Jump to content

curtisa

Forum Manager
  • Content Count

    2,420
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    96

curtisa last won the day on June 22

curtisa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

657 Excellent

1 Follower

About curtisa

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tasmania, Australia
  • Country Flag
    au

Recent Profile Visitors

9,438 profile views
  1. True story: we've named our cat Mr Stevens, so that when someone asks why we called our Cat Stevens, they'd already have the answer.
  2. I concur. How did he do it? Nanyo business. *ahem*
  3. Bugger me! That reaction was quick! Stalker
  4. From the interwebs: Trademarks are primarily used to protect identifying marks, logos and designs from being reproduced by others without express permission from the trademark owner. Provided the trademark remains in use by the original owner its protection can be perpetual. Patents grant the owner the sole right to produce a 'thing' for a period of time. The SG body shape that @Mr Natural linked to, above is (or at least was) both patented and trademarked. So that may be the reason why Gibson have chosen to file action against Dean (and threaten action against others) under the guise of trademark infringement rather than patent infringement. If there were any patented body shapes they produced, they're likely since expired, which means they have to rely on trademark to get them over the line. Maybe it's not so clear cut on Gibson's part after all?
  5. Interesting. Well, you can't say they didn't warn anyone. The report also mentions that a C&D notice was sent to Dean some two years prior, but no further action was taken at the time. Gibson might struggle a bit with the head stock claim, but the V and Z body shape infringements are going to be a bit harder for Dean to defend. And thanks to @Mr Natural and @ADFinlayson for pointing me in the direction of the original video Good to know I didn't miss much Maybe it was used in the SG prototype that Gibson subsequently used for the definition of their trademark application? Either way, that's not what that patent notice details; Gibson's patent is clearly worded to protect the body shape, not the details applied to the body (the pickups, controls, adornments, finish, material used etc). In all the above cases there were clearly no prior enforceable patents or trademarks in place that protects those aspects of guitar design and construction, so it makes it nigh-impossible to retrospectively grant protection to some other person or manufacturer to items that have become intrinsic to the construction of a guitar. The difference is that Gibson do have trademarks granted for the items that they're contesting with Dean - the specific head stock shapes, body shapes and keywords are items that are demonstrably Gibson's own work, and by the registration of that work in a Trademark they are, for better or worse, entitled to defend it if they wish. Based on the reports Dean's approach will be to try and get Gibson's trademarks ruled invalid due to the contestable items already being utilised by many other people for such a long period of time. 'Well, you guys had these patents out for years and didn't do much about the clones of your guitars, you've left it too late to defend your trademarks now...' They do. A lot. There was a case a few years back where claims were made between Apple and Samsung that the finger movements used to to zoom and scroll on a phone touchscreen were a patent violation. Unlikely. What's more probable is that they're finally taking the opportunity to make a stand and put their foot down by exercising their legal right to protect their trademarked intellectual property. For a company that wants to claw back its financial position on what may be viewed within their legal team as an easy win for hundreds of millions of sheckles, that could be an attractive proposition for Gibson's bean counters. They've probably gone after Dean as they're both based in the US, and Gibson's trademarks are registered in the US. Gibson going after a business in a different country will be more difficult and costly if the trademarks aren't registered in other parts of the world. Yes, but they can be renewed as well. So if Gibson kept their affairs in order and paid the registration fee every time it came around to renew, then their trademarks and patents are probably still current.
  6. If you read the history behind their Chapter 11 experience, it wasn't that their guitar business was unprofitable; they foolishly acquired other interests outside thier core business (Stanton, Onkyo, Cerwin Vega, KRK, TEAC et al) that left them crippled by excessive debt with no way of paying the banks back. They're now in the process of offloading some of those interests in order to restore their original profitable base. Wellllll, it's sorta adapting, but it's also unashamedly a marketing tool to cross-sell their own products through the app ('Learn to play and get 10% off guitars, amps & gear'). And with such a diverse melting pot of free lessons already available on Youtube it's also a bit late to the party.
