gibson and free market oppression

[knucklefux]

fyi...gibson sued prs a few months ago for trademark infringement. they said that the prs singleut resembles their trademarked les paul and that this would cause confusion in the marketplace. this has me pissed off at gibson. i don't think anyone shopping for a $2000 plus guitar is going to be confused about what they are buying, i think prs is offering a better product at a lower price. it doesn't help that the case took place in tennessee, where gibson is located(can you say home court advantage?). i think that the only ones truely hurt by the ensuing injunction against prs are the consumers. we are now left with fewer options. what gibson should have done was implemented better quality control and considered lowering their prices. the whole point of a free market is for companies to compete with each other so that the consumers get the most for their money. what gibson has done effectively reduces competition and hurts consumers. without consumers, gibson is kaput. gibson's first loyalty should be to us, not the courts. anybody want to buy an epiphone les paul custom?

 

[Mojoe01]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

Welcome to Law 101. Copyright(Trademark) infringement is the issue here, not Gibson trying to create some kind of market monopoly. I do agree that Gibson has a few quality control issues, but the Les Paul is their guitar, and it's their right to protect it. There have been a ton of posts on this topic, so I don't really want to start reusing a bunch of quotes people had, but the general idea is this: any company that mimicks the LP to the extent PRS has is breaking the law. The only reason Gibson only goes after the bigger companies, like PRS, is because they're the only real threat to Gibson's market share. This is just like the whole music download controversey. It benefits the consumer, but that doesn't make it right, it's still stealing. (not to say theres anybody out there who hasn't done it, but it still doesn't make it right.)

 

[knucklefux]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

i understand that the law dictates that gibson has a right to protect "their" guitar. i think the point that i was trying to make that wasn't made is that no one who wants to purchase an instrment of that caliber is going to be confused. i mean, i can spot a les paul from a mile away, same with the prs. my true issue is that the laws are often written in such a way as to infringe upon the rights of the little guy. i, being one of the little guys, have more concern for right and wrong regardless of legal statute and as such will not support or endorse a bully, especially a corporate bully. that's why i added the thing about the custom for sale in my first post. i feel that if people know what is going on, and are as disturbed about it as i am, they will not sit idly by while one entity with more money uses it to oppress another entity. my form of not being idle is this thread and the refusal to purchase, or in fact play, any gibson products. especially when there are superior options available and conveniently in my possession.

furthermore, if we are to embrace the concept of a free market, things like this litigation tend to undermine it's efficacy. we must consider the broader implications here. ibm could trademark the pc, effectively limiting our purchasing options to ibm, or intel could trademark the pc processor...thus barring amd from offering a superior product, etc. the point is that if we are to engage in a free market, it should be totally free, not free with some exceptions.

 

[NathanCahill]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

furthermore, if we are to embrace the concept of a free market, things like this litigation tend to undermine it's efficacy. we must consider the broader implications here. ibm could trademark the pc, effectively limiting our purchasing options to ibm, or intel could trademark the pc processor...thus barring amd from offering a superior product, etc. the point is that if we are to engage in a free market, it should be totally free, not free with some exceptions.

Really bad examples man. The reason AMD exist is that their product is different enough to not be confused with Intel's chips etc. Same with IBM and the PC.

 

[knucklefux]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

Really bad examples man. The reason AMD exist is that their product is different enough to not be confused with Intel's chips etc. Same with IBM and the PC.

i'm glad all you had to say was bad example. perhaps you could enlighten me with some that are better. the point i was making that you obviously missed, regardless of the validity of the examples, is that the proper response to someone building a btter mousetrap than yours is to work on your ****ing mousetrap. just so you know, ibm created the first pc...

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

I think that Gibson's sticking point is not if you or I recognize their product, but the general public. If you or I see a concert or a video with someone playing a Singlecut or LP, we'll say "Hey check out the cool finish on that PRS" or "That LP sounds cool." Now if someone with enough money but not enough knowledge sees a video like that and want a guitar "Like the one in the video/concert", they might buy the PRS thinking it's a LP. Keep in mind that these companies rely on their image almost as heavily as on the quality of their product.

 

[texasguitarslinger]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

The biggest competition any musical instrument company has is the used market. :smoker:

 

[some_dude]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

i think the point that i was trying to make that wasn't made is that no one who wants to purchase an instrment of that caliber is going to be confused.

Maybe, maybe not.

But, if someone were to buy a PRS Single Cut in hopes that non-guitarists might be confused into thinking it's a Les Paul, it's accomplished the same thing.

A knock off is a knock off, and when it comes down to it, the law doesn't care whether it's a high quality knock off or a POS.

 

[Scott_F]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

The law is what it is. Look at how Duncan can't sell double cream humbuckers? Someone beat them to the punch on the trademark issue.

With regard to Gibson/PRS, I can understand the headstock shape, but I'm not so sure about the single cutaway. Does this mean that Fender has a right to all double cutaway guitars, like strats? Or will Gibson come back and say that their double cutaway 335 type guitars are sufficiently like Strats that Fender has to stop making strats? Gimme a break.

That being said, PRS owns a trademark on the way they their lowerbout is cutaway. Sort of a scooped shape, right? Well, if someone else tried that, PRS would sue them. Now PRS is getting sued. I think it's kinda ironic.

 

[Nightburst]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

I don't know much about the situation but I shure hope PRS will be able to continue making singlecuts, I really like the shape of those guitars!

Btw. I just bought an Epi LP custom, awesome guitar.

 

[Norman_T]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

This has been posted a number of times and we are going over the same old issues etc. What has been decided is that Gibson have a right to trademark the Singlecut guitar and PRS were being very silly in slavishly copying the design (although not the headstock) and then selling it as such. Incidentally in Europe and the rest of the world you can still get PRS Singlecut guitars as this only applies to the US markets - so its not market oppression as stated.

No matter what the rights and wrongs of the judgement the ball is very firmly in PRS's court. If they want to play in that market - then they either fight or pay Gibson a fee. My guess is that they will pay a licence fee but you can bet your house that PRS will be double and triple checking every patent there is and will go after anyone who infringes that.

 

[Tweed]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

Does this mean that Fender has a right to all double cutaway guitars, like strats?

Maybe :smack:

http://www.forbes.com/manufacturing/2004/06/22/cz_el_0622fender.html

 

[Zerberus]

Re: gibson and free market oppression

....That being said, PRS owns a trademark on the way they their lowerbout is cutaway. Sort of a scooped shape, right? Well, if someone else tried that, PRS would sue them. Now PRS is getting sued. I think it's kinda ironic.

PRS has actually already had a few lawsuits over the shape, just none against a large enough manufacturer to warrant this much attention

Heck, even Jackson/Charvel has sued companies for knocking off their headstock shape or body shapes (Can anyone say ESP?)