Gibson vs. PRS suit?

[Ringo]

Gibson lawsuits

Gibson tried to sue Brian Moore guitars some years ago, that one didn't fly, even though BM makes a single cut guitar - the body looks much more like a LP to me than the singlecut PRS.
Of course Brian Moore is a much smaller company, doesn't sell as many guitars as PRS and probably doesn't cut into Gibson sales as much.
I know for my money, I'd go for a PRS anyday over a Gibson, IMO with a Gibson the quality just isn't there anymore.

I know a great guitar tech who went to work here in Memphis at the Gibson plant, thinking that he'd "learn" more after all it was "Gibson", guess what, he knew more than the folks there did. He tried to tell them how to make improvements, no one listened. So he gave it up after about a year and went back to his concrete business to make a living.

Gibson - or should I say the president Henry, is milking the Gibson name for every dime.
I guess sueing or threatening to sue is an easier way to fight the competition than competing by building a better product.

If they do win this lawsuit, you can bet they won't stop with PRS.

 

[studio1087]

This could backfire.

I think hat Gibson is going to draw a remarkable amount of attention to PRS guitars on this one. The only reason Gibson is going after PRS is because PRS is selling a lot of guitars.

Yamaha has full page ads in GP mag of guitars that look far more like a LP than the PRS guitars but Gibson goes after PRS. It's market share and PRS is the biggest threat.

Have you seen the new PRS ad that fearture a Strat knock off in white over a P-90 cut away in red? Amazing looking affordable series guitars. I've played the $550.00 Santana's an I'll bet you a nickle that PRS will sell a ton of those Strats and P-90 guitars.

This is market share and Gibson is putting all eyes on the competition. They should have left it alone. AG magazine (Acoustic Guitar) has their own forum for acoustic players and this topic is up to 106 posts over there on an ACOUSTIC site. PRS would be hard pressed to buy advertising like that.

Paranioa the Destroyer. Gibson should let it be.

And yes I own a beautiful Les Paul and I live 10 miles from Waukesha WI, birthplace of William Lester Paul and yes we name streets after him here (really) and yes I still think Gibson should let it be. This will backfire.

 

[TheGoodTexan]

Re: This could backfire.

I think hat Gibson is going to draw a remarkable amount of attention to PRS guitars on this one. The only reason Gibson is going after PRS is because PRS is selling a lot of guitars.

Yamaha has full page ads in GP mag of guitars that look far more like a LP than the PRS guitars but Gibson goes after PRS. It's market share and PRS is the biggest threat.

Yeah - Yamaha's musical instruments division has gross annual revenues 10 times greater than Gibson Musical Instruments (all divisions combined). Don't think you'll see Gibson start any lawsuits with Yahama!

Have you seen the new PRS ad that fearture a Strat knock off in white over a P-90 cut away in red? Amazing looking affordable series guitars. I've played the $550.00 Santana's an I'll bet you a nickle that PRS will sell a ton of those Strats and P-90 guitars.

I absolutely LOVE that PRS strat, with the 3 single coils...the tremolo on that thing is like butter.

And yes I own a beautiful Les Paul and I live 10 miles from Waukesha WI, birthplace of William Lester Paul and yes we name streets after him here (really) and yes I still think Gibson should let it be. This will backfire.

William Lester Paulfus

 

[studio1087]

I had no idea that his last name was more than "Paul" and I'm a proud local Waukesha area guy. Thank you.

Personally, I think that The PRS with those P-90's looks like a dream. You may be familiar with the little Fender Squier Tele with Duncan P-90's available in Blonde or Black, I just bought a Blonde one as a back-up Tele. I love those P-90's.

I realize that Yamaha is a huge company but when I speak of PRS being a more immediate threat to Gibson, I'm reffering to the guitars that I see in stores. The PRS section in getting equal or bigger than the Gibby section in many guitar shops in Milw. and Chicago. In Chicago, many Sam Ash stores have far more PRS guitars than Les Pauls.

"Paulfus" Thanks Again. I did not know that.

John

 

[reverbbb]

Re: This could backfire.

