Gibson Granted Injunction Against Paper Jamz Guitars

[Sinner 13]

Now thats hard, its in china.

Its sorta impossible to end it.

 

hard yes, impossible no.

some one some where on some dock has to receive and accept cargo on this end.

that makes them responsible for the distribution of counterfeit goods.

[milod]

Don't forget that Gibson WON a similar lawsuit back in the '70s, hence the term "Patent Infringement" guitars from a number of makers, including an Ibanez that was beginning to boom with Gibbie copies of exceptional quality and much lower prices and better distribution at the time.

 

m

[cookieman15061]

Alas it is not a guitar. It is a piece of cardboard.

 

I find it hard to believe it will sully the reputation or steal sales away from the amazing firebird X.

[milod]

Jocko...

 

An absolute "Yupper" on the patent infringement Ibanez...

 

BTW, that's what I used on the "joke" I sent you.

 

Oh... as someone involved in copyrights, I don't blame Gibson at all. Patent/copyright issues are a lot more complex than most of us realize. Been there, done that.

 

Second edit: If Fender lost a recent lawsuit, it may be for the reason that they did not defend their "patents" in the '70s as some here have stated in earlier threads. You've kinda gotta get on it or you're done. In fact, I'm working on a related issue where I live - not guitar related, but trademark/copyright stuff. Defend or... lose the right to.

 

m

[dbreslauer]

Gibson licensed the name to the people that make the Guitar Hero guitars, and those "Les Pauls" have the Gibson logo on the headstock (and Slash's endorsement)...

 

I wonder if WowWee approached Gibson for such a deal, and what the licensing terms might be. As previously pointed out, there is no Gibson logo on any of these paper toys.

 

Don

[Andy R]

That's a good point. The headstocks are not the same, the bodies are slightly different. Good catch. This will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Well from what I read from previous lawsuits is that ( I believe it was Gibson ) was utilizing the defense that people could mistakenly buy another product if it looked too much like their product. The funny thing is that ( from what I recall ) the expert they brought in on the subject pretty much screwed them by saying something like anyone with any kind of sense wouldn't mistake between a similar looking guitar and the real thing, Case closed Gibson lost. ( After Reading I think this was actually fender) I do believe that Gibson initially won a suit against PRS for the Single Cutaway but I believe it was over turned.

 

If someone mistakes one of these paper guitars for a real Gibson then lord help us all.

 

A lot of people don't understand the difference between a "Trademark" and A "Patent" and a "Copyright" I'm sure most of you do but I feel like typing so read on if you like.

 

One easy way to distinguish between is:

 

"Copyright" Is generally reserved for music, literature, art, etc... This protects the original writing or drawing, etc.. from being exactly duplicated. Not the subject matter its self. For example I can write a song about cars I just can't duplicate "Baby you can drive my Car" by the Beatles without permission. I can paint a picture of Mona Lisa I just can't duplicate the Actual painting of Mona Lisa ( Not sure if it is actually copy righted or not) Copy Rights are also limited before they become "Public Domain" It can be anywhere between 70 to 100 years or more.

 

"A Trademark" Is loosely defined as a word, name, design, shape, Phrase etc... Associated with the trade of products or identifying them from other similar products in the market place. Example Coke or Pepsi, " we like to see you smile" etc.. Gibson and Fender, etc... It also prevents using extremely similar usage of the brand name and our "Logo" etc... So I couldn't create a Gibsum and utilize the Gibson logo font. It would sound to similar and the logo would look to similar. Trademarks I believe have to be renewed every 10 years and are not always protected internationally.

 

Thus the reason Fender came out with Telecasters and had to stop using "Broadcaster" as someone had already trademarked this.

 

"Patents" Are much harder to get and take a lot more time and money to get. With a Patent you essentially have to prove that you have created something truly unique and that it wouldn't/couldn't have been created within a period of time by reasonable means or as a natural progression. You also only own the Patent in the Countries you applied in. You also generally only have exclusivity of that Patent for twenty years of the date the patent was filed. In some special circumstances a patent can be extended past twenty years but it literally takes an act of congress to approve it and then you have to maintain a pretty hefty fee for maintaining it. One bad thing about a Patent is you have to disclose all the information about what is to be a part of the patent. This is where Trade Secrets come into play. Coke's formula is not patented (It was originally and then they changed it) It is now only a trade secret which they are not forced to divulge. But they are not protected if someone figures it out....

