trademarks and even before the Lanham Act was amended to allow product shape trademarks.
I have sympathy for Anderson too, since I think trademark should be strictly limited to names and logos. Maybe someday we'll get back to that.
Quote from: Dave W on March 11, 2015, 10:09:16 AM
I have sympathy for Anderson too, since I think trademark should be strictly limited to names and logos. Maybe someday we'll get back to that.
Given today's "Blurred Lines" copyright ruling, you can't even re-use (or approximate) a RHYTHM any longer. Stupid!!!!! :-[
Quote from: Blackbird on March 10, 2015, 03:33:27 PM
The money they spend on lawyers would be better used to redesign or make a new model.
Firebird XI!!!!
Wait...
Nevermind. As you were, Henry :-X
Quote from: Granny Gremlin on March 10, 2015, 01:14:06 PM
To be fair, that is just an LP, with a slightly shorter cutaway horn, minor headstock shape change, 2 endpins, and countersunk hardware (a la PRS) - those are pretty minor details. They are explicitly trading on the LP legacy.
I had to look really hard to spot all that; at a glance (headstock not seen) I could have assumed it was Gibson. ... well maybe if not for the insane high gloss (looks really thick) finish.
.... they even have a flat top 'special' model variant. Case closed.
I'm with the little Cannuck here. You know, it's easy to escape Gibson's attorneys. Just don't make your guitar look like a Gibson, simple as that. Yet that is what a lot of these boutique guitar builders consciously do, they copy (approximate) classic shapes, rather than coming up with something new. And why is that? Because their customers want to have something that echoes the Gibson or Fender look, only made of more valuable components, but not at the price of a Gibson Custpm Shop model. If I was Henry J, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.
I'm bored with all these copycats emulating classic guitars and shapes, but I applaud if someone comes up with something new like Parker did with the Fly shape. I bet there were issues with
neither Gibson
nor Femder regarding its design.
(http://www.doctorbass.net/imagftp/imagAux1_Parker-Fly4-2.jpg)
Quote from: Dave W on March 11, 2015, 10:09:16 AM
I have sympathy for Anderson too, since I think trademark should be strictly limited to names and logos. Maybe someday we'll get back to that.
Sorry for the psyche-ouit there - that was accidental.
I can respect your point of view, as it mimics the nature of what I think about copyright ant patent laws, but it was no secret that this is the way it is with TMs. I'd have to think it out more to see how valid I think the case for product designs to be valid TMs, but my first thought is, yeah maybe.
Quote from: slinkp on March 11, 2015, 01:38:56 AM
I wonder how Heritage is still making these?
What about the Agile AL series at Rondo Music? In terms of appearance, not very different from the Heritage - maybe Epiphone gets to sue
them... :rolleyes:
Quote from: lowend1 on March 11, 2015, 01:31:41 PM
What about the Agile AL series at Rondo Music? In terms of appearance, not very different from the Heritage - maybe Epiphone gets to sue them... :rolleyes:
I seem to remember something about Rondo making enough changes to satisfy Gibson. This was 8-10 years ago.
Quote from: uwe on March 11, 2015, 12:38:52 PM
I'm with the little Cannuck here. You know, it's easy to escape Gibson's attorneys. Just don't make your guitar look like a Gibson, simple as that. Yet that is what a lot of these boutique guitar builders consciously do, they copy (approximate) classic shapes, rather than coming up with something new. And why is that? Because their customers want to have something that echoes the Gibson or Fender look, only made of more valuable components, but not at the price of a Gibson Custpm Shop model. If I was Henry J, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.
I'm bored with all these copycats emulating classic guitars and shapes, but I applaud if someone comes up with something new like Parker did with the Fly shape. I bet there were issues with neither Gibson nor Femder regarding its design.
If today's post-'88 trademark laws had been in force in the '50s, the market would be controlled by a handful of companies who would have locked everything up. IMHO that would be a very bad thing.
I'm against counterfeiting but the world got along just fine before trademark law was expanded to include product shapes. It's anti-competitive. The whole point of the changes was to stifle competition.