  7. Actually, I stand corrected. Gibson do have trademarks out for several of their distinctive body shapes, including the LP. Even some of their scratchplate shapes, headstock shapes and inlay patterns are trademarked. So, as much as it may rub some players and builders the wrong way, Gibson are entirely well within their legal right to go after whoever they want for infringing their trademarks. That will include anyone building copies of LPs, Explorers, Vees, 335s, or using their headstock shape on their own builds, Note also that the trademark is for the shapes, so that means you'll be infringing on their copyrighted material if you build a SG but throw a Floyd Rose, 4 single coil pickups, an inline-6 reverse headstock and a dayglo yellow paint finish on it. The underlying silhouette is still an SG, so you're fair game for their lawyers if they see fit. Not from what I can see. Gibson still seems to be right at the top (a more recent report here too) alongside Fender. People still appear to be buying their products just fine. I'd be curious to see what adapting to the market would actually entails for Gibson, or Fender for that matter. Players are notoriously myopic when it comes to the big two brands in guitars. Don't mess with my Strat, Tele or LP. Gibson already have the low-cost alternative to their product line with Epiphone, so it would be highly unlikely that they'd introduce a Chinese/Korean/Indonesian-based line to try and rope in the budget-end of their own market. Similarly, introducing a truly up-to-date version of some of those iconic big axes is highly likely to receive significant market pushback from the public. Historically guitarists don't like it when you mess with the established norms too much. A headless, ergonomically-designed reboot of the LP is guaranteed to fall flat before it even gets off the drawing board. If we played guitars like we drove cars, we'd all still be getting around in Oldsmobiles
  8. Personally I don't think you're likely to be chased for building Tele/Strat style stuff. As @mistermikev linked to above, the legal precedent was set some time back that essentially noted that the body shapes in question had been used by so many for so long that they had become too generic to defend as being immediately and solely identifiable as Fender's property. A claim by Gibson for a similar argument will probably fall the same way. I missed the original video before it was pulled, but the commentary that remains is revealing enough. In all likelihood it was a poorly timed and worded PR campaign designed to reinforce the importance of Gibson being the first and only source of the real Les Paul/Flying V/Explorer etc. The fact that it has been pulled only days after being launched with apparently no official comment from Gibson also gives the impression of it perhaps being released before it went through proper channels and signoffs before publication. Even so, I can't blame Gibson (or Fender, or anyone else) for feeling hard done by that their most recognisable products are so widely copied, sometimes to a degree that it makes you wonder if some people shouldn't just buy the original guitar. Maybe their video wasn't the most eloquent way of expressing their frustration and trying to win back the purchasing public to the 'genuine article', but I can sympathise with their intent.
  9. There are a few CNC-capable builders here on the forum, but it will help if you can let us know where you're located. Be aware that unless your inlay consists of basic shapes (circles, squares, rectangles etc) it may be quite labour-intensive ($$$) to reverse-engineer the pockets to match the the inlay shapes. CNC inlay is normally done when the original design patterns and files for both the pocket and inlay shapes are available to the CNC operator. This is probably a reason why it might be hard to find a service on Google that will do it for you. If you just took delivery of a pre-fab custom inlay set the normal expectation would be that you'd freehand the pockets to match each piece. In that respect you may have better luck finding a luthier with a good reputation for inlay work who could do it for you.
  10. OK, I had assumed you were accessing the GOTM section of the forum rather than the GOTM section on the main page. I suspect it's to do with our migrating between forum software versions. Will see if our resident IT masterminds have anything to say about the issue.
  11. Are you still having issues with this? There has been a gradual roll-out of some upgrades to the forum software which may have impacted certain areas of the forum, but I can't see any issues with the GOTM pages myself.
  12. Fair enough. Can't say I agree with the logic behind what's going on, but if it works for you then all good. Now, the tonal differences due to left-hand thread pickup slugs in the southern hemisphere vs northern. That's an easy one
  13. So judging by your video, you're still seeing at least the D and G strings go sharp, and perhaps the B a hair flat after some pretty serious bar usage. That's about on par with what I experienced with all my non-locking trem-equipped guitars, claw angled or not. I'd still be curious to see what difference it makes with the claw straight in your case. That should just be a case of putting a few turns on the treble side and taking a few off the bass. You could even do something totally heretical and angle the claw the opposite way Carl advocates and see what that does too. I'm still struggling to see what angling the claw does to improve tuning on what appears to be individual strings. In your case you seem to be getting tuning issues on a couple of strings (which is what I would have expected for a non-locking trem). If you were having tuning problems due to overall spring vs string tension I would've thought it would affect the whole bridge, not certain strings. The other thing that struck me last night while nodding off to sleep is that CVs angling technique actually doesn't equalise the pressure exerted on the outer fulrum points at all; it actually does the opposite. The bass strings exert the most tension and his logic is to put more spring tension on the bass-side to compensate. But this also makes the bass-side fulcrum screw see more pressure than the treble. So I've got no idea what's going on.
×
×
  • Create New...