Have you seen the new PRS ad that fearture a Strat knock off in white over a P-90 cut away in red? Amazing looking affordable series guitars. I've played the $550.00 Santana's an I'll bet you a nickle that PRS will sell a ton of those Strats and P-90 guitars.

I absolutely LOVE that PRS strat, with the 3 single coils...the tremolo on that thing is like butter.

What are you guys talking about? I don't see it on their website.

BTW, I have a '92 PRS Custom 24 w/birds. This is the finest playing guitar in my collection. The pups are hotter than firecrackers though (18.1, 2.8, 13, 2.8 & 7.8K ohms). That tends to thin out the bridge tones a little. I don't care too much for the wiring for positions 2 & 4 (can't remember if it's parallel or series). They get awefully clean and weak in those settings. Very dramatic change from the 1 position.

i had bought a 1984 Les Paul Custom a while back to satisfy my desire to have a LPC again. When compared to the PRS, it was just plain sad. Resold the LPC within weeks of buying it. However, for some reason I'm still wanting to get me another LP. I think it is to serve my needs as a trophy. But, I want a great looking guitar that plays like a dream. I found a '58 RI LP about two months ago that was right on the mark, but I ain't gonna spend no $3K on ANY guitar. (READ MY LIPS - NO $3K!).

 

[studio1087]

Find the new Guitar World with Jack White on the cover - full page ad inside - they are brand new.

 

[TeleMark]

Re: As a former Gibson sales rep...

UPDATE:

I began to do some research and found this article. It is very interesting. Especially that last two or three paragraphs are directly related to this discussion.

(link removed)

On the other side of Henry's heart there is this:

(link removed)

After reading that article in the Tennesean, it looks like Gibson(Henry) likes to file law suits or sometime just threaten to.

I was on a call earlier this week, and my contact was late, so I started culling thru the magazine stack. I ended up with some HR-focused mag, and there was a cover story about the new head of Gibson HR. He made a BIG deal talking about how they are treating the staff like artists rather than factory workers, and trying to compensate folks better to stem the turnover.

I recall that they did admit that it has been bad, and I think he's got a tough fight ahead of him.

TeleMark

 

[TeleMark]

Speaking of trademarks...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/magazine/21NAMES.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=all&position=

This is from the NYTimes magazine (you might have to register (free) to read it).

Paul, how long before Fender comes knocking on your door? I'm still amazed that you were able to get this domain.

TeleMark

 

[Ben Harmless]

Paul has been in touch with Fender over the years. At one point, they linked to the TDPRI from their main page (I think) and then all heck broke loose. They really started coming out of the woodwork, and things just plain got messy. Fender took the link down at Paul's request.

...At least that's my recollection of the events. I could be wrong.

Various Fender folks (I'd imagine quite a few, actually) still drop in from time to time. Their input is generally appriciated.

Paul's got a good leg to stand on with the Telecaster.com domain. He's obviously not squatting with the intention of blackmaining Fender, there's a legitimate page here. There's no real profit from the page, and as for the rest: freedom of speech.

 

[3rdDIY]

I find the whole thing disgustingly interesting.

How long should a separate corporate entity be allowed to ride on the coat tails of an "innovator" who is no longer associated with the company?

And, never mind "cyberspace", what goes on in that ethereal world of "legalspace"?

The Wright Bros. spent years protecting their patent on something that barely worked.

George Seldon held the early automobile industry in thrall with a patent for a vehicle that never ran.

Edison and some of his buddies once ran the movie industry like a fiefdom.

Cadillac and Lincoln were both founded by the same fellow, who, in each case, ended up losing it to a bigger corporation. Henry Ford once worked for Cadillac and later bought Lincoln.

I think "Gibson" had to wait until the late eighties to trademark a coffee table without legs with a bite taken out of it because if they had attempted to back in the fifties, they would have been laughed at by the other manufacturers. It's also possible that the "Les Paul Model" registration may have lapsed.

I find it interesting that the Harmony Central article says that the Les Paul has been manufactured continuously, or some such.
T'ain't so, McGee!

As for Fender Vs. G&L... I think Leo had a few lawyers of his own. Though that didn't help him with the second go-round with trying to use the "Broadcaster" name, did it?