Quote from: uwe on March 11, 2015, 12:38:52 PM
... like Parker did with the Fly shape...
hmm... popular little number...
How come there are so many Thunderbird "tributes" up-and-running" ... ?
Quote from: Dave W on March 11, 2015, 10:49:33 PM
If today's post-'88 trademark laws had been in force in the '50s, the market would be controlled by a handful of companies who would have locked everything up. IMHO that would be a very bad thing.
I'm against counterfeiting but the world got along just fine before trademark law was expanded to include product shapes. It's anti-competitive. The whole point of the changes was to stifle competition.
Except that you can still compete with Gibson, without making LP copies (e.g. Fender). You don't have to be as big a company to do so either - e.g.. National, Reverend etc. It stifles no competition except the competition of exact LP copies, which I am fine with. If you want a gussied up 'boutique' LP you can still make one, or have one made for yourself by a custom builder. That builder just can't have an advertised production model like that. That seems fair enough to me.
... on the other hand, I suppose in practice this would mostly benefit larger companies, such as Gibson, who have the resources to pursue such litigation and the motive to protect their brand in the face of quality-affecting cost cutting/profit maximising business decisions.
Quote from: Highlander on March 12, 2015, 01:24:13 AM
hmm... popular little number...
How come there are so many Thunderbird "tributes" up-and-running" ... ?
I get your point. If something is popular, then it may be stolen. No need to get all defensive about it.
The world wouldn't be a poorer place if there were less Strat, Tele, Les Paul and what-have-you cheapo hos and high class boutique whores around. Much the opposite, it would spawn more creative shapes.
But as long as there is a market for breast implants, there is also one for Gibsons and Fender lookalikes that really aren't. We live in a world of make-believe. And IMHO boutique builders have succumbed to the prevailing retro taste of the public long enough. If I see another boutique Jazz Bass "in original 60ies look" sporting hardware and electronics that weren't around back then, I'll puke. If that hampers competition, so be it.
Quote from: uwe on March 12, 2015, 11:55:45 AM
The world wouldn't be a poorer place if there were less Strat, Tele, Les Paul and what-have-you cheapo hos and high class boutique whores around. Much the opposite, it would spawn more creative shapes.
Problem is, those "creative shapes" tend to look far less appealing. I've seen far too many of these "boutique" original designs that are akin Don Swayze - looks sorta like Patrick, rest his soul, but both the style and the substance miss the mark. For a PRS Singlecut to be mentioned in the same breath as a Les Paul - even an Epiphone - is laughable, IMHO. Like it or not, both Gibson and Fender got it right on most of their designs - at least the ones that get copied.
Quote from: Pilgrim on March 11, 2015, 11:10:44 AM
Given today's "Blurred Lines" copyright ruling, you can't even re-use (or approximate) a RHYTHM any longer. Stupid!!!!! :-[
On TV someone was saying he woke up yesterday and said to his wife "let's get it on." Now the Marvin Gaye estate is suing him for 7.4 million.
Gibson, Fender, Les Paul, they stole everything from Paul Bigsby anyway :o
(That's a joke, but about 75% true too...)
Quote from: Granny Gremlin on March 12, 2015, 09:37:04 AM
Except that you can still compete with Gibson, without making LP copies (e.g. Fender). You don't have to be as big a company to do so either - e.g.. National, Reverend etc. It stifles no competition except the competition of exact LP copies, which I am fine with. If you want a gussied up 'boutique' LP you can still make one, or have one made for yourself by a custom builder. That builder just can't have an advertised production model like that. That seems fair enough to me.
... on the other hand, I suppose in practice this would mostly benefit larger companies, such as Gibson, who have the resources to pursue such litigation and the motive to protect their brand in the face of quality-affecting cost cutting/profit maximising business decisions.
Quote from: uwe on March 12, 2015, 11:55:45 AM
The world wouldn't be a poorer place if there were less Strat, Tele, Les Paul and what-have-you cheapo hos and high class boutique whores around. Much the opposite, it would spawn more creative shapes.
