Gibson tosses around its weight
- Thread starter AirCap
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,004
Pelagaard said:
This Gibson movie makes my eyes rain.
Wizard of Wailing
Senior Member
- Messages
- 289
I put off watching this video because I have no interest in Gibson (I hate all of their guitars), but a good 25% of my current YouTube recommendations have something to do with this story so I relented and checked it out. I'm so glad I did. This is guy is so weird. He's trying to come off as an authority figure and a cool guy at the same time. He's like a dad saying, "Have fun...but within reason." Well, back to working on Megadeth's Killing Road solo on my Warmoth superstrat.
S
swarfrat
Guest
The Aaron said:
You work for a guitar parts manufacturer and you need ideas? Throw together something destined for the chipper and smash it!! Better yet, do an A/B smashing guitar comparison video!!!
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
Pelagaard said:
musicispeace
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aljGgg70Pg
I had to laugh when they said they plan on suing bass players for not being guitarists and buying their guitars. Great spoof video on Gibson but sadly too close to the truth.
I had to laugh when they said they plan on suing bass players for not being guitarists and buying their guitars. Great spoof video on Gibson but sadly too close to the truth.
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
:toothy12:musicispeace said:
amigarobbo
Hero Member
- Messages
- 958
DangerousR6 said:Pelagaard said:
Well at least they didn't spell it Rickenbocker.
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
Gibson may well go the way of Monster cable with the lawsuits
TonyFlyingSquirrel
Master Member
- Messages
- 4,434
Gibson is hoping that the cost of other smaller manufacturers defending themselves will take from their profit margin enough to make it no longer affordable to stay in production.
Make no mistake, this isn't about protecting the integrity of the brand. If that were the case, Gibson would have been forthright in putting things in motion 60 years ago to prevent other manufacturers from building from Gibson's inspiration. This is about eliminating market competition in order to make Gibson a more viable choice in the market place. Gibson's whole credo on this is that if you are not buying a Gibson, and are choosing another brand over them, then they consider that you are essentially stealing from them.
This isn't much different that my former landlord raising the rent and later confessing that the sole reason he did so wasn't because of any upgrades to the property that warranted the recuperation of remodel costs. He did so (in his own words) so that the tenants couldn't save up money for a down payment of their own home which would "remove his revenue stream".
Make no mistake, this isn't about protecting the integrity of the brand. If that were the case, Gibson would have been forthright in putting things in motion 60 years ago to prevent other manufacturers from building from Gibson's inspiration. This is about eliminating market competition in order to make Gibson a more viable choice in the market place. Gibson's whole credo on this is that if you are not buying a Gibson, and are choosing another brand over them, then they consider that you are essentially stealing from them.
This isn't much different that my former landlord raising the rent and later confessing that the sole reason he did so wasn't because of any upgrades to the property that warranted the recuperation of remodel costs. He did so (in his own words) so that the tenants couldn't save up money for a down payment of their own home which would "remove his revenue stream".
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
Gibson's mistake was going after PRS. They didn't think PRS would fight vigorously, or had deep enough pockets, or would risk defending themselves against "the giant" Gibson. What Gibson thought was almost a no brainer, PRS fought and won in court.
Precedent set by that case.
Now, they need to go after small companies that cannot defend themselves in order to reverse the precedent bit by bit.
Its a nasty game of civil litigation to achieve dominance.
I got better ideas. Build decent and affordable products. Reinstate smaller dealers, instead of having them "continuously maintain $250,000 of inventory displayed on the wall". Ditch MAP pricing.
Precedent set by that case.
Now, they need to go after small companies that cannot defend themselves in order to reverse the precedent bit by bit.
Its a nasty game of civil litigation to achieve dominance.
I got better ideas. Build decent and affordable products. Reinstate smaller dealers, instead of having them "continuously maintain $250,000 of inventory displayed on the wall". Ditch MAP pricing.
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
This made me laugh... :laughing11:
S
swarfrat
Guest
Since the film maker has been going after Downfall parodies, I see new opportunity for meme videos.
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
DangerousR6 said:
That is not true. Trademarks have no expiration as long as they remain in use. Every five years you have to make a declaration of their use, and every ten years you have to provide proof of their use. If Gibson has trademarked their distinctive headstock or body shape, simply having the headstock or body in production is proof enough. The argument has been asserted that the trademark must be defended. That is a huge grey area in the law. There's a matter of several perceptions... such as... is it reasonable that the trademark holder knew of the infringement _and_ also knew of the confusion in the market? Its not enough to just assert "this confuses consumers" you have to show evidence that it does. If a party suggests you didn't defend the trademark, they have to prove you knew about the infringement... which is a bit of a catch 22, since you're admitting you infringed, the trademark holder knew that, and yet the trademark holder did nothing. There is some counter jeopardy going on in that one.... its all very very complex.
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
If they chose to settle out of court you're correct. If they think hey we'll just lean on the PRS precedent in court and Gibson presents a different and lawyer weaselly case... and wins, that certainly would set a new precedent. Incremental reversal goes on all the time.
S
swarfrat
Guest
Hahaha that is funny!
Similar threads