Keep in mind most of this only applies to the US and may not be covered in other countries...

So looking at this situation:

 

Gibson Guitars ( The Name ) would be a Trademark I don't think they can just trademark "Gibson" since it is a common last name

Gibson Script logo would be a copyright .

Gibson Body Shape Looks like they trade marked the Les Paul Single Cutaway in 93, Explorer and V in 1997, and the SG in 1999. They Trade marked the Les paul Headstock shape and bell shaped truss rod Cover in 1975.

 

Fender never got a body shape Trademark which is pretty lucky for Gibson since Fender could have reasonably argued that essentially the double cutaway on the SG comes from a strat and the Single cutaway comes from a tele...

 

It seems that most these cases are determined by the "Frisch Test" factors and comes down to consumers accidentally being duped into purchasing a competing product.

Interesting article Frisch test and Gibson

 

Side Note - Ever wonder why brand name drugs are so expensive?

Patents are a major deal in the industry I am in which is Pharmaceuticals - Essentially A pharma company has twenty years from the date the patent was applied ( not accepted ) to do all of the R&D, Human Studies, legal, FDA approvals, build manufacturing facilities, Market and produce the drug. This is why the brand names are so expensive. After you factor the time, cost, and liability of creating a new drug and getting it to market it the drug company usually only has around 7 to 8 years to re-coup their investment before the patent runs out. Essentially once the patent runs out sales of the drug drop to almost 0 once generics of the product become available. We are currently in a time where a number of our patents are running out and I can tell you that this has cost many Thousands of jobs and extreme cost cuts as everything possible gets funneled back into R&D.

s

Any way back to the paper guitars. Personally I think this is pretty ridiculous for Gibson to sue over unless they are planning to get into the paper guitar business themselves. If anything it just promotes them to some degree. Gibson didn't invent the guitar, the guitar pick-up ( notice that PAF's were never called Patent Received pick-ups) In fact I believe when they started out they were using other peoples designs and have "Borrowed" a bit themselves.

 

Now if the paper guitars had Gibson headstock shapes and the Gibson Brand Trademark on them then I could see them suing. But going back to the "Frisch Test" I don't think anyone that has even primal functioning gray matter would ever mistake buying one of these paper guitars as a "buying a real Gibson"

 

 

Well there ya go!

 

 

 

Andy

[Riffster]

Paper Jamz is profitting from the likeness of Gibson guitars, Gibson wants a cut. That simple. Will Gibson win? Who knows but they should.

Fender did not trademark their body shapes, i don't know if Gibson did.

[Andy R]

I am on both sides of this fence. I do believe that Gibson has the right to protect their trademarks; although this is not a real guitar. Back in the 70's Gibson did the same thing for different reason; back in the 70's the other guitar companies (Ibanez) was actually pumping out guitars built far better than what Gibson was making and this was the only way to protect their instruments. These copies were 100% accurate except for the headstock not saying Gibson. I believe that in as much of a novelty these paper guitars are this could be a huge feather in Gibsons hat. Since this is marketed towards younger males wanting to be Guitar hero's eventually these children will want the real thing and what a better way to get a product sold then with the jump from a paper Gibson to a real Gibson. I also believe that Gibson is doing this for the press more than protecting their trademark since these can not be confused with the real items. Although its not mine or anyone's decision here on the board to decide whats a good or bad decision its up to those who make huge salaries to decide whats a waste of money. Gibson has a staff of lawyers looking for something to do now they will have something to do for a few months. As for going after Chinese counterfeiters I would be more than willing to bet the fake Gibsons and other real trademark guitars are flying out of the same factories. Can Gibson shut them down; it would be difficult but its possible. Also its my belief that Gibson should do what many Fortune 500 Companies have done with hackers; but in regards to luthiers in China. Many companies have hired or turned to hackers to see how well their defenses are against cyber attacks and I believe that Gibson should hire those Chinese Luthiers since some of those guitars that I have personally seen are really well built guitars (not all but some) and if those individuals would have the right tools just think what type of product they could build. In all seriousness those who are senior builders would do nothing but actually assist in bringing up the quality of at the very least the Epiphone and other brand names owned by Gibson. All these guys are trying to do is survive it would help Gibson even with public relations.

