Chistopher
malapterurus electricus tonewood instigator
Also what's the deal on the A2? I thought DMZ hated A2 so much they invented a patent.
New PAF Variant from Dimarzio
- Thread starter nienturi
- Start date
freefrog
Well-known member
Yep, they call them "PAF" without dots because it's a DiMarzio trademark... and the absence of dots in this acronym allows to apply it to PU's whose design / materials / construction are not quite the same than in Gibson "P.A.F.'s" (like the 36th, with its added slugs between magnetic poles while there's no keeper bar in this model)...
In some way, it's more honest that what some other brands and winders do by putting "P.A.F." stickers under humbuckers whose specs are not "vintage correct" either.
That said, I still find these "new" DM double cream less attractive than my old double cream SH1 or than the "true colors" shining through Duncan Seth Lover's ( https://guitar.com/guides/essential-guide/all-about-seth-lover/ )... YMMV, of course.
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
They're hypocrites, TBH. I guess they realized "whatever sells". They've been using A2 on single coils for a while and calling them "Area" whatever, I think, argumenting they have less string pull, so that'w why they use them.
donaldr
New member
How can you invent a patent? I don't think it's possible.
You invent something and you get a patent to stop others from copying, manufacturing, selling or importing your invention without your permission.
larryguitar
New member
Anyone notice that those are NOT 'cream' colored, but 'relic white'? Look like cream to me, so I wonder if this is a response to the lawsuit?
Larry
Larry
GuitarStv
Sock Market Trader
No. Cream coloured humbuckers copied from what earlier Gibson pickups with the cover removed looked like was not an invention. But when Dimarizio patented cream coloured humbuckers? That was the entirety of Dimarzio's 'invention'.
RanchManSandy
New member
Trademarked a color, not "patented" it.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Not an invention. They took a particular color combined with a dual humbucker bobbin appearance as a trademark, which a company can legitimately can do.
GuitarStv
Sock Market Trader
Not an invention. And they copied what Gibson had already done and called it on their own. Not legitimate.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Actually, it is legitimate. Gibson was using white butyrate bobbins. When those aged, they turned yellow - not something Gibson did intentionally nor controlled or made to happen. You can trademark a color and/or shape if it identifies your brand to the average consumer of your product. That's what they did. DiMarzio formulated a plastic color to match that aged butyrate color and fairly claimed that (at the time they claimed it) the dual creme bobbin humbucker was a recognizable brand characteristic of their product.
I thought the dual rows of hexes were part of the claim originally, which would be legitimate, but then DMz started making "PAF"s with normal humbucker bobbins (which is not exclusive to DMz) and tried to claim now all normal humbuckers in creme is their brand. It should have been challenged harder at the start, but there were so few aftermarket winders then to bother.
I think where it really goes off the rails is when DiMarzio started making other colors, so there isn't a single color representing their brand, and they attack all other vendors making other variations that are not confused with DiMarzio's products.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Which in the 70's, made sense. In the 80's, not so much. Today - total BS.
And I could easily prove it with SCIENCE!
marcello252
Well-known member
imagine if someone someday discovered it was actually dimarzio infriging the gibson average image
donaldr
New member
You are mixing patents and trademarks.
Just like John Deere didn't invent the green color but they trademarked that green for a tractor.
Archer250
New member
It's amazing.
Company that hitherto didn't believe in A2s (and until recently, A4s) because "A5 is more reliable and you can just use technology" goes full A2 + maple spacers.
"We don't answer to board of directors, we answer to musicians!" Unless said musician is Jeff Shepherd, who dared to sell double cream pickups made in his own workshop. How dare he violate this patent we obtained in the 80s, for a product we began selling as a replacement part in the mid 70s
Company that hitherto didn't believe in A2s (and until recently, A4s) because "A5 is more reliable and you can just use technology" goes full A2 + maple spacers.
"We don't answer to board of directors, we answer to musicians!" Unless said musician is Jeff Shepherd, who dared to sell double cream pickups made in his own workshop. How dare he violate this patent we obtained in the 80s, for a product we began selling as a replacement part in the mid 70s
I know everyone has their opinion on the double cream issue, going back the the 70s and looking at the situation of trying to stand out in a new market ( replacement pickups) it makes sense. Agree that once all the other products and colors came about, it was probably less impactful. I actually think it was a relatively “ Rock and Roll “ move to throw out their Version of the 57 classic and even put 57 in the name. I’d rather not see Gibson continue the “Corporate Overlord” lawsuits they keep coming up with, which one day could affect some other favorite brand or product you enjoy. This is Larry’s middle finger to that, which I think is funny. I’ve had some good products from DiMarzio over the years, and they are very responsive and helpful when you have a question and call or email them. As far as the pickups, I ordered a set as I’m curious to hear them, Dimarzios if nothing else are usually tuned with rock in mind, will be interesting to see how they compare to the Burstbuckers, 57 Classics and Seth, Pearly and APH variants we are all used to.
Wound_Up
New member
That's how Gibson, and every other business with trademarks, protects their own trademarks. It's part of owning a trademark. You have to protect it. There is no "corporate overlord" anything. They're doing what every other business does.
Just like when they destroyed all those worthless Firebird X's. Just, like Atari did their ET video game that bombed, they destroyed worthless product that was still shown as assets in their books. Millions in assets that were worth nothing. So, they did what every other business does with worthless product. They destroyed them. Exactly what they were legally supposed to do. Same principle. It's all standard business practices. Calling it corporate overlord stuff because you don't understand standard business practices ain't how it works lol.
Last edited:
Oldmanmetalhead
New member
You sound very wound up about this legal crap. I dont care either way, just wonder how they sound
Both Gibson and DiMarzio have done their fair share of protecting their legal interests, I probably should have chosen my words more wisely. I personally think the jabs back and forth between them are entertaining, and yes, I guess I’m a hypocrite if I think DiMarzio is ok to defend their trademarks, intellectual property, etc, and Gibson wouldn’t be. No I’m not a corporate attorney, so I shouldn’t have weighed in. I’ve worked in commercial finance for almost 30 years now, so I have an “ok” understanding of business practices.
We shall see how they sound when they arrive.
We shall see how they sound when they arrive.
Last edited:
