Guest Litchfield Custom Gutars Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 PRS is not same with the Gibson, many diferent to describe that! 1. Head Stock! 2. Body size 3. Body arch 4. Inlay 5. Trus rods 6. Fret 7. Scale... ????????? so...no problem..okey!!! Actually the headstock was stolen from Gibson. Here was Gibsons Issue with the Singlecut: After PRS used copies like Agile, ESP, and Hamer as a defence, Ginson attourney said: "The Gibon les Paul is very heavy. The PRS Singlecut Is also quite heavy. The single cutaway, double humbucing pickup guitar is a common thing, pareticularly with the control layout featured on the Les Paul. However when it is combined with the ridiculous weight of 13 pounds, is when it is a copy." ~Misquoted from an imaginary court document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 I wonder where Les Paul got his shape from lol And the Fender head stock ...... i reckon the tele body was even styled after that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbkim Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 i reckon the tele body was even styled after that one. It's the "Mitochondrial Eve" of electric guitars . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syxxstring Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 The issue with copyright and trademark is when something becomes so common it is no longer seen as brand specific. Ie... Kleenex as a brand and facial tissue as a product. They are gonna crush andyone that sells off brand facial tissue as kleenex. Sony fought anyone that tried to use Discman or Walkman for thier portable equipment. Pepsi and coke have fought over the shape of the bottle and the word cola. Xerox fought this with photocopying Let us not forget the small country that could have been funded in the look and feel law suit.(settled by Microsoft buying a part of Apple to bail them out) I think Fender would really have a hard time saying that the strat and tele aren't common shapes to the industry. Im supprised that Gibson won this, i wonder if/when it will be appealed. Whats next Martin suing anyone using the drednought shape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Rosenberger Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 PRS® guitars are not exactly what I would call inexpensive. For the price of a high price PRS® you can get a Gibson® of comperable value. But can you get one of Comparable Quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEdwardJones Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 I don't know if I see this standing on appeal. If it does it's bad precedent. Nobody who plays guitar would be considerably confused by a PRS SC to think it was a Gibson Les Paul. Outside of the outline they are significantly different in detail (sort of how from head on an Infiniti Q45 bares more than a passing resemblance to both a Hyundai Santa Fe and a Ford Taurus) As far as Fender copyrighting the Strat and Tele shapes that would seem to be an uphill battle. Copyrighting a desing 50 - 60 years after it was introduced when it is easily demonstrable that you've done little to protect that design in the interim (see Tom Anderson Guitarworks, Jackson/Charvel, Peavey, Epiphone, Vally Arts, Ibanez, Zion, Aria Pro,etc., etc., etc.) makes their case shakey. One reason so many people get C&D letters from companies is that if you don't attempt to defend your copyright it can be revoked. No suit will ever happen, but the motions have to be gone through. Fender, as far as I can tell, haven't gone through said motions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEdwardJones Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 The issue with copyright and trademark is when something becomes so common it is no longer seen as brand specific. That kinda sums it up. In Germany you will be sued like a mofo if you try to sell "asprin" which is a registered trademark of the Bayer corporation. Bayer lost their copyright here by not defending it. The Les Paul shape is hardly unique to Gibson (unlike, say, half of BC Rich's shapes). The fact that they were granted a copyright on it at all is mindboggling and depressing. Interesting memory. Dean Zelinsky once said that he could sue Washburn for their "Dime" guitars because they were using his trademarked headstock shape, but he didn't because it would be a waste of time and money he'd rather spend the time making better guitars (paraphrased from sleep induced hazy memory). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 It's the "Mitochondrial Eve" of electric guitars what does this mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammy Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 The first, the "mother" of all guitars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendelcrow Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 How about these? Fender ripoff's made by Gibson I hope Fender sues Gibson for their flagrant ripoff of the Telecaster, Stratocaster, Telecaster Thinline etc. Valley Art guitars are owned by Gibson, and I think they should clean up their own act before they open their mouth. The bodyshape of the Hamer and PRS is almost a carbon copy of the double cutaway Les Paul Special, with some minor changes to the archtop and the cutaway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickleweaseler Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 PRS® guitars are not exactly what I would call inexpensive. For the price of a high price PRS® you can get a Gibson® of comperable value. But can you get one of Comparable Quality? Yes. In fact, that is exactly what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblical Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 i saw a guy today with a gibson/epiphone(both on headstock, a little odd) identical to a strat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 The bodyshape of the Hamer and PRS is almost a carbon copy of the double cutaway Les Paul Special, with some minor changes to the archtop and the cutaway. The Hamer, for certain... but the PRS? Other than Santana's versions, I think the PRS is a fairly distinctive body type. If you had just a silhouette of a PRS custom and the LP Special, you could identify which is which with no problems whatsoever. If I'm not mistaken, the PRS is noticeably smaller, too-- though it might just be the carves that give that illusion. In any case, the 10% difference "rule" seems pretty silly-- where do they get their measurements? Or is it a 'subjective' 10%? Who decides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kings_x Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 How about Gibson's attempt to copy the Strat. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Kramers USED to be made by ESP in the 80's i think. Im pretty sure ESP isent owned by Gibson or anyone. Seeing as their based in Japan, and no have american factorys. But i remember when ESP did some Strat copies, so it would interesting if Gibson owned ESP i remember when kramer did some strat copies too, with the strat peghead and were sued for it, hell they all are copy catting each other, its kinda funny, because no one here has mentioned one name im sure you wall know, yea thats right boys and girls, its SAMICK, hell its ironic, those korean guys at samick have been producing all these guitars for years, under licensces for gibson, fender, etc..... if it says made in korea, its probably made by samick, in fact its funny a friend of mine once showed me an article with a photo showing epis and squiers being made in the same factory side by side, i thought it to be funny, anyhow just my 2 and half cents to this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 On a slightly related note, a lot of the new Samick line are excellent value. I saw the Royale in a guitar shop today, along with a Malibu. The Malibu's weird because it looks like a strat with a PRS-like headstock. :S Of course, being the manufacturer of all the other companies' offshore stuff doesn't mean they have any say in the copyright issues. For stuff that's not their own, they just take orders and crank out instruments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Litchfield Custom Gutars Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 How about Gibson's attempt to copy the Strat. Mike Strange how much that looks like a PRS EG model... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 i would think at some point you can only come up with so many shapes and theres going to be some sort of similarities with all of them, come on, a guitar is basically a guitar, the whole thing just sort of irritates me really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Makes me wonder what all those lawyers are trying to do. I mean if these big companies have full time "in house" lawyers, I can imagine Gibson is trying to revive their late 50's patent on Humbucking pickups. Fender could be trying to revive their 1956 patent on tremelo bridges,and their 1964 patent on curved truss-rods, and the patent on their "comfort contour body". Then when we have to use uncomfortable contour bodies, we can sue Fender for bodily harm. fender also had a 1961 patent for single-coil pickups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickleweaseler Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 They can't do that; the patenets have expired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Well, they might be able to, because it's not even a patent that they're going for now (from what I read a minute ago on another forum). There's some new law that's allowing companies to *trademark* designs. Yes, even 50 years after other companies have been making copies of the stuff. In short, it sounds like if you are a really big company, your wish has come true that you can now start to really wipe out the competition. Smaller companies are trying to ban together to fight this. I guess they need to pool money for the fight. I think Fender and Gibson are so huge, they have friends in the Republican administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 http://www.cph.com/Publications/new_patent_laws.html info on the latest patent laws i could find...passed BEFORE the republican administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren wilson Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Copyright, patents and trademarks are different things. Please don't use them interchangeably. What is a trademark or service mark? A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.A service mark is the same as a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet, the terms "trademark" and "mark" refer to both trademarks and service marks. Do Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents protect the same things? No. Trademarks, copyrights and patents all differ. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention. For copyright information, go to http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/. For patent information, go to http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm. By registering the Les Paul body design as a trademark, Gibson declared that its shape is as much a part of the Gibson identity as the Gibson name or logo. When someone says "Guitarist [x] plays a Gibson," 9 times out of 10, people will think of the Les Paul. And when someone says "Guitarist [x] plays a Les Paul," you should automatically think "Gibson," but with so many Les Paul copies on the market, that's not automatically the case. This is Gibson's argument, and it's well within their rights to defend their identity that they have built up over decades. Another key distinction is that copyright and patents both expire after a period of time. Trademarks can remain in effect indefinitely, as long as the trademark is still used in commerce. So trademark registration gives the company a lot more protection. If i designed a unique instrument shape that became a cultural icon and was exclusively associated with my company, there's no doubt that i would trademark it and vigourously defend it from being ripped off. What i question is why Gibson didn't go after Tokai or some of the huge Korean manufacturers that are cranking out carbon copies of Les Pauls by the thousands, for anyone who will pay to have their logo stamped on the headstock. Personally, i think the PRS design is different enough that it shouldn't have been seen as an infringement. But clearly Gibson's lawyers were more convincing that PRS's. Here's another example: Shortly after the iMac made its début, numerous copycat Wintel machines were put out on the market. Apple filed "trade dress" infringement suits against companies like Future Power and e-Machines because their designs were clearly trying to capitalize on the iMac's distinctive design and the image it projected in the marketplace. Apple won. Trade dress is the distinctive style or look of a product. Historically, the courts have not extended trademark protection to a product's design. More recently, though, courts have begun to grant trademark protection to "stylized" items on the grounds that novel industrial design can communicate a distinctive idea or image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLS Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 So did Gibson win or not?? Because i just got my new Musician's Friend, and there still selling the tremonti Single cut. PLUS they have a new singlecut with a tremolo Im so confused.... It also has a cool article about Satriani's new Amp made by Peavey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren wilson Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Gibson won, but the judge had not yet ruled on penalties. And catalogs usually go to press a month or two before you actually receive them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.