PRS singlecut lawsuit

[3'scompany]

This may have been covered before but I'm just wondering people's opinions on this. Do you think that gibson had the right to sue with out suing esp for their eclipse? What's everyone's thoughts on this? Good that they sued, not good?

P.S. Who's thinking like I am that gibson realized that PRS builds a way better Les Paul style guitar for less money. And isn't it a little suspicious that gibson started offering flamed maple tops on their Les Paul standards... do I smell fear and loss of control of the market? I by the way feel that the fit and finish of an epiphone is comparable/better than that of a real gibson. Hopefully lots of people realized that too and decided to go PRS before they got sued.

 

[Skarekrough]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Gibson had every right to sue....it's their job to uphold the copyright on their instruments. And to an extent I even think they actually deserve the win.

The reason why ESP can make their line is that they've probably gone to Gibson about the licensing and have agreed to pay a fee for each guitar in order to use the general shape. Gibson alos probably signed off on the final specs. Also, lets keep in mind, ESP is nowhere near the level fo prestige that Gibson and PRS is. To the market share that PRS and Gibson occupy ESP makes toy guitars for kids.

Where PRS got nailed is the internal memo stating that they wanted to make a guitar that competed directly with the Les Pauls. Any potential merit of presenting differences in construction became a null point when that came out; tey pretty much proved hat they were looking to eat Gibsons lunch, and were willing to do as much as they could to do so.

The lawsuit is stupid in that Gibson needs to license the design to PRS and PRS needs to agree to pay the licensing fee. Right now it's just a stupid stalemate that's benifitting both companies; PRS Singlecuts are going up in price and when the suit is settled and they start making that design again (and they will...there's too much money at stake for them not to) they can market it as the triumphant return and release a Special Edition that will be WAY overpriced. Gibson stands to make money by the licensing; enough Singlecuts were sold to be a pretty penny to them.

To me the Singlecuts and the Les Pauls were very different guitars. The Singlecuts were a little more versatile than an off the shelf Les Paul, but the Les Pauls had that characteristic tone from the get-go.

Ironically enough after I hemmed and hawed between both mdoels I went with a Les Paul and then proceeded to buy two Greco Les Paul clones, arguably historically the same models that started the process of Gibson defending their design against Ibanez in the 70's.

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

PRS has kicked the biggest dent in Gibson's sales. IMO, Gibson aren't wrong to protect their patented design. If you owned the patent to the Les Paul, you may even be MORE diligent in suing copycats than they are. I would be. Business is business, and PRS took a LP bodyshape, used 4 knobs, two humbuckers, put the toggle switch in the same place, and therefore copied it. It's debateable whether the Singlecut is better than a LP Std. They're both equally great guitars in their own rite.
I do know one thing. The PRS Singlecut will be one of the most revered collectables in years to come. They were only made for about 4 years, and were PRS's second best offering. McCarty and Singlecut are the two best PRS's in my opinion.

 

[captain cavman]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

The Gibson registration of the "Singlecut shape" is based on a 2D drawing of the early LP design , meaning that any guitar with this shape is concerned by the license whatever the pots and switch location.

The crictical point in the judge decision was the singlecut price , which is similar to a LP. If you have a lower price (such as ESP) no confusion, it's a copy. Same price level may induce confusion for someone who doesn't know about guitars !

BTW , the root thing that made Gib sue PRS is that they saw their sales fall down !
I find pitty that they went through lawsuit rather than improving their quality rate or guitar fancy !

 

[Neeradj]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

The reason why ESP can make their line is that they've probably gone to Gibson about the licensing and have agreed to pay a fee for each guitar in order to use the general shape. Gibson alos probably signed off on the final specs. Also, lets keep in mind, ESP is nowhere near the level fo prestige that Gibson and PRS is. To the market share that PRS and Gibson occupy ESP makes toy guitars for kids.

To me the Singlecuts and the Les Pauls were very different guitars.

Come again? You agree with the fact Singlecuts and LPs are very different guitars and you still think Gibson had the right to win? Make up your mind, will ya?

Like GearJoneser said it began with the model-copy resulting into a sale-decrease for Gibson. If they were very different, wouldn't it have been very UNFAIR of them to sue PRS? It all began with the problem of similarities you know

I request for you to explain why ESPs are exactly toy guitars compared to Gibsons? It might be a matter of personal taste, so just looking at the quality/price for each guitar, I think you've got no right to say such a thing. I myself have tried and owned various Gibson guitars (I swore by them two years ago), but I ended up selling mine (except for my V which which was built suprisingly well). Why? Because every year I saw their second hand prices decreasing, which was caused by their decreasing quality. Gibson has had a long time monopoly going on for them, and have built such a good rep for themselfs in the past, they are currently offering poor quality for outrageous prices and able to get away with it. ESP however (not mistaken with the Korean LTD) still offers a consistent quality, with nothing but the best parts and woods available, and the quality one would expect from a Gibson. A kids guitar? :laugh2:

Please don't take any personal offense, but I just strongly disagree with you, when laying down the facts.

 

[big_black]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

The crictical point in the judge decision was the singlecut price , which is similar to a LP. If you have a lower price (such as ESP) no confusion, it's a copy. Same price level may induce confusion for someone who doesn't know about guitars !

That is just a cop out (no offense to you my friend). The PRS looks nothing like a Les Paul and you would have to be legally blind to not notice the difference. Tney must have just found the right judge.

BTW , the root thing that made Gib sue PRS is that they saw their sales fall down !
I find pitty that they went through lawsuit rather than improving their quality rate or guitar fancy !

Exactly! Thay are afraid of producing an increasingly inferior product, and this ruling allows them to do just that. It is obvious to anyone who had held more than five in their hand that Gibson cares more about profit than making a quality instrument. Why excatly are they raising prices $120 ACROSS THE BOARD? It's deffinately not becuase they will be better...oh, because they can!

:fing25:​

Give my love to Gibby!​

 

[Zerberus]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Do we HAVE to rehash this every 2 months??

 

[Rainmaker]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Hahahaha Zerb :laugh2:

Umm... Skare, although you're correct about ESP being awfully insignificant compared to PRS - 'toy guitar' is an awfully untactful word, IMO.

 

[Mr Wolf]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Well, after playing Les Pauls i know in the distant future i will own one! Played them in the shop, didnt quite like the classic's neck compared with the standards i played but they were all very nice guitars. After four gibsons i liked them all loads and they do make very good instruments (classic being a possible lemon since i didnt lke as much compared to the standards). but i cannot afford them at the moment, and for the money i would rather spend a chunk on a decent amp. Cannot justify spending that amount as of now.

As far as Singlecut vs Les Paul, i dunno what it takes to clash with gibson's patents, but from switching, pups, knobs, general shape the similarity is obvious. sure its different with other aesthetics and neck scale but im not surprised gibson had a case against them.

 

[Skarekrough]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Come again? You agree with the fact Singlecuts and LPs are very different guitars and you still think Gibson had the right to win? Make up your mind, will ya?

In some respects they're similiar guitars, mostly on levels that are very basic; the guitar has a single cutaway with the knob location a certain way and the pickup selector in a certain place. Those three elements alone pretty much denote "Les Paul" enough for what would constitute a copyright issue.

Where I found a difference in the instrument is on very small levels that only players, and even mostly nit-picky players, would realize it. Mostly things like neck shape, characteristics of the pickups and other components.

Like GearJoneser said it began with the model-copy resulting into a sale-decrease for Gibson. If they were very different, wouldn't it have been very UNFAIR of them to sue PRS? It all began with the problem of similarities you know

Again, burden of proof for something like this only needs to be very superficial. Gibson had every right to go after PRS.

I request for you to explain why ESPs are exactly toy guitars compared to Gibsons? It might be a matter of personal taste, so just looking at the quality/price for each guitar, I think you've got no right to say such a thing.

For the basic price-point and association with the demographic which ESP sells to it's just a lower priced guitar than Gibson typically sells made for an audience that is younger. At five bills for the EC-1000 the only lunch ESP is eating there would belong to Epiphone.

Let's face it....a typical buyer of a high-end Gibson who wants a guitar as a bit of an investment and a bit of a prestige peice isn't going to walk into a shop and come out with an ESP. There's an association tied in there that has nothing to do with the core componentry, shape, or design of the instrument. It's rooted in the name.

I myself have tried and owned various Gibson guitars (I swore by them two years ago), but I ended up selling mine (except for my V which which was built suprisingly well). Why? Because every year I saw their second hand prices decreasing, which was caused by their decreasing quality.

Aside from market anonalies Gibsons hold their price quite well. And those that understand what a good investment that can be had in the Used market usually do pretty well for themselves. If you demand an incredible rate of return on your instruments after two years then I'd suggest buying used and then putting the savings into a real financial plan that will show some return at a much quicker rate.

