Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by alathIN, Jun 27, 2019.
I had no idea O.J. Simpson was actively posting on the TDPR!?
Sort of they are examples of a trademarked name becoming so ubiquitous that the underlying product is refereed to by that brand name regardless of who actually made the item. However they are still legally protected trademarks and you would get sued instantly if you tried using kleenex or xerox on your product.
The same thought came to my mind. Unfortunately, and with respect to professional lawyers, our justice system seems to be going in the direction that @Frontman eluded to for a long time now.
If you dig through the history, these are all factories or workers that were involved with building Epiphone products for Gibson, then when labor rates went up, Gibson moved Epiphone production to a lower wage cost country. The path went: Japan -> Korea -> Hong Kong -> Mainland China near the coasts -> Deeper Mainland China -> Indonesia. There were flirtations with India, Vietnam, Thailand, and some other locations but those didn't last long.
Left behind in each of those countries is a well trained workforce, tooling, equipment, and facilities fully prepared to make excellent guitars.
The unfortunate thing about all this is that Gibson is trying to enforce Litigious Quality rather than Product Quality into their guitars. Had they spent the same critical thinking, fees, and expenses on Engineering and R&D they might have guitars that the headstocks stay on all the time...
The precedents are already out there: The companies can trademark their logo and headstock but the bodies expire with any patents they may or may not have have obtained on them run out.
Fender can't hold bodies and PRS won over Gibson LP bodies.
The whole reason Thomas Jefferson and the other founders enacted the US Patent System was to give a short term protection to the inventor to encourage the inventor to do that hard work but in reality to open up ideas for the rest of the country to utilize and benefit society.
Perhaps Gibson can develop some new body styles and patent those to sell ? I'm sure they have a few clever folks that can do that work.
Gibson needs to Focus on Product Excellence -- that's all buyers have been asking for a decade.
Of course ... Gibson produced this Epiphone T-310 for several years. You all might recognize it.
Or this later version
It's always a matter of perspective whether it's "a couple of little changes to evade the law" or "a couple of little changes to comply with the law."
I don't think there's any objective way that one is more right than the other; it's just a matter of whose ox is getting gored.
I remember Dianne Feinstein complaining on national TV that they'd passed a law to outlaw certain specific features of firearms, and the manufacturers turned around and made basically the same guns without those features! How dare they?!
Well, this may come as a shock to you, Senator, but what happened there is that you passed a law and they complied with it.
Who cares how individuals define a general term like "counterfeit"? That's not how the law works. Cases do not revolve around that term. We're talking about copyright and copyright infringement, and when a lawsuit requires a determination be made, this is done on a case basis, considering the particulars of the alleged infringement, not in some philosophical, conceptual way that most of the posts here take. Successful or unsuccessful past cases do not necessarily set any precedent whatsoever for current suits. Some of those past judgments were pretty iffy but not contested further because one of the parties involved decided it wasn't worth going further, not because they established some great legal precedent.
I would not go this far, but I will say I've seen cases where one side won by successfully confusing the jury about expert technicalities - not a case of "this expert is right and that one is wrong," but "this expert was unable to overcome the opposing attorney's skill in confusing the issues and deliberately misunderstanding everything that was said." You put professional surgeon up against a lawyer in an operating room, and the surgeon wins. In a courtroom, the lawyer is on his/her home turf.
And another where the whole process was really just a formalized ritual and someone got a big settlement not because their case had merit, but because they calculated it would cost X dollars to defend and so they settled for X minus a discount. There was no pretense that this had anything to do with finding out the truth. It was just a lengthy, expensive process that was in effect predetermined from the beginning.
It's easy to see the abuse when a factory in China makes an out-and-out counterfeit of a Gibson guitar.
But it's also an abuse when Gibson goes after a smaller company knowing they'll win simply because they can out-spend the little guy in legal costs, and the small company in effect has no chance of making their case that their product is meaningfully different than Gibson's.
So, yes, the legal outcome will certainly be a matter of legalities.
But the supposed purpose of a legal system is to protect legitimate rights, encourage beneficial behavior, discourage harmful behavior.
If we're not allowed to discuss the rights and wrongs that are supposed to be represented in the legal system, the whole system is meaningless - just a formalized process that produces outcomes according to its own arbitrary Byzantine rules.
I realize this is increasingly how it works out, but I've yet to see anyone posit that that's the way it's supposed to be.
I might just change the name of my guitars to "Counterfeit" .
Wouldn't that screw people up ?
To me, it is all about intent. If you plan on building and selling a replica as an original, then boo on you for being part of the problem.
If you want to build yourself a replica for your own use & pleasure with no design on resale, then I say no harm, no foul. You don't see farmers getting bent out of shape because somebody planted a garden or kept a few chickens...
If everyone agreed with one another, we would have much less need of lawyers.
I’m not OJ, though I have in fact met Carlos Ghosn, he and I go to the same dentist. He is actually a pretty interesting guy.
I am not a lawyer, but I spent 10 years as a traffic homicide investigator in a major American city, and I have been called in to testify in countless hearings, many criminal trials, and numerous lawsuits as well. I've spent more hours in courtrooms than many lawyers.
In most states a jury in a civil lawsuit makes its decision based on a “preponderance of the evidence.” You have heard this term before if you ever watched “The People’s Court” on tv. If the jury believes there is a 51% chance that the plaintiff’s case it true, or a simple majority of the jurors believe this, then the plaintiff wins. Lincoln (a lawyer) famously said "you can fool all the people some of the time." But in the case of a civil lawsuit, you generaly don't have to fool all of them, a simple majority will do.
America's legal system is completely deranged. Though it is important for victims of misdeeds have legal recourse, in America things have become absurd. How many lawyers do you see advertising on television every day? There are commercials looking for plaintiffs to join class action lawsuits, people involved in car accidents or slip-and-fall accidents, etc. It is crazy. But America has 57% of the world's lawyers, and they need to eat.
I like the system used in Germany. If you suffer an injury caused by the actions of another, you may sue for damages. But if you do not prove your case, you are responsible for the costs incurred by both sides. If you win, but the decision is later overturned on appeal, you must then return your award, and you are responsible for all costs. This system allows victims of negligence to sue, but prevents frivolous lawsuits, or the common practice of "sue-and-settle" tactics used in America.
Gibson is trying to use the tactic perfected Kodak in recent years, to sue the pants off competitors claiming patent infringements. Kodak wasn't able to earn profits, despite being the inventor of digital photography technology. They couldn't make products people wanted, and their market dried up, so their CEO turned to generating revenue from lawsuits.
Exactly. If it is a completely personal design (think BackLund guitars, for example) then I'll put my name on it. But not on a too much inspired design ... Rendons à César ce qui est à César...
Yes. It's the case in France.
Me too !
Not so a silly idea for an humoristic guitar brandname...
I love your Blue StrangeCaster :
Question : the center PAF does not interfere with the pick?
The big battle for Gibson (and I like Gibson) is going to be that a lot of years have passed. There is a reason the market isn't flooded with Rickenbacker copies. They've been vigilant in protecting their trademarks and going after anyone who makes a copy to the point that they'll have Reverb or eBay listings pulled if someone is selling something.
I hate copies and I really despise the lowlifes who sell the things. I just don't think they'll win a lawsuit. However, I hope I am wrong.
I'm going to steal this idea!!
Is this one a counterfeit Les Paul, or a copy?
No, the treble side of that humbucker is nearly level with the pickguard so it is out of the way.
Its a copy but that still doesnt mean gibson cant sue them for copying their body shape.
Next time you find him under anesthesia, please convince him to bring the SE-R Spec-V back to north america.
If the original court decision in the PRS trial had been held up upon appeal or had the original lawsuit actually gone to trial and Gibson had won it's trademark case then that guitar would be a counterfeit.
There's 8 factors that go into deciding the infringement case but I would suggest that upon seeing that guitar in a store it would be reasonable that a purchaser would initially confuse that guitar with a real les paul. And that further Ibanez's intent at the time would have been to deceive the purchaser into believing that it was a les paul.
Part of the reason the appeal court over turned the original decision was Henry's admission that no one had actually ever confused a PRS single cut with A gibson single cut.
But none of that happened, so...?