 

Actually (IMHO) Most of these companies over seas are more than able to produce an exact high quality Gibson or any other brand. In fact most of these factories output quality has improved so much because american manufactures went over and funded, helped, taught, designed etc... these factories to build high quality instruments. The quality of these instruments that are imported back to the US by US companies as lower end "Affordable" products is set by the company. They don't want the quality to be so high that people can't justify spending the money on the US Brand version. So use cheaper woods, faster painting processes, cheaper parts, "reasonable quality control" and make 10,000 of these a day... You end up with the products we get imported in the states. Now give that same company the same quality woods, use the same painting processes, exact parts, higher quality control, and produce 5, 000 of these a day and you a have a Gibson Guitar that is every bit as good as the one made in the US ( Still cheaper I would bet)

 

It seems to me that it comes across like if something wasn't made in america or by an american it will never and can never be as good. To me this is borderline racism. I worked for Fernandes guitars which are ( were ) made in Japan. I was trained by a Japanese Luthier named Taku Sakashita who was as good or better than any luthier I have ever met. If you have a minute check him out online and what he did after leaving Fernandes to start his own custom shop. He was sadly murdered Earlier this year in February ( In the US of Course) but he built amazing guitars. I watched him do stuff with hand tools that were so precise you would have thought it were CNC'd. He built for Robben Ford and Pat Martino to name a few. Check out some of his work Sakashta Guitars.

 

Anyway my point is it seems like people think that Asians are incapable of making high quality instruments and that is just untrue. If anything I found most Asians i have met to be extremely particular and have more pride in craftsmanship than most americans do. (No I'm not anti-American) It has been a while since I have seen a Fernandes guitar and I don't know if they are still maintaining the quality standards they did when I worked for them, but if you ever get a chance to play one try it out and let me know.

 

End Point. If Gibson were to allow "real" Gibson to be made in a quality factory in Asia utilizing all the same woods, components, quality standards etc... and you set it next to an american made. I maintain it would be as good or possibly better quality than the US made. Gibson pays for the quality level of the Epiphones that are imported. You get what you ask and you pay for. Just check out what happened when Jackson started getting imports made in Japan that were about half the cost and just as good as the american guitars in the late 80's.

 

 

Rant ends here...

 

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

[Andy R]

Great read except the F Test page is a 404 error or not there...

 

Thanks and fixed!

 

 

 

[iddude]

I think Gibson should use the Paper Jamz SG type paper copy with the cool design and make a real Gibson SG with the same design in black and white.

[FirstMeasure]

Ya know, not everyone is "Cut Out" to be a "Real" guitar player.

[Riffster]

Andy my rant was specifically about Chinese guitars, IMO Japan guitars and MIJ guitars are of a better quality standard and a better buy then most made in American guitars. I am specifically speaking about the Prestige Series and Jems by Ibanez, which are 1/3 to 1/2 of a equally made American guitar and again IMO; MIJ are better guitars.

 

I would put my MIJ's up against any MIA if there was a apple to apples comparison available. Things to consider are prices, materials and craftsmanship. Another brand to watch is Schecter Guitars; I am unsure since the factory moved to Indonesia but the Korean versions were badarz guitars.

[Riffster]

I think japanese guitars are good for the money but not better. Are you saying that if japanese guitars cost $3000 you would still prefer them? Would you pay a premium to get a japanese guitar.

 

Where a guitar is made is all part of marketing and pricing,

 

It is fundamental economics.

[retrosurfer1959]

I saw the paper jamz stuff a few months back at Brookstone and was surprised that they were shaped like Gibson and Fender guitars but these lawsuits are getting pretty silly since the Les Paul wasn't an original shape to begin with it was shaped like most acoustic guitars have always been. Honestly I wasn't confused by the paper guitar I think the average consumer can tell the difference.

 

I have a pre lawsuit PRS single cut also that PRS made and Gibson sued and lost because the differences were enough (including the headstock) the judge said the average consumer would not be confused by which was a Gibson and which was a PRS. If thats the test than the paper guitars should be able to beat Gibson here even if they are lame and stupid.

 

 

As for RectoraE2' comments I don't agree that it's racism - Gibson owns a design and the Chines don't respect any trademarks and copy everything exactly which is lowlife. no matter what the quality is. Strange how national pride is now perceived as racism though. I think buying American is great and I support American companies first and foremost whenever I can. I don't want a Chinese made Gibson ever period, even if it was twice as good in quality and cost half as much, I would still not buy it. I wouldn't buy a Chinese Harley Davidsons either. If that makes me a purchasing racist ok, so be it. I will buy a Amp or something from a asian country if that's my only choice but I will never buy a copy or ripoff ever if China made a great guitar and named it a chinese name or something I might think about it, but when they violate copyright and make illegal copies with the companies brand name on it than no way no matter how good or how cheap it is. I don't buy mexican made Fenders, Schecters or other guitars made in foreign countries. Nothing against them really especialy the MIM Fenders there a nice guitar but they still sell the American made I just chose not too I'd rather support America and voting with my wallet is the best way to do that.