But as long as there is a market for breast implants, there is also one for Gibsons and Fender lookalikes that really aren't. We live in a world of make-believe. And IMHO boutique builders have succumbed to the prevailing retro taste of the public long enough. If I see another boutique Jazz Bass "in original 60ies look" sporting hardware and electronics that weren't around back then, I'll puke. If that hampers competition, so be it.
A government-granted monopoly on a product shape stifles competition by its very definition. It's anti-consumer as well as anti-competitive. IMHO the more competition we have, the better.
Whether they're boutique builders or mass-production low-end manufacturers, they're giving customers what they want. If you don't want a boutique Jazz Bass, that's fine, but most of the successful boutique builders have found what sells for them.
Imagine what kind of market we'd have today if the original Christian Frederick Martin had been able to trademark the shape of his acoustics back in the first half of the 19th century. Imagine what would have happened, if, say, RCA had been able to trademark the shape of its televisions instead of just its brand name and logo.
Quote from: 66Atlas on March 12, 2015, 04:51:19 PM
Gibson, Fender, Les Paul, they stole everything from Paul Bigsby anyway :o
(That's a joke, but about 75% true too...)
In Dan Erlewine's latest Stew-Mac trade secrets video, he is cutting wood bindings for a guitar made in about 1835 in Markneukirchen, Germany. It has a 6-inline headstock and a bolt-on neck! Everything old is new again.
You can see it about 40 seconds in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od22q-fpfE4
Quote from: westen44 on March 12, 2015, 12:28:12 PM
On TV someone was saying he woke up yesterday and said to his wife "let's get it on." Now the Marvin Gaye estate is suing him for 7.4 million.
Interesting opinion piece here
Blurred Lines: Prepare for Endless Frivolous Copyright Lawsuits (http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/12/pharrell-williams-blurred-lines-copyrigh)
And to hammer home a point, there's this (some NSFW language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
fantastic video, Dave. And IMO it makes a point to the absurdity of the recent copyright rulings. Many, many things are similar. Inspiration isn't always free form, and to me, if it's a distinct new piece of music I'm happy to consider it new. I don't care if it gets two measures of beat from X or a few notes from Y.
Now can we argue about whether sampling three notes from another piece of music, stretching them out, changing their pitch and playing them backwards is infringement? :o
Quote from: Dave W on March 12, 2015, 10:43:40 PM
A government-granted monopoly on a product shape stifles competition by its very definition. It's anti-consumer as well as anti-competitive. IMHO the more competition we have, the better.
Imagine what kind of market we'd have today if the original Christian Frederick Martin had been able to trademark the shape of his acoustics back in the first half of the 19th century. Imagine what would have happened, if, say, RCA had been able to trademark the shape of its televisions instead of just its brand name and logo.
I understand but there is a balance to be struck. The thing about your RCA example, is that the form of a television is not as standard so as to work here. There's no innovation/differentiation to putting electronic guts in a box and in fact TVs did take on various shapes (other then just a plain litteral box).
In the Martin case, I agree, but since that was a functional innovation, it would qualify under patent law (if indeed there was no prior art), not trademark. ... and you know what, it would be no big deal if only Martin could use the dreadnaught shape; we had plenty of fine acoustic guitars before Martin. All that said, I am not sure how different it is (would it qualify for either patent or TM) than other guitars of the time - merely fatter in the waist (so as to create more physical volume inside the body; more bass), but due to the performance improvement, I find it likely enough.
The LP shape is not functional; it is all branding. You can compete with Gibson, by making a guitar that plays as well, sounds very similar but without the distinctive layout and shape. It stifles no competition aside from the knock off market.
I am playing devil's advocat [sic - that's a pun if you know almost any other European language], as I am not fully decided (see the second half of my last post), but if there is an argument against this sort of thing, I don't think it's the one you are making. This would not be a true monopoly; you can get a guitar, one as nice, similar sounding, just not similar looking from any number of other companies (and you can make and exact copy, or have one made, for personal use). The argument could easily be made that it is fair (on the balance of things) to enforce a 'monopoly' on an iconic design; if you want a guitar, you have options, if you want an LP specifically, it should be Gibson (but you have the option to DIY or privately commission one).