BTW....ESP EC's are depreciating in value at probably an equal rate.

 

[Skarekrough]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Gibson has had a long time monopoly going on for them, and have built such a good rep for themselfs in the past, they are currently offering poor quality for outrageous prices and able to get away with it. ESP however (not mistaken with the Korean LTD) still offers a consistent quality, with nothing but the best parts and woods available, and the quality one would expect from a Gibson. A kids guitar? :laugh2:

I agree that Gibsons QC is certainly dubious these days. Every company has their problems. But let's be fair, no other name has more money behind it than Gibson and Fender. For sheer name recognition and market share they're the big guns and they've put in the time to make history and can back it up.

Investors aren't flying in from two countries over every time a rare ESP comes out of the attic. But they are for an authenticated 59'....and they're brinigng blank checks with them.

Please don't take any personal offense, but I just strongly disagree with you, when laying down the facts.

I think your personal bias against Gibson is clouding your abaility to logically look at the situation. And don't get pissy at me because you somehow feel slighted for whatever reason.

ESP makes fine instruments...but they're for a wholly different crowd than Gibson typically sells to, and that's ery much at the root of the lawsuit. Had ESP not licensed with Gibson who do you think they would have gone after first, PRS or ESP? Who is eating who's lunch here?

 

[Xeromus]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

"To the market share that PRS and Gibson occupy ESP makes toy guitars for kids."

Whhahaaaat? I hope you mean the market perspective, and not your own or the average user, because that's just pure ignorance. Sure, my ESP Eclipse is cheaper than a Gibson Les Paul, but to me it's also far better quality. I got it as a backup to my Paul and shortly after realizing it sounded, played, and felt better, I stopped playing the LP altogether and decided to sell it to get some other gear I'd actually use. Gibson is just another corporate whore who has to rape the public with their prices.

"I think your personal bias against Gibson is clouding your abaility to logically look at the situation. And don't get pissy at me because you somehow feel slighted for whatever reason."

I agree that PRS was the only company that directly competed with Gibson on their level. So Gibson had to knock out the competition, and they have the rights to their respective Paul, but a Singlecut is entirely a different instrument. And Gibson wants to keep their price/quality gap as large as possible to make an enormous profit. They could raise their quality and lower prices and still make a ridiculous killing. But they wouldn't do that. Fact is, they know a lot of companies make a much better guitar than they do.

 

[Neeradj]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

In some respects they're similiar guitars, mostly on levels that are very basic; the guitar has a single cutaway with the knob location a certain way and the pickup selector in a certain place. Those three elements alone pretty much denote "Les Paul" enough for what would constitute a copyright issue.

Where I found a difference in the instrument is on very small levels that only players, and even mostly nit-picky players, would realize it. Mostly things like neck shape, characteristics of the pickups and other components.

Again, burden of proof for something like this only needs to be very superficial. Gibson had every right to go after PRS.

Are you even reading this? You're pretty much arguing with yourself right now. To quote your first post in this topic: "To me the Singlecuts and the Les Pauls were very different guitars.". You're basically softening up your earlier statement.

Again I wasn't refering to the Korean LTD, the EC-1000 is an LTD . You're right about the investment piece thing though, but that certainly doesn't justify the lack in quality for the price Gibson wants for it.

Aside from market anonalies Gibsons hold their price quite well. And those that understand what a good investment that can be had in the Used market usually do pretty well for themselves. If you demand an incredible rate of return on your instruments after two years then I'd suggest buying used and then putting the savings into a real financial plan that will show some return at a much quicker rate.

I think you are so misunderstanding me. I swore by Gibson 2 YEARS AGO. Me swearing off most Gibson guitars had nothing to do with the decrease in second hand prices, but in quality

 

[That90'sGuy]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Let's face it, Gibson sued PRS because they stole distinct looking characteristics of their Les Paul. To those who aren't big guitar fans, one might look similar to the other. Headstock designs are different, and knob placement may be a bit different, but it's pretty obvious that there is some copying going on. Watch Gibson make a PRS styled guitar modeled after say a Custom or McCarty and see how fast PRS sues Gibson. It's not rocket science here.

I'm sure ESP is paying some sort of a fee for their guitars, but PRS is directly competing with Gibson for consumer dollars. Gibson has every reason to be scared about PRS. They make, for the most part, better guitars at very similar prices. They tend to be more versatile and the quality is usually superior (for head to head prices, I'm not talking a CU22 against a Historic '59 RI). Gibson doesn't want PRS taking their design and crunching out better instruments, it'll kill any chance of them staying as a prime leader in the guitar industry.