 

[TeleMark]

Yup...

Paul has been in touch with Fender over the years. At one point, they linked to the TDPRI from their main page (I think) and then all heck broke loose. They really started coming out of the woodwork, and things just plain got messy. Fender took the link down at Paul's request.

...At least that's my recollection of the events. I could be wrong.

Various Fender folks (I'd imagine quite a few, actually) still drop in from time to time. Their input is generally appriciated.

Yeah, after I posted, I remember Richie hangs out here frequently, and if anyone's gonna start something, it would likely be him or his group.

TeleMark

 

[studio1087]

witness the flaming......

(link removed)

A manager from Gibson is sounding off and people are offering rather pointed opinions, go to page 9-10 of the posts. It kind of suprises me that someone from Gibson would comment in writing, I think he's legit.

 

[Lance]

Posts in that forum

Yes...sounds legit. I can't believe this guy still has a job....if he worked for me and commented publically like that, he'd be clearing out his desk. That's the stuff that gives company lawyers nightmares.

Personally, I really love my new Custom Shop Historic '54...but in terms of craftmanship, it doesn't hold a candle to my PRS guitars. Still, I like the sound of my '54 better for most things. But for playability/quality...PRS just smokes Gibson.

If PRS put their legal briefs down for a moment and picked up a PRS, they might learn something about quality and they wouldn't need to deal with the courts to defend their market position.

 

[studio1087]

Off topic - Lance still gets gets my vote for coolest Avatar. My middle name is Lance. If I ever meet Lance I'm buying him a beer.

 

[reverbbb]

It is clear

That Gibson is having some PR fall out to winning this law suit. In the long run, I think the consomer will win "IF" Gibson takes note to the quality vs. pricing complaints and does something about it.

I'll have to admit, yesterday I stopped in Larry Morgan Music in Garland, TX. I saw that he had both brands - Gibson and PRS. I never got a chance to plug and play anything (my wife was with me :? ). I am not currently ready to buy a new guitar. But if I were, yesterday challenged me to consider PRS Single-Cut over the Les Pauls. Most of the LPs in Larry's shop were priced between $2800 & $5800 .Where as Larry was having sale prices for the PRS of far lower than any of the LPs. The PRS models are lighter, the famous locking tuners and have that nice fast neck. The finish was outstanding.

Why wouldn't I consider PRS SC now that Gibson has brought this guitar to my attension?

 

[Dave W]

Les Paul was born Lester William Polsfuss, not that it really matters.

Those of you who think this will backfire, that there will be a fallout, etc, I predict time will prove you dead wrong.

The two bit Marxists who think Gibson doesn't have the right to protect its trademarked designs weren't going to buy a Gibson anyway.

The people who think PRS is a superior guitar weren't going to buy a Gibson anyway.

The people who hate Gibson just for being (relatively) big weren't going to buy a Gibson anyway.

The people who wanted a Les Paul in a PRS suit will not be able to buy it, so their choice will be to buy a real Gibson Les Paul or to wait and see what kind of changes PRS makes to its single cutaway. Whatever those changes may be, it will have to clearly NOT look close enough to a Les Paul to infringe on Gibson's mark.

If they do win this lawsuit, you can bet they won't stop with PRS.

Gibson has already won this lawsuit. Of course it could be appealed but IMHO the outcome won't change.

Of course they won't stop. They will defend their marks. Gibson has been going after companies they feel are infringing for years now. In most cases, though, it doesn't ever reach the point of a trial.

 

[studio1087]

Put down the flamethrower Dave.......

and back away slowly.

I'm not a Marxist and I'm living proof that you are wrong.

I've owed three Les Pauls. I own one now. I also own an Epipnone Sheraton Jazz guitar, an Epi PR 350 12 String and I bought my son an Epiphone Les Paul. I wear my Gibson T-Shirts and my Gibson pride like a badge. I also think the lawsuit will backfire. I guess you shouldn't paint the world with an all knowing brush.

There are so many Les Paul style cut-aways on the market that it's silly. Why does Gibson need to go after this ONE company?