Further, it's not just the body shape that Anderson was aping - but the entire configuration. That actually screams what the intention was. If they went after a company that was using the shape, but everything else was vastly different (making it obvious that it is not an actual LP) then I would have a much different opinion (and it would lose in court, baring any legal inequalities). I think Gibson understands and accepts this as well e.g. they haven't gone after Danelectro for these
(http://www.oocities.org/sunsetstrip/gala/8421/DanelectroBaritone.jpg)
Seems pretty fair to me; leaves room for inspiration and building on prior work.
I love Jake! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Lil' punk original.
Allowing competiton does not mean that ripping off should be for free. I'd even go as far as to say that it is ok to resurrect a shape that Gibson have given up on producing (if there is a demand, it doesn't do Gibson sales harm then), but latching onto an iconic consistent seller like the Les Paul is another thing.
Quote from: Granny Gremlin on March 13, 2015, 08:05:09 AM
I understand but there is a balance to be struck. The thing about your RCA example, is that the form of a television is not as standard so as to work here. There's no innovation/differentiation to putting electronic guts in a box and in fact TVs did take on various shapes (other then just a plain litteral box).
In the Martin case, I agree, but since that was a functional innovation, it would qualify under patent law (if indeed there was no prior art), not trademark. ... and you know what, it would be no big deal if only Martin could use the dreadnaught shape; we had plenty of fine acoustic guitars before Martin. All that said, I am not sure how different it is (would it qualify for either patent or TM) than other guitars of the time - merely fatter in the waist (so as to create more physical volume inside the body; more bass), but due to the performance improvement, I find it likely enough.
The LP shape is not functional; it is all branding. You can compete with Gibson, by making a guitar that plays as well, sounds very similar but without the distinctive layout and shape. It stifles no competition aside from the knock off market.
I am playing devil's advocat [sic - that's a pun if you know almost any other European language], as I am not fully decided (see the second half of my last post), but if there is an argument against this sort of thing, I don't think it's the one you are making. This would not be a true monopoly; you can get a guitar, one as nice, similar sounding, just not similar looking from any number of other companies (and you can make and exact copy, or have one made, for personal use). The argument could easily be made that it is fair (on the balance of things) to enforce a 'monopoly' on an iconic design; if you want a guitar, you have options, if you want an LP specifically, it should be Gibson (but you have the option to DIY or privately commission one).
Further, it's not just the body shape that Anderson was aping - but the entire configuration. That actually screams what the intention was. If they went after a company that was using the shape, but everything else was vastly different (making it obvious that it is not an actual LP) then I would have a much different opinion (and it would lose in court, baring any legal inequalities). I think Gibson understands and accepts this as well e.g. they haven't gone after Danelectro for these
(http://www.oocities.org/sunsetstrip/gala/8421/DanelectroBaritone.jpg)
Seems pretty fair to me; leaves room for inspiration and building on prior work.
When the government grants you an exclusive right to anything marketable, whether it covers a general area or a specific product or service, that's a monopoly by definition. No ifs, ands or buts about it. You can play devil's advocate all you want and we can debate whether or not a monopoly is desirable, but a trademark is as true a monopoly as any other. And it's the worst kind since it's perpetual, as long as it's used. At least patents have an expiration date. And copyrights did until the entertainment industry bribed enough legislators that it's virtually perpetual.
Branding isn't the correct term, a trademark is something distinctive enough to differentiate a product from others. I don't know if C. F. Martin's designs would have qualified for patents, but they were different enough to qualify for trademarks under today's laws. And you misunderstand what I was saying about televisons; I meant that if it happened today, everyone would be trying to lock up their different box shapes.
The so-called copyright clause of the US Constitution, which is also the basis for US trademark law although it's not stated, authorizes Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Note the purpose:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Not a word about profiteering by permanently keeping others from the market.
Quote from: uwe on March 13, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
I love Jake! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Lil' punk original.
