Gibson's shooting themselves in the foot again

johnniegoat

Stop, don’t, come back.
look, the reason to go for Dean is simple

1/ they are big enough to be known
2/ they are small enough to be crushed
3/ they are american, so can be dragged to a plantiff-friendly american court
4/ they are the thin end of the wedge if Gibson win

they don't need to be right, or even have a case - they just need to convince the jury they are hard done by. then, claiming precedent, they can start to knock out other small competitors

(note - to address one of several gorillas in the room - Maybach is nothing like a Gibson. you can play it straight out of the case. it just happens to look similar)

therein lies the similarity between this and the 70's "lawsuit" era. gibson refused to make the guitars people wanted; and the ones they made were of variable quality, generally poor. when the Grecos and Yamahas and Ibanezs started to appear, Gibson rather than up their game decided to sue

similar happens with mobile phones, in pharma, etc. when the big boys use the courts rather than their own quality to win the argument, the consumer loses

(note - it wasn't just joe schmoe at the shop buying japanese knock offs. a lot of significant artists have used luthier built copies, so their precious 58s and 59s could stay in the studio and off the road. this was because the Gibsons available at the time were of variable quality, generally poor. this is why Slash was able to get his Appetite LPs so easily - a small industry of Luthiers in and around LA had be knocking out high quality copies for decades. did Gibson mind? doesn't seem so - as far as the general public was aware, the guy on the stage was tearing it up on a "Gibson" - free marketing for sub-standard products...)

what has helped the defendants in a lot of instances is "Prior Art"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

if a patent is granted, and the defendant can prove a similar invention existed from another source; effectively a design or product was previously invented - then the patent is invalid



interesting legal musical sidenote #1 - UMG

you may be aware, UMG recently fessed up that their archive burned to the ground in 2011? literally hundreds of thousands of supposed "safely stored" hours on 2 track master of content by hundreds of key artists is now lost

WMG's archive is a state of the art bunker with fire suppression, etc UMG's went up because a repair guy misused a blow torch on the roof

UMG have been using their ownership of the music to copyright strike YT channels for years - years in which they have not had ownership of the masters because of their own negligence and incompetence

YT are complicit with UMG in undermining Fair Use by content creators - and UMG didn't even own the masters. the masters didn't exist because of UMG's incompetent penny pinching

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use



interesting legal sidenote #2 - Patent Holders

according to googles Patent Search utility, Gibson own 0.9% of all patents listed under "guitar"

https://patents.google.com/?q=guitar&oq=guitar

Yamaha own 2.4% - +edit+ nearly 3 times as many. Casio (!!) own 1.4%

if - *IF* Gibson win, they maybe opening a Pandora's Box. and one that does not always benefit Gibson

this does not include the potential for Patent Trolls to suddenly spring up - where there's blame, there's a claim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

given the value PTs have sucked out of Tech Companies - and Gibson lighting this up all over the media, and using the PT favoured Eastern District of Texas Court, if there is money to be made, the PTs will start scouring archives for dormant patents, or even just make them up

even the mighty Apple is not safe from PTs, so again Gibson might win only to find they have opened a can of whoopass on themselves

(note - none of the above was deeply researched and i am not a lawyer; just a guy with a search function, an enquiring mind and a working knowledge of how much money vast organisations have lost in the last couple of decades trying to inhibit competition)

anyway - time for work

/fin
 
Last edited:

SemiCullen

Still haven't got the hang of Thursdays
Guitar shapes aren't patented, they're trademarked. There's a difference and the look is very much what is being protected.

At issue are the trademarks, not patents.
 
Last edited:

johnniegoat

Stop, don’t, come back.
@SemiCullen

these are just a couple of patents i found - US Patent offices tend to let you patent anything without an existing patent, at least until challenged

which is why Apple wanted a patent on "rectangle with rounded edges", which would have allowed them to basically kill the smartphone market

Curved top solid body guitar

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5511455A/en?q=guitar&assignee=Gibson+Guitar+Corp.&page=3


Guitar body

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD548771S1/en?q=guitar&assignee=Gibson+Guitar+Corp.&page=4
 

SemiCullen

Still haven't got the hang of Thursdays
@SemiCullen

these are just a couple of patents i found - US Patent offices tend to let you patent anything without an existing patent, at least until challenged

which is why Apple wanted a patent on "rectangle with rounded edges", which would have allowed them to basically kill the smartphone market

Curved top solid body guitar

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5511455A/en?q=guitar&assignee=Gibson+Guitar+Corp.&page=3


Guitar body

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD548771S1/en?q=guitar&assignee=Gibson+Guitar+Corp.&page=4
Roger all.

I have amended my previous entry. While they may have some design patents, they are suing over trademark infringement.
 

johnniegoat

Stop, don’t, come back.
@SemiCullen

aye - i would hope Dean's lawyers are capable enough to drag all the different elements together; disrupting the (TM) claim with patents and prior art might be a decent road to go down, as Samsung used that to win on appeal in the past with claims on design claims

whatever happens though, the consumer loses - the manufacturers pass losses onto customers in the shape of increased costs
 

drittal

Nerd on the Prairie
70’s Ibanez lawsuit...

Do we think Ibanez did better or worse for having to cease and desist? Money money is on the line that says it pushed them to innovate instead of emulate.

Dean has some really cool shapes in their catalog. Cadillac. Mmmm...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

SemiCullen

Still haven't got the hang of Thursdays
The thot plickens:

Gibson Loses Flying V Trademark Case in EU Court

In the judgement, the court declared that while the shape of the Flying V guitar “was very original when it was released on the market in 1958, it cannot however deny the evolution of the market during the following 50 years, which was henceforward characterised by a wide variety of available shapes.”

The court also dismissed the notion that consumers only associate the V-shaped body with Gibson, declaring that, “The presence on the market of a significant number of shapes encountered by consumers makes it unlikely that they will regard a particular shape as belonging to a specific manufacturer rather than being just one of the variety of shapes characterising the market.”
 
@ Rick - no pro or anti EU opinion is noted in my earlier message. There are no digs and I'm not arguing with anyone.

Pointing out my poor logic and flaws in an argument I wasn't making seems bad form, but I am a bit old fashioned.

However, the case concerned appears restricted to the EU. Trademarks receive differring levels of respect in different countries, continents and cultures. Similarly, judgements made in other jurisdictions won't neccessarily coincide with the one made in the case quoted above, even though they could. All we know at this point is the conclusion drawn in this one, EU, case.

I am not invested in any party involved in this legal spat but do find it interesting, as are the reactions and comments made on 'the internet' by individuals apprently seeming to be eager to take offence.

I'll have to use the odd 'smiley' in future.
 
@ Rick - no pro or anti EU opinion is noted in my earlier message. There are no digs and I'm not arguing with anyone.

Pointing out my poor logic and flaws in an argument I wasn't making seems bad form, but I am a bit old fashioned.

However, the case concerned appears restricted to the EU. Trademarks receive differring levels of respect in different countries, continents and cultures. Similarly, judgements made in other jurisdictions won't neccessarily coincide with the one made in the case quoted above, even though they could. All we know at this point is the conclusion drawn in this one, EU, case.

I am not invested in any party involved in this legal spat but do find it interesting, as are the reactions and comments made on 'the internet' by individuals apprently seeming to be eager to take offence.

I'll have to use the odd 'smiley' in future.
Please note my question mark to ask the intent. I was not trying to attack you or anything.

As for intellectual property and the laws to that, that’s why for effective protection of an ‘inventor’s’ rights, international cooperation is needed, on at least that front and a whole lot more if you ask me.
 
Top