Gibson Superstrat

[Cagey]

They sue everybody for the slightest resemblance to one of their designs.

You realise they have to do that, right? Fender never took out the right claims on their designs so they can't take action against people copying them, while Gibson did protect their inventions and so they have to take action against any known infringements otherwise they lose their own rights. PRS do the same as Gibson and ESP, Schecter and Ibanez also do, for certain designs.

The only time they have to sue is to protect trademark. A lack of defense for invalid use is tacit permission, so you lose your protection. Copyrights and patents don't have that requirement. Once the monopoly is awarded, it's yours for whatever the term currently is. Possibly longer in the case of copyright, as they keep extending the term both retroactively and past the holder's death to where pretty soon cave paintings are gonna be copyrighted, with the term extending to when the sun supernovas. For example, Warner Bros. is currently actively suing everybody they can find with two nickels to rub together for singing/playing/performing "Happy Birthday to You", a song that's been around since Christ was in diapers. That's why in major restaurants that insist on making a scene on your birthday sing those inane dittys they do rather than "Happy Birthday".

That lack of a requirement for defense of patents/copyrights to maintain ownership is also one of the reasons we've ended up with patent trolls. They buy up patents, don't do anything with them but sit on them for years while somebody else builds a business around something that uses one, usually unaware they're infringing. Then, the troll pops up and sues the "infringer" for eleventy bajillion dollars. But, I digress.

I don't know the details of Gibson's vendetta against those who copy their designs, but chances are that even if their legal standing borders on the frivolous, those they attack aren't willing to go to court to defend themselves. There simply isn't enough money in the activity to justify the cost of a defense. So, Gibson wins by default, often without ever having to go to court.

Joke's on them, though. They've developed a reputation as a bad actor who won't work and play well with others, which makes their life more difficult and hurts them in the marketplace. If they'd just leave it alone, they get all sorts of free marketing out of the deal and sales would increase. Look at Fender. They don't pester anybody about copying their bodies, and they've become some of the most popular designs in the world with Fender's sales climbing along with that.

 

[Ace Flibble]

Actually, you're wrong; you're factually incorrect. I have to deal in these subjects every day as part of my work. They have to take action against any infringement on their IP. That means the name on the headstock, the headstock shape, the body shapes and whatever else that they can rightfully claim as their invention. Nobody can mount a defence, not because it'd be too expensive, but because they simply have no right to. You don't think ESP, an actually larger and more profitable company than Gibson, couldn't stand up to Gibson when Gibson gave them what-for over their infringing designs? ESP could afford to buy Gibson, but they have no leg to stand on in court when pressed on their all-too-familiar, four-control, single cutaway design. Hence why they continue to make the original Eclipse, but only ship it to regions where IP isn't as strictly protected. Gibson actually could take action against ESP for continuing to make the original Eclipse and for selling it in Japan and other regions, but they don't because in those regions they aren't losing anything by not taking action. Same reason they don't do anything about all the fakes coming out of China until they hit west-European and North American shores. Gibson could crush 'em, but over there there is nothing to be lost and it's too much of a headache to bother with until they make their way over.

Copyright and trademarks are distinctions made by people who don't understand the situation. What it all comes down to is IP. If your IP is infringed in the west, you're in trouble and you have to do something about it.

 

[Cagey]

I'm not wrong or incorrect; the law is clear. And the reason people talk about patents/trademarks/copyright as if they're different it's because they are. You're right in that they all fall under the umbrella of "Intellectual Property", but that's as far as it goes. IP is a generic term.

Also, I know I don't have to defend my patents or copyrights unless I choose to, but they'd still be mine. At a later date, I could change my mind and file suit for infringement if it occurs, but there's no requirement that I do. The patent would still be mine for the length of its term unless I sold it to another entity. This is different from trademark infringement, where a careless attitude about usage by others can result in the mark being returned to the public domain. 

For example - I invent some new widget, and get awarded a patent on it. I don't do anything with it. Two years later, somebody else comes up with the same thing, and starts manufacturing them. Over the course of 10 years, they get richer than god by selling jillions of these widgets. I've not said a word the entire time I watched their business grow. Then, one day I decide I wanna be richer than god, so I sue them for patent infringement. I win. Doesn't matter that I never did anything with my patent during all those years. It's still mine, they infringed, so off with their heads.

Copyright is pretty much the same way, but it deals with published works rather than inventions.

 

[Strat Avenger]

No, they don't "have" to sue for every little thing. They sued a toy company for making paper dolls that had Gibson and Fender shaped guitars on them.

It's B.S. and I have boycotted Gibson (not that they care).

If someone made an exact copy of their guitars, I could understand it, but Warmoth never did, and there are others who have made similar, yet not exact copies who have been ordered to cease. What ever happened to the "40%" Rule"? I made number that up, as I don't remember the exact percentage, but there was a rule that if a produce was a certain percentage different, it could not be considered an infringement.

 

[Strat Avenger]

Gibson gets no respect (apart from their faithful cult followers) because they are so litigious. The Les Paul, ES-XXX, and SG will always be popular. Aside from that, they have no business copying anyone. They sue everybody for the slightest resemblance to one of their designs.

I personally won't buy a new Gibson. My ESP single cutaway looks and performs every bit as good, thanks.

They sue everybody for the slightest resemblance to one of their designs.

the slightest resemblance to one of their designs.

the slightest resemblance

:icon_scratch:

'Not sure what your point is. The bridge is in the wrong place, the scale is different, the neck is a bolt-on -- not a set neck. I'll bet the neck profile is not even the same. Similar? Yes, but not an exact copy.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

That % rule is defined somewhere, but what qualifies as a % change has to be arguable.  Moving a pot equals how much?  Moving 4 pots equals how much?  Moving a bridge, changing a scale, and so on.  We've seen the definition of "is" be questioned.  Like said before, it costs money to be right and threat of litigation is the new litigation. 

I can see the differences, and I can see why Gibson would be right.

If Gibson's lawyers approach you, you're in good company and doing something right

 

[SustainerPlayer]

All I know is that Warmoth is 112%!  :sign13:

 

[Jumble Jumble]

'Not sure what your point is. The bridge is in the wrong place, the scale is different, the neck is a bolt-on -- not a set neck. I'll bet the neck profile is not even the same. Similar? Yes, but not an exact copy.

I'm not really making a serious point. I just wanted to point out that "the slightest resemblance" didn't really apply to the Warmoth thing - it was even called an "LP"! At a glance, the vast majority of people would just say "that's a Les Paul". Sure, if someone said "is this a real Les Paul?" before showing them the pic, they would notice the differences and say "no".

They did however sue PRS, and I would say that the PRS singlecuts bear something closer to what you could call a "slight" resemblance. They are very, very clearly not Les Pauls, while still obviously being styled after them. Gibson were definitely wrong about that.