Henry goes a-hunting - again...

[Highlander]

... like Parker did with the Fly shape...

hmm... popular little number...

How come there are so many Thunderbird "tributes" up-and-running" ... ?

[Granny Gremlin]

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.

[uwe]

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.

[uwe]

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.

[lowend1]

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.

[westen44]

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. 

[66Atlas]

Gibson, Fender, Les Paul, they stole everything from Paul Bigsby anyway
(That's a joke, but about 75% true too...)

[Dave W]

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.

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.

[Dave W]

Gibson, Fender, Les Paul, they stole everything from Paul Bigsby anyway
(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.

[Dave W]

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

And to hammer home a point, there's this (some NSFW language)

[Pilgrim]

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?   

[Granny Gremlin]

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



Seems pretty fair to me; leaves room for inspiration and building on prior work.

[uwe]

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.

[Dave W]

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



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.

[Dave W]

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.