Allowing competiton does not mean that ripping off should be for free. I'd even go as far as to say that it is ok to resurrect a shape that Gibson have given up on producing (if there is a demand, it doesn't do Gibson sales harm then), but latching onto an iconic consistent seller like the Les Paul is another thing.
Nobody's "ripping off" Gibson, any more than Gibson "ripped off" O.W. Appleton by producing an almost identical copy of his App guitar that he tried to get Gibson to produce a decade before. Everything we have is built on something that came before. It's only recently that predatory industries have sold the public on the idea that it's right to lock everything up. I'm just thankful that a lot of the younger generation doesn't feel bound by it. There's hope for a reversal, though it will take years.
Quote from: Pilgrim on March 13, 2015, 06:45:15 AM
fantastic video, Dave. And IMO it makes a point to the absurdity of the recent copyright rulings. Many, many things are similar. Inspiration isn't always free form, and to me, if it's a distinct new piece of music I'm happy to consider it new. I don't care if it gets two measures of beat from X or a few notes from Y.
Now can we argue about whether sampling three notes from another piece of music, stretching them out, changing their pitch and playing them backwards is infringement? :o
Excellent article by Mike Masnick here Years Of Brainwashing The Public Into Thinking Everything Creative Must Be 'Owned' Has Led To This New Mess (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150312/06330930299/years-brainwashing-public-into-thinking-everything-creative-must-be-owned-has-led-to-this-new-mess.shtml)
Nice article!
"Joe Escalante, an early member of the Vandals punk rock band and an entertainment law attorney, said he was concerned that the jury's decision had been driven by emotion rather than what's protected under copyright law.
"This may put a smile on the Gaye family's face, but it's a dark day for creativity, and in the end, this will be a net loss for music fans," he said. "Good news for lawyers and the bitter everywhere."
That's it in a nutshell. Just because a lawyer figures out a way to make something happen does NOT mean that it's a good idea, good precedent, or a positive societal development.
bob hite of canned heat was singing and recording the phrase "let's get it on" many years before marvin gaye's song came along. :rolleyes:
Quote from: nofi on March 14, 2015, 07:30:23 AM
bob hite of canned heat was singing and recording the phrase "let's get it on" many years before marvin gaye's song came along. :rolleyes:
If the Bob Hite Estate sued the Marvin Gaye Estate and won then, it would be poetic justice as its finest.
Quote from: Dave W on March 13, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
When the government grants you an exclusive right to anything marketable, whether it covers a general area or a specific product or service, that's a monopoly by definition. No ifs, ands or buts about it. You can play devil's advocate all you want and we can debate whether or not a monopoly is desirable, but a trademark is as true a monopoly as any other.
You are stretching the defenition of monopoly. Monopolies are only meaningful when they apply to an entire class of product or service vs a singular option within such a class.
So a TM on the LP guitar is not a true monopoly because there are other products that are similar enough to be direct substitutes (some even superior). Gibson cannot just raise the price on an LP indefinitely (as a true monopoly could - that is the argument against them) because then folks will just go buy any other solidbodies with dual humbuckers instead and they would lose sales/market share. Further, it cannot be a true monopoly because consumers can still DIY an actual LP legally (have one built if they don't have the skill/time) - since there are substitutes
and alternative sources this fails to pass the test of a monopoly. I am certainly no fan of monopolies (or even oligopolies).
You also fail to address the point I made as regards the Anderson being more than just a copy of the shape vs the Dano (which severely weakens your point about monopoly and stifling advancement of the art). The Anderson doesn't advance the art at all; the Dano does.
Sure, Gibson was a bunch of jerks to App, but look at those guitars. The shape is similar (NOT identical) yes, and he did innovate the solid body (he should have patented it before he showed it to Gibson, or registered his own IP of any sort that applied - Fender and indeed all other makers of the time, benefitted from App's innovation too), but other than that (and the headstock) it looks nothing like a Les Paul - no carved top, no tuneomatic w stop tail, no dual humbuckers, no top upper bout switch and the horn isn't even pointy. The Anderson is actually a near-exact copy, with just the minimal amount of changes (Anderson ADMITS THIS!) so as to avoid suit (or so he thought; he underestimated). If I were a Gibson lawyer I would present that quote in court (it was in one of your original links, to his forum IIRC) because it is pretty much case closed right there; proof of intent.
