|
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Well this can't be good. Did Gibson just notice this? Is this the begining of the end of clones?
http://news.harmony-central.com/News/2004/Gibson-PRS-Case.html |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 100
Location: Warren, OH | I'm amazed. I had an old Univox Les Paul in the early 1970's. I doubt if they licensed the design from Gibson back them. I find it unbelievable that the design is protected today.
I got out of college in the 1980's and at my first job was given pointers regarding intellectual property protection. First and foremost was the idea that you had to protect it when it was created. Given that there are so many Les Paul copies out there now, it seems to me that Gibson failed to make this effort years ago.
Is this lawsuit simply a method of getting some cash out of a competitor during a time of slow sales? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2003
Posts: 1922
Location: Canton (Detroit), MI | Bob, if you have some dated documentation backing up your claim(even if not in the public domain), doesn't that provide some protection? Gibson may have pulled out some documentation from the 50s showing the design, styling, etc. It does seem odd that they did not protect it for years and then NOW suddenly start. Given the whimsy of some judges and jurys, though, it was potluck if they would win, maybe a chance worth taking.
The styling cues are AWFULLY close, though....the shape of the body, the tone of the burst, plus the tuners. PRS might have gotten away with the body shape if they hadn't added the other elements. Since this appears to be a trademark case and not a patent, all Gibson probably had to prove was visual simularity, and intent to capitalize on it.
Roger
1976 Applause AA14-4 6-String
1981 Ovation 1118-1 Glen Campbell 12-string
2001 Adamas 1598-MERB Melissa Etheridge 12-String
2003 Ovation 1777-NAT Legend 6-string |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | Bob M.
My friend had a Univox / Les Paul that I played all the time. IMHO....It played better than any of the Les Pauls at the time. I loved that guitar. It sure did look like a Gibson.
Looking straight at the PRS you can see the Les Paul influence. However, the cross-section is quite different. I'm surprised Gibson won the suit.
If PRS won this, there are some makers of Ovation look-alikes that should be worried.
Brad |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | Gibson has been in this mode for many years, at least 10 that I know of. They just pick and choose who they go after. This particular one is because GC threw out Gibson and asked PRS to build a single cut. The rule has always been that if the product is confusingly similar than it infringes. I doubt that anyone could confuse a single cut PRS with a les paul so this lawsuit conclusion is like steaming spoo on the new carpet. There's more to this story I'm sure. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | cwk2,
Are you saying that Guitar Center is (or did) threaten to take Gibson's off the shelf? How could they do that? How could any music store, let alone one called Guitar Center, get away without having Les Pails for sale? (oops not Les Pails....Les PAULS)... :confused: |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 648
Location: Florida | Ah the Univox Les Paul Custom. An old friend of mine, who owned it, insisted they got sued (Unicord/Univox) because the copy was "too good". I thought it was BS then, maybe not sure now.
I find it odd that Fender was able to trademark the peghead design only, having been told the body designs for the Tele, Strat, Jag, Jazzmaster, P & J Basses was too generic. Hmmm.
Also of note is old Les hisself is gonna get some bling-bling from this, since he still gets royalties on each and every guitar sold.
Personally, I never liked the LP except as eyecandy. PRS will go on, and do well. They're too big, doing better work now than Gibson was ever capable of, and their items are both tasty and well accepted in the market. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | Gibson should also be chasing several hundred small-shop builders for infringining the same copyright (McInturf, Eggle & Huber are just a few that spring to mind) and several thousand other companies who blatantly copy rather than produce guitars where the Gibson original was the inspiration. It must stick in Gibsons throat that PRS managed to get the use of Ted McCarty's name on several of their guitars, bearing in mind that he was the man at the helm during their golden era. The fact is the PRS guitar is a far superior product & Gibson are just pissed at their market share & industry profile. Gibson currently put out a flame-top Explorer. Hamer should sue. Now that would be ironic.
The PRS singlecut looks about as much like a Les Paul as an Ovation UK2 |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 627
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ | You hit the nail on the head, Paul. The newer upstart companies, are building better guitars than Gibson does now days. I can speak from experience, that Gibson's acoustic line is far from the quality of a compariable, Ovation or Taylor.
Tom |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | As a fan of old Gibson flat-tops I think some of the new Gibson acoustics coming out of the old Flatiron mandolin factory in Montana are the best they've made for 30-odd years & I'd take one over a Taylor in a heartbeat. Having said that I still haven't found one as good as my Gibson-built '40's Kalamazoo (cheap, cheap shitty guitar, sounds amazing) or Gibson-built '64 Epiphone Texan |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2003
Posts: 1922
Location: Canton (Detroit), MI | Yes, the Gibson acoustics I've played in general seem pretty good. Not worth the price they ask, though.
I would agree that many companies doing Les Paul knockoffs should be shaking in their boots. I suspect, though, that PRS was the target because they are a major competitor to Gibson in electrics. Winning this makes PRS tentative in their market moves as far as doing anything single-cut now.
Paul T. and cwk2, I would agree that the resemblance of the PRS single-cut to the Les Paul is not THAT close, but the person(s) doing the deciding was likely not knowledgeable about guitars and the styling cues were enough to convince them. If you squint, it kinda does look like a 'burst LP.....