[Andy R]

Andy my rant was specifically about Chinese guitars, IMO Japan guitars and MIJ guitars are of a better quality standard and a better buy then most made in American guitars. I am specifically speaking about the Prestige Series and Jems by Ibanez, which are 1/3 to 1/2 of a equally made American guitar and again IMO; MIJ are better guitars.

 

I would put my MIJ's up against any MIA if there was a apple to apples comparison available. Things to consider are prices, materials and craftsmanship. Another brand to watch is Schecter Guitars; I am unsure since the factory moved to Indonesia but the Korean versions were badarz guitars.

 

No man I understand what you were saying but if you can say that about the MIJ and MIK then you can say the same about Chinese. It's not that they aren't capable. I remember when the Shecters started coming out and they were really nice. I haven't played one in a while....

 

 

 

[SG FAN]

While I agree that Japanese guitars are superbly made, quality instruments, I wouldn't say as a rule they are better than American made guitars. Just as good, yes, but not better. Now, I only have experience with Gibson SGs, but they seem to be fairly consistent, quality wise. Edit: I got a little off topic, in regard to the original post, I think Gibson is getting a little carried away with the lawsuits. Come on Gibson, it's a child's toy, you don't have to have your fingers in every pie.

[Andy R]

I think japanese guitars are good for the money but not better. Are you saying that if japanese guitars cost $3000 you would still prefer them? Would you pay a premium to get a japanese guitar.

 

Where a guitar is made is all part of marketing and pricing,

 

It is fundamental economics.

 

First of all it's not a matter of preference in my case and point.

 

And yes and no, you are kind of missing the point. The Asian guitars we see over here that are the lower line brand import of a US company are intentionally not made as well and with lower quality components and QC standards. That's marketing too.

 

Sit by the door at a Guitar Center on a Saturday and see how many US made guitars go out the door as compared to the imports... So If I were a US Guitar company I would make the "Premium Guitars" that cost me more to make due to labor costs overhead etc... More expensive which also implies "Quality" and then have an import line that I can have cheap labor make and have a much higher return on investment.

 

My point was is that If Gibson Allowed the Epiphone Plant to make a "Gibson" using all the same woods, parts, paint, and QC and stamp Made in the USA on the headstock and you took that guitar and set it next to an "Authentic USA Gibson" No one would know the difference and each guitar would be liked or disliked equally between people who tried them based on their opinion.

 

So to your Question if a Japanese guitar cost $3000.00 would I buy it then Yes I would if I wanted that particular Guitar. In my case there aren't that many guitars out there that are actually worth $3,000 to begin with.

 

My main point was that just because something is made in another part of the world doesn't mean the people who make them are less capable than those in the US.

 

It also makes me question this current onslaught of Chinese replicas. Seems that the quality of these are starting to really go up (not all of them but some). How and why is this happening??? Ever heard of the Gray Market? What if I were a company that made oh let's say Guitars... Maybe I'm not all that scrupulous so I have a factory in let's say China that I have make me a consumer friendly priced version of my guitar. Now let's say that I realize that that same company can make exactly the same quality product I can here in the US for about half the price. So I work out a deal where maybe they have everything they need to make the exact same guitar over there and I import them and sell them as my American made brand... Who's gonna know???? Is it legal, no, Does it happen..... I can't say.... I hope not.

 

 

 

[milod]

I notice that nobody's thinking about the _successful_ patent infringement lawsuit that Gibson won in the 1970s. It's not about guitars from Asia or whose capabilities are where - it's about protecting a "franchise" with a specific type of product.

 

Also, definition of copyrights and trademarks and patents and such sounds good, but the definition and how the rubber hits the road can be two different things. For example, we hadda give up on an attorney in Memphis who was listed at the time as the local bar association copyright/trademark/patent expert when it came to questions of how to protect works that were similar to, but different from, choreography. He said the question was out of his realm of expertise so I found a lawyer in D.C. who specialized in such stuff.

