Gibson v Dean trial to start

[alex1fly]

What's interesting to me is the threshold of copycat design. Like okay so say Gibson wins and Dean has to modify a headstock shape but by how much?

[Mincer]

Yeah - but they can just raise prices.

Every time they raise prices, another company swoops in and offers instruments at their previous price points. It isn't enough to be top dog, you have to fight to keep that position.

[Aceman]

On the other hand, if they don't go after these types of claims, their value goes down. It will be interesting to see how these cases progress.

Yeah - but they can just raise prices.

[Mincer]

This whole thing is quite senseless...even if Gibson wins every trademark or copyright infringement case they win NOTHING. Players these days will buy the instruments they like at the price they want to pay regardless of the body or headstock shape (Ibabez, Kramer, Fender, etc. are in business BECAUSE they don't look like Gibson at Gibson prices). Yes, there will always be some who will buy the name, and that is what keeps Gibson in the marketplace, but it's NOT because they can't buy that headstock or body shape elsewhere.

All I can say is, get a life Gibson.

On the other hand, if they don't go after these types of claims, their value goes down. It will be interesting to see how these cases progress.

[Aceman]

[ICTGoober]

Do we have any forum members near Sherman, Texas who could attend the trial and give us a report now and then? It's a small city of 40,000 not far from Oklahoma.

[nexion218]

From your lips to God's ears.




You could say Gibson is trying to punish them, or dominate the market - but I prefer to think of it more cut throat, like a pro card player would think.
Their credo is "If you can't count, cut" - meaning if you can't make points, stop the other guy from making points.
Which would be dumb reason to sue, because the instrument market is not a game.

Agreed. I think even Gibson agrees it's a not a game. Rather a big enough business that at least has a chance of making worth their while, so anything goes. They're not making (enough) "points", so Plan B swings into action. But what do I know? I'm just speculating here without knowing much about big time business. But based on my limited knowledge this would be the only way their actions made sense.

[ICTGoober]

All I can say is, get a life Gibson.

From your lips to God's ears.

I guess the idea here is probably not to gain sales, but to force competitors to lose sales

You could say Gibson is trying to punish them, or dominate the market - but I prefer to think of it more cut throat, like a pro card player would think.
Their credo is "If you can't count, cut" - meaning if you can't make points, stop the other guy from making points.
Which would be dumb reason to sue, because the instrument market is not a game.

[nexion218]

I guess the idea here is probably not to gain sales, but to force competitors to lose sales.

[GuitarDoc]

This whole thing is quite senseless...even if Gibson wins every trademark or copyright infringement case they win NOTHING. Players these days will buy the instruments they like at the price they want to pay regardless of the body or headstock shape (Ibabez, Kramer, Fender, etc. are in business BECAUSE they don't look like Gibson at Gibson prices). Yes, there will always be some who will buy the name, and that is what keeps Gibson in the marketplace, but it's NOT because they can't buy that headstock or body shape elsewhere.

All I can say is, get a life Gibson.

[Ashurbanipal]

I would agree with this. But they clearly know there is a market for ultra high end instruments for by people who will rarely play them. That is baked into their business model. Let's face it, most of their customers are guitar fans, not musicians. I love my Gibson, but it is an 40-year-old, not-widely-respected model. I am priced out of their instruments these days, even though I am technically a Gibson artist.

No doubt a reason why there are fewer more prominent artists in their roster under 45/50 . Can only think of JJN, Marcus King, Halestorm, the guy from Greta Van Fleet... I guess when it comes moving units, that's what Epiphone is for.

Also agree with Ace – could put that money into stuff like qc, people's wages etc. Ideal hypotheticals, of course .

[nexion218]

You just have to shop smart and look for deals there are plenty of $400 Les Paul Standards out there.

Or $300 Goldtops ..

[Securb]

I am priced out of their instruments these days, even though I am technically a Gibson artist.

You just have to shop smart and look for deals there are plenty of $400 Les Paul Standards out there.

[Aceman]

I would agree with this. But they clearly know there is a market for ultra high end instruments for by people who will rarely play them. That is baked into their business model. Let's face it, most of their customers are guitar fans, not musicians. I love my Gibson, but it is an 40-year-old, not-widely-respected model. I am priced out of their instruments these days, even though I am technically a Gibson artist.

I'm not priced out of their range - but I don't buy them either. (one exception, obvious reasons - no apologies!)

[GuitarStv]

Hey - here is an idea Gibson....just spitballing here, but maybe toss this around the board room:

Make REALLY REALLY good guitars, classics and moderns, at really competitive prices. Maybe channel all that Lawyer money into Quality, modern production, and reducing costs for customers while maintaining margins. Bah - what do I know.....

You're asking them to do something that they have no experience with though . . . that would require total ground up changes to the company.


:P