Guitar Center DEFINITELY has Gibson Les Pauls for sale....the one here does at least! Maybe this dated back a few years????
Roger
1976 Applause AA14-4 6-String
1981 Ovation 1118-1 Glen Campbell 12-string
2001 Adamas 1598-MERB Melissa Etheridge 12-String
2003 Ovation 1777-NAT Legend 6-string |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2004
Posts: 20
Location: Canada | Gibson Sued Ibanez in the 70's as well as a few other asian companies, but it's not worth theie while to sue every little upstart company,which wouldn't be able to pay anyway. PRS can afford to pay and most likely will. I don't completely agree, the body style are simialar, but nobody is getting them confused. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2003
Posts: 1922
Location: Canton (Detroit), MI | Thought I'd add this in....I just showed my wife the PRS in the article, and she said "wow, looks like a Les Paul to me!" (I have a 'burst Epiphone Les Paul) Styling cues(look at finish, knob, switch and pickup placement, plus the tuners).....and someone from outside the industry making the decision.....that's what did it, I bet.....
Roger
1976 Applause AA14-4 6-String
1981 Ovation 1118-1 Glen Campbell 12-string
2001 Adamas 1598-MERB Melissa Etheridge 12-String
2003 Ovation 1777-NAT Legend 6-string |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | I doubt very much that Gibson's law team are being advised by someone who doesn't know every tiny detail of their guitars. Having said that, if Gibson are succsesful & this sets a legal precident then Martin should be able to sue any company which makes a Martin-inspired cross-braced D-shape guitar (which would be damn-near every acoustic maker on the planet) and Ovation should be able to sue anyone who makes a non-wood roundback guitar. It's nothing more than sabre-rattling from a company who are resting on their laurels. Their current production consists entirely of "vintage reissues" anything else dissappears without trace.
If I remember rightly Ovation kicked Gibson's ass over the pickup in the early Chet Atkins solidbody classicals, which infinged the Ovation patent. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15664
Location: SoCal | I would guess that even tho' the article implies that the case is now going into the damages phase, there's gotta be an appeal in the works.
And Temp's right. This would allow Martin to go after Santa Cruz and other who make blatant copies of Martin guitars. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | The thing is, the PRS singlecut is far from blatant. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2003
Posts: 1498
Location: San Bernardino, California | - Slipkid
Gibson pulled its stock from GC for a few months becuase GC was not paying their bills. Three or four years ago??? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | Everyone has told Gibson to take a hike at one time or another, GC, Ash, and others. Gibson evidently can be most difficult from time to time (read PMS woman). This is just typical of the preditory law suits that the G. Berk is well known for. I could tell some stories, but so could Washburn, Fender(Guild), and just about everyone else in the industry. This is not new news, it's been going on for 15 years. Usually the targets are small companies who can't afford the big lawyer bills and things get resolved without going to court.
The other part of this is when does a design pass from proprietary into the realm of public domain? I think Fender has taken the approach that the strat body is now generic but the headstock is proprietary. Also the dreadnaught body shape is generic now. Actually the Les Paul shape should be generic with the proprietary part the headstock but nobody seems to want to spend enough money to fight Mr. Berkley in court. In the world there probably have been as many LP copies made as dreadnaughts, don't you think? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 13987
Location: Upper Left USA | Off subject again but the dual action truss rod in the LX's - is that a patent or what? I remember seeing them in the Stew-Mac catalog.
My point - will those be Ovation (inspired) truss rods going into anything that wants to use the latest technology?
Second point - If they don't just come in the one size then I may be one step closer the 12 string Longneck LX. That was one of the stoppers. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2003
Posts: 1922
Location: Canton (Detroit), MI | Paul T., the body and headstock shape are far from blatant, but the styling cues(color, knob color/placement, pickup shape/placement, tuners) ARE. Most people who don't know diddly-squat about electric guitars are going to think that the PRS single-cut as shown in the article is related to, if not the same thing, as a 'burst Gibson Les Paul. I know this doesn't say good things about people's intelligence, but I believe it to be the case.
It was obvious to my wife, who only has passing knowledge about guitars, but is familiar with the look of my 'burst Epi Les Paul, that the 'burst LP is what PRS was trying to look like.
The "persons doing the deciding" I was referring to in my last post is the judge or jury that allowed the award, not the Gibson law team that pursued the case. It's unlikely that judge or jury had any grounding in guitars.
I agree with all of you that this is NOT a good thing, but PRS did get AWFULLY close to the line, I would say, and Gibson decided to try to call them on it.
Roger
1976 Applause AA14-4 6-String
1981 Ovation 1118-1 Glen Campbell 12-string
2001 Adamas 1598-MERB Melissa Etheridge 12-String
2003 Ovation 1777-NAT Legend 6-string |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Only if Martin has been awarded a design trademark by the PTO.
Intellectual Property (IP) is probably the fastest growing area in law today. Patents and trademarks are now the lifeblood of any leading company. They are a defensive mechanism to be used to protect investment in creativity and design. Like everything else, there are always instances of abuse. Just comes down to the two great motivators ... fear and greed.
At least the courts had the good sense to find John Fogerty not guilty of sounding like himself. |
|
| |
OT: Gibson vs PRS