 

There have been lots of lawsuits on various stuff, but I think that even the "look" of a Gibson or whatever the product might be is not at all unimportant. Note that the patent infringement lawsuits of the 70s emphasized that, and Gibson won. A number of software firms have won similar lawsuits.

 

Some of the questions on such things aren't answered by statute law as much as by case law and that is why we pay lawyers. Yeah, my "value judgment" on that isn't always printable, but it's the truth.

 

Note that we used to get oodles of nastygrams from folks like Coca Cola and Kleenex at newspapers and magazines if we didn't use those terms as proper names. Just the nastygrams themselves were part of a proof that the companies were protecting their franchise. Nike won, as I recall, lawsuits involving their "swoosh."

 

Yeah, nobody at Gibson is concerned, I'm sure, whether paper guitars are being taken as a real product of the company and yet... if a company doesn't protect its "franchise," including appearance, it's in trouble. I can assure one and all that if a strip joint featuring women with certain physical attributes called itself "Big Mac," and advertised "buns" under their own "golden arches," that a certain fast food company would be after them in an instant. Yet nobody is going to think there is a competing product involved; it's protecting the franchise. Fender, OTOH, didn't do that in the 70s - for better or worse, that's your value judgment - and now they have far less courtroom leverage.

 

Such lawsuits can be, as far too many other sorts of lawsuits, frivolous or even comedic and yet... you've gotta protect the franchise. Period.

 

m

[Andy R]

I saw the paper jamz stuff a few months back at Brookstone and was surprised that they were shaped like Gibson and Fender guitars but these lawsuits are getting pretty silly since the Les Paul wasn't an original shape to begin with it was shaped like most acoustic guitars have always been. Honestly I wasn't confused by the paper guitar I think the average consumer can tell the difference.

 

I have a pre lawsuit PRS single cut also that PRS made and Gibson sued and lost because the differences were enough (including the headstock) the judge said the average consumer would not be confused by which was a Gibson and which was a PRS. If thats the test than the paper guitars should be able to beat Gibson here even if they are lame and stupid.

 

 

As for RectoraE2' comments I don't agree that it's racism - Gibson owns a design and the Chines don't respect any trademarks and copy everything exactly which is lowlife. no matter what the quality is. Strange how national pride is now perceived as racism though. I think buying American is great and I support American companies first and foremost whenever I can. I don't want a Chinese made Gibson ever period, even if it was twice as good in quality and cost half as much, I would still not buy it. I wouldn't buy a Chinese Harley Davidsons either. If that makes me a purchasing racist ok, so be it. I will buy a Amp or something from a asian country if that's my only choice but I will never buy a copy or ripoff ever if China made a great guitar and named it a chinese name or something I might think about it, but when they violate copyright and make illegal copies with the companies brand name on it than no way no matter how good or how cheap it is. I don't buy mexican made Fenders, Schecters or other guitars made in foreign countries. Nothing against them really especialy the MIM Fenders there a nice guitar but they still sell the American made I just chose not too I'd rather support America and voting with my wallet is the best way to do that.

 

I really didn't mean it in the raw nature of the term of racism. I was just saying that the concept of someone of another nation not being capable of making something of the same or even better quality is a bit of a racist notion. No offense meant to anyone here, there, or anywhere. And my real point was .... in your case let's say Harley Davidson went over to China Set-up a complete assembly plant trained all of the workers the same way, allowed them to use the same parts, machines, Brands etc... That the Chinese could make a Harley Davidson just as well as an American. It was not about condoning foreign fakes and trademark infringements etc... I also agree support America whenever we can!

[Niel]

Right on ...I hate these things almost as much as Guitar Hero...had a young girl at a trade show recently try to talk my two kids into buying this cardboard junk....my eight year old set her straight.

[cornflake]

My little girl wanted a flying V but all walmart had was LPs if i had known about this i would have bought the whole stack \:D/

[Andy R]

I notice that nobody's thinking about the _successful_ patent infringement lawsuit that Gibson won in the 1970s. It's not about guitars from Asia or whose capabilities are where - it's about protecting a "franchise" with a specific type of product.

 

Also, definition of copyrights and trademarks and patents and such sounds good, but the definition and how the rubber hits the road can be two different things. For example, we hadda give up on an attorney in Memphis who was listed at the time as the local bar association copyright/trademark/patent expert when it came to questions of how to protect works that were similar to, but different from, choreography. He said the question was out of his realm of expertise so I found a lawyer in D.C. who specialized in such stuff.