You can't possibly be making the argument that because one company understands the law and is able to take advantage of it with people who don't even try to protect themselves (I'm not a lawyer but yet I have at least a basic understanding of protections that exist - that is no excuse for Appleton's loss - if I had something to protect I would find out more; do my homework and cover my ass), as a reason to completely eliminate the law. That is unfair in the opposite direction to the one you are complaining about. I sympathise with Appleton; he acted on good faith and assumed Gibson to be honourable, but he didn't do his due dilligence - he could have been protected.
Quote from: Dave W on March 13, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
Note the purpose: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Not a word about profiteering by permanently keeping others from the market.
Yes. It is odd because I am usually the one bringing this point up to other people, but I do not believe that the progress of the art is being impeded here (and in fact I brought this up already). Your use of economic terms such as monopoly and market is very incorrect. The market is electric guitars (maybe solidbody electric guitars), not Les Pauls. The desirability of an LP (vs any other electric) is down, purely and exclusively, to branding and marketing; if Les Pauls did not exist, we'd still have rock n roll. This would not be the case with a monopoly.
It's like the pushback on Citizen's United (and similar) laws where the folks argue to codify that corporations are not legal persons. This is a very bad argument/solution (even though I agree that CT is a very bad thing as well). I don't want to get into it due to tangent/politics, but if corporations are not considered legal persons then they cannot be held legally accountable (you wouldn't be able to sue one for example). The solution is, in part, to clarify that there is actually no such thing as "Constitutional Rights" but only natural rights, which corporations do not have, that are protected and codified by The Constitution. A better explanation of that by experts here: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/13/should_mcdonalds_monsanto_have_the_same
I disagree with your argument about locking down various TV shapes if invented today because flatscreens and tablet computers all look pretty much the same (tablets especially).... I disagree that this is merely about shape at all actually (again, looking at the Dano), this is about all the elements that make a Les Paul a Les Paul, and not just the shape.
Jake, leave it to you to beat it to death. You can define things the way you want in your own mind, but in the real world, monopoly has a definite meaning.
Guitars are functional articles. You can't trademark function but (unfortunately IMHO) you can trademark design elements that set it apart in appearance if they have "acquired distinctiveness". The same test applies to furniture design, and it would have applied to TV cabinets if it had been part of the law back then. It wasn't part of US law until 1988.
Gibson and Rickenbacker trademarked their body shapes in the 90s when other manufacturers weren't paying attention. When Fender tried, starting about 10 years ago, there was such an uproar that a group of other builders got together and blocked it. And yet Fender seems to be doing quite well in sales despite all the debt they took on in acquisitions. It's possible that Gibson's trademarks could be voided because copies had already been on the market for years, but at this point it would take $1 million plus in legal costs, including appeals, to try, and victory wouldn't be easy.
I don't see why, just because Fender were slow, Rickenbacker and Gibson now have to surrender their grip on their iconic shapes too? I'm quite happy that not every Far-Eastern knock-off bass can pretend to look like a TBird (unless it is from Epiphone of course!) or a 4001/4003. Danke schön, Gibson and Ric, for retaining at least a semblance of individuality with your products. Monopolize all you want. I don't want to live in Dave's design-trademark-free world swamped with wannabe Rics and Donnervögel.
I'd be playing a (boutique) P Bass if I wanted to look like everyone else. I've just discovered my elitist love for trademarks. And Henry J has preserved a part of my individuality, who'd have thought that about the ole wood smuggler. :mrgreen:
Then you must like trademark bullies like Rickenbacker, who make claims that would never hold up in court because they know their victims don't have the money to fight it.
I'm sure glad Henry Ford didn't get trademark rights to shapes like the automobile wheel, 4 doors, a hood and a trunk!