Yamaha and Carvin and Cort and Schecter and even Fender Squier have LP looking cut aways but for some reason Gibson feels compelled to stop ONE MANUFACTURER.

Perhaps the quality of the guitars is the reason. I've played many PRS guitars that were exceeding in quality and years ago they all cost $2000.00 - now you can buy one for $600.00 and the quality remains high.

I'm 40 and I've owned more Les Paul copies than most people. When I was 19 I had two Ibanez LP copies at the same time.

Why now? Why just PRS? I think Gibson is protesting just enough to make seasoned Gibby veterans go try a new fangled PRS. I'm fanning the flame. You're fanning it alot when you call people Marxist. Actually you're flaming the board calling people Marxist. For heat like that I usually visit the Taylor vs. Martin posts on the AG boards. Wow.

 

[Dave W]

Re: Put down the flamethrower Dave.......

and back away slowly.

I'm not a Marxist and I'm living proof that you are wrong.

I've owed three Les Pauls. I own one now. I also own an Epipnone Sheraton Jazz guitar, an Epi PR 350 12 String and I bought my son an Epiphone Les Paul. I wear my Gibson T-Shirts and my Gibson pride like a badge. I also think the lawsuit will backfire. I guess you shouldn't paint the world with an all knowing brush.

There are so many Les Paul style cut-aways on the market that it's silly. Why does Gibson need to go after this ONE company?

Yamaha and Carvin and Cort and Schecter and even Fender Squier have LP looking cut aways but for some reason Gibson feels compelled to stop ONE MANUFACTURER.

Perhaps the quality of the guitars is the reason. I've played many PRS guitars that were exceeding in quality and years ago they all cost $2000.00 - now you can buy one for $600.00 and the quality remains high.

I'm 40 and I've owned more Les Paul copies than most people. When I was 19 I had two Ibanez LP copies at the same time.

Why now? Why just PRS? I think Gibson is protesting just enough to make seasoned Gibby veterans go try a new fangled PRS. I'm fanning the flame. You're fanning it alot when you call people Marxist. Actually you're flaming the board calling people Marxist. For heat like that I usually visit the Taylor vs. Martin posts on the AG boards. Wow.

Flaming the board? Hardly.

If you don't believe a company has the right to its own private property, and that anybody else ought to be free to use it, then you're a Marxist. That's not a flame or value judgment, that's a fact. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then don't.

As I've said twice before in this thread, it's not just PRS and it's not just now, they've been doing this all along. Got that? It's not just one manufacturer. PRS just felt its pretty obvious theft of Gibson's design was different enough to be justified. Gibson disagreed. PRS didn't back down. So it went to trial. PRS lost. Gibson chose to make their victory public. That's why we know about it.

As for other companies who make single cutaway guitars that look something like Les Pauls, we don't have the facts. If a settlement or agreement was reached without a lawsuit we just wouldn't hear about it. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that some of them pay licensing fees to Gibson. In other cases, Gibson has probably decided that it's not close enough to be an infringement. It's their call to make. Not ours.

I don't understand why you mention your Epi copies, since they obviously are authorized by Gibson.

 

[studio1087]

I mentioned the Epi's to demonstrate my support and admiration of the entire Gibson family of products - kind of a side note.

From a legal standpoint, you are correct and logical.

I was referring more to a PR attitude or angle. Lots of players will ask lots of questions and try lots of PRS guitars to see what all the stink is about. Gibson singled out PRS. This is the basis of my post, not the pure legal rights. Something like this can cause a great deal of spin in the head of the consumer. I have not thought this much about PRS guitars in a long time - lots of people who would not otherwise discuss PRS are discussing PRS.
So tell me, who won the debate and was it worth it?

I think the AG forum thread on this topic is past 160 posts now. It's an acoustic forum read by thousands.
I was trying to point out the PR side of the coin.

From a legal standpoint, you are right, I'm wrong.
I owe you a beer.

John

 

[Tele295]

So what's the deal? Is PRS no longer allowed to make the Singlecut guitar? Should I snap up one of these Singlecut p90 SE's now, or will they continue to make it?