 

[Skarekrough]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Are you even reading this? You're pretty much arguing with yourself right now. To quote your first post in this topic: "To me the Singlecuts and the Les Pauls were very different guitars.". You're basically softening up your earlier statement.

Not really...guitars exist on alot of different levels. A Jeff Beck Signature Stratocaster is worlds away tonally from a Robert Cray Signature Stratocaster. But they both visually look like Strats, and to the casual observer who knows very little, could pretty much be the same thing.

The burden of proof for what Gibson needed is to prove that PRS was attempting to confuse the end consumer by making a guitar that is so indiscernable from Gibsons offering that the consumer may possibly be confused as to which is which.

The litmus test for this is pretty much someone who is unitiated to know the difference between the two to take a look and see if they can tell that they're different products.

But as we all know with guitars looks are not everything; there's wood selection and quality, electronics, components, inlay, etc....all the suff that us guitar geeks know by heart.

Unfortunately for PRS the volume of knowledge of guitar geeks wasn't what the litmus test was. It pretty much comes down to someone who is unitiated making a judgement on similarities between the two models.

You're the one who cited that the market was too volatile for you in your post.

But I maintain that if they quality sucked why didn't you go for a used one that had been pimped out by a good tech? You'd of goten the best of both worlds!

 

[Skarekrough]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Whhahaaaat? I hope you mean the market perspective, and not your own or the average user, because that's just pure ignorance.

It's about price point and demographics....ESP isn't in competittion with Gibson and PRS for the same dollar.

Someone who's amped up about getting a Historic isn't going to pick up an EC-1000 and suddenly change their mind. They're buying a Gibson for the name and the prestige.

ESP makes a fine instrument...but even look at the endorsees; they make guitars typically for metal players. Ron Wood aside their roster and Sig model list is mostly metal bands. It's a wholy different demographic.

Gibson is just another corporate whore who has to rape the public with their prices.

And some would state that Gibson keeps jobs in America and their product holds their value remarkably better.

They may be whores...but they had the design first.

I agree that PRS was the only company that directly competed with Gibson on their level.

That's incorrect. Technically Hamers DoubleCut design competes directly with Gibsons DoubleCut series. However Hamer went to Gibson and licensed the design before they went into production.

Additionally Heritage guitars would also compete as well in the Singlecut arena. I think heritage got the right to reproduce the design (with the altered headstock) in the split from Kalamazoo to Tennessee.

So Gibson had to knock out the competition, and they have the rights to their respective Paul, but a Singlecut is entirely a different instrument. And Gibson wants to keep their price/quality gap as large as possible to make an enormous profit. They could raise their quality and lower prices and still make a ridiculous killing. But they wouldn't do that. Fact is, they know a lot of companies make a much better guitar than they do.

I don't think Gibson wants to knock out the competittion, they want their peice of the pie. The fact that they've licensed previously shows that they know the value of a dollar and are smart enough to know the cosumer wants choices. Even though they own the design they've been smart enough to license it out to other manufacturers.

Even in having alternatives Gibson is getting paid....which, you've got to hand it to them, is a pretty smart thing,

Fender learned this and they make some pretty good cash licensing to companies like Warmoth.

 

[bryvincent]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

.......... Watch Gibson make a PRS styled guitar modeled after say a Custom or McCarty and see how fast PRS sues Gibson. It's not rocket science here...........

Gibson is making one already.Available only in japan though. so where's PRS?

 

[Xeromus]

Re: PRS singlecut lawsuit

Skarekrough - read your last post, agreed. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a quality type argument. But when it comes to marketing, economics, patents, copyrights, etc, you are correct. The one ESP I bought was the first model they started selling with Duncans instead of EMG's. It's obvious they cater to the younger and metal crowd. Gibson indeed invented the single cut and should have all rights to it and be able to collect licensing fees. But that doesn't mean Gibson can make a better one than everyone else. Quite the opposite actually. It's pretty sad nowadays that most Gibson copies I see are better quality than the genine deal. We aren't talking about historics or customs though. Usa Hamers, Heritages, and japanese copies, all I've seen FAR surpass Gibson's standard of quality. But then again, they sell their traditional model whereas these other companies put a modern spin on them. Which is probably why Gibson puts those ridiculously crappy tuners on their guitars, because that's what went on them 50 years ago.