Not to mention the steering wheel!
Quote from: Pilgrim on March 18, 2015, 09:25:05 AM
Not to mention the steering wheel!
For sure, or we'd all be driving cars with square ones! :P
Quote from: Dave W on March 14, 2015, 02:03:43 PM
Jake, leave it to you to beat it to death. You can define things the way you want in your own mind, but in the real world, monopoly has a definite meaning.
That's what I am saying - you don't know what that real meaning is. You are using the term much too loosely, this is fine in a colloquial board game sense, but not in the proper economic sense. I have outlined this (I didn't make that up; I studied economics) and you ignored it .
It may not be a good thing, and it may be a relatively new development, but that has nothing to do with your thesis. You are being dismissive, following it up with a brand new terrible argument (such as the following steaming pile I will dissect) - this is what politicians do, and it's, IMHO, a major problem for society. You have dropped a buzzword that you expect to ellicit an emotional reaction from the audience (Yeah, monopolies are bad!) which it did, but this word is not appropriate. My intention here is to fight what I see as the epidemic of bad reasoning everywhere in society, you just happen to be carrying the torch for it at the moment.
Quoteyou can trademark design elements that set it apart in appearance if they have "acquired distinctiveness". The same test applies to furniture design, and it would have applied to TV cabinets if it had been part of the law back then. It wasn't part of US law until 1988.
This boils down to "change is bad" which, come on Dave, you know is bullshit. This change may have been bad (that is the argument we are having) but if it is bad, it is not bad because it is a change. That is non sequitor and circular argument. In fact, lets go look at some other legal changes from 1988... oh look, there's The Civil Rights Restoration Act. I'm not saying all legal changes are good, mind you, just that the fact that something is a change has no bearing on whether it is good or bad. Sometimes we actually have progress.
Seriously, don't spout such malarky, it insults us and it insults yourself to behave like a common politician ignorant of the rules of rhetoric. You can disagree with me if you want, and I can leave it at that, but I cannot let such logical fallacy slide, especially when I see the peanut gallery pip pip along to you with horrible automobile analogies (horse drawn carriages had doors, sometimes 4, and trunks too dammit... also not all steering wheels are round, and in any case, they are FUNCTIONAL devices, vs the shape of a guitar). Construct a proper argument. The problem with discourse and debate in society today (leading to the various needless divisions and zealous factioning we have) is exactly the sort of thing you are demonstrating here. Sure, doing it properly takes time and effort- if you don't think it's worth it, or can't be bothered, then just don't. You can state your opinion without defense and it will stand as your opinion, to which you are entitled; nobody will argue.
:popcorn: Entertaining as this is to read, I would appreciate it if you two - bearing in mind that you are both smart men - would now not try to assassinate each other over how the term monopoly should be used in a bass forum and whether intellectual property is a good thing or not. It's certainly one thing: very human - as the history of hiding knowledge from others and not being willing to share it (be it the druids and their alchemy or the Catholic Church) shows. And I don't think that a credible case can be made that absence of intellectual property has a track record of bolstering civilisation, never mind how that is unpopular to say in current discussions driven by the internet-fuelled desire how everything should be free. There is even a theory that Islamic Empires of the past fell behind the West for their lack of having a real concept of intellectual property. Whether trademarked Thunderbird shapes would have helped their cause is another matter though.
Fair enough, I am done as I think I made my point clear.
I was just coming back here to say that despite how that last post may sound (depending on one's reading) I do respect Dave (and all fellow posters here really) as intelligent people whose opinions and knowledge on many things I value greatly.
Dave doesn't like trademarks and Deep Purple, no matter what credible arguments you bring against his erring views. 8)
Trademarked or copyrighted Deep Purple would probably be his worst nightmare:
(http://45-sleeves.com/UK/purple/L1.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/556094708/DP-LOGO.jpg)
I'll go one better.
I don't like ANY purple!!!
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j306/apowell1/WashingtonHuskies%20300x225_zpsdtcgbnbg.jpg)
Okay, we're done here.