 

There have been lots of lawsuits on various stuff, but I think that even the "look" of a Gibson or whatever the product might be is not at all unimportant. Note that the patent infringement lawsuits of the 70s emphasized that, and Gibson won. A number of software firms have won similar lawsuits.

 

Some of the questions on such things aren't answered by statute law as much as by case law and that is why we pay lawyers. Yeah, my "value judgment" on that isn't always printable, but it's the truth.

 

Note that we used to get oodles of nastygrams from folks like Coca Cola and Kleenex at newspapers and magazines if we didn't use those terms as proper names. Just the nastygrams themselves were part of a proof that the companies were protecting their franchise. Nike won, as I recall, lawsuits involving their "swoosh."

 

Yeah, nobody at Gibson is concerned, I'm sure, whether paper guitars are being taken as a real product of the company and yet... if a company doesn't protect its "franchise," including appearance, it's in trouble. I can assure one and all that if a strip joint featuring women with certain physical attributes called itself "Big Mac," and advertised "buns" under their own "golden arches," that a certain fast food company would be after them in an instant. Yet nobody is going to think there is a competing product involved; it's protecting the franchise. Fender, OTOH, didn't do that in the 70s - for better or worse, that's your value judgment - and now they have far less courtroom leverage.

 

Such lawsuits can be, as far too many other sorts of lawsuits, frivolous or even comedic and yet... you've gotta protect the franchise. Period.

 

m

 

Good points as always Milod and protecting the Franchise is definitely important and gives company attorneys plenty to do.

 

Buttt ( chortle ) using your example It would be OK call the Strip Joint - "Big Mac" ( As long as it doesn't emulate the Big Mac logo in anyway) Since it isn't in the same area of business as McD's Thus there is "Big Mac" Fishing Lures and "Big Mac" shoes ( JC Penny). You would probably have trouble getting by with a Big Mak or Big Max if you owned a burger joint. As far as I know "Buns" isn't trademarked or copyrighted so they are probably still pretty safe there and maybe if their "Golden Arches" Were did not follow the strict lines and colors of McD's Arches for example maybe they are a bit more bulbous with a completely different color yellow and a couple of red Cherries on top maybe there's nothing much McD's could do.... Would they try I would guess you're right in that they might... But then again maybe Women could Sue McD as it is a trademark infringement on them....

 

I have a bit of a problem with the somewhat new attack on body shape trademarks as their are and were plenty of Guitar companies making V and Explorer type bodies. Even the Les Paul is essentially a Dreadnought shape with a cutaway so at best they had a Patent at one point. Which should have expired as I don't think that it would have been unreasonable for someone to figure out "Hey if I cut this out I have Better Access" Obviously fender figured it out before they did.

 

To me it's a bit like trademarking the shape of a violin or the F Style Mandolin..... Headstock Shape Sure Even there they weren't all that original. Gibson Name Yep Gibson Logo Script Yep"

 

It's fun to banter!

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

[milod]

Andy...

 

For what it's worth, the '70s patent infringement lawsuit included the ES175... and Gibson won. I've never read transcripts or briefs involved, though.

 

As for "Big Mac's" strip joint advertising special buns under golden arches... I have to remember that winning a lawsuit isn't necessarily the goal of filing one. That's how BMI and ASCAP work - they don't even care of a coffeehouse or saloon uses material they may or may not have a right to license, they can run the owner out of business even if they lose the lawsuit. That, in turn, intimidates other coffeehouses and saloons so...

 

I doubt that the fast food company cares about Big Mac fishing lures, but may want to make an issue out of a strip joint. Again, that would be a corporate and legal decision, but it's made on a totally different level than the average person even begins to consider.

 

m

[Andy R]

Andy...

 

For what it's worth, the '70s patent infringement lawsuit included the ES175... and Gibson won. I've never read transcripts or briefs involved, though.

 

As for "Big Mac's" strip joint advertising special buns under golden arches... I have to remember that winning a lawsuit isn't necessarily the goal of filing one. That's how BMI and ASCAP work - they don't even care of a coffeehouse or saloon uses material they may or may not have a right to license, they can run the owner out of business even if they lose the lawsuit. That, in turn, intimidates other coffeehouses and saloons so...

 

I doubt that the fast food company cares about Big Mac fishing lures, but may want to make an issue out of a strip joint. Again, that would be a corporate and legal decision, but it's made on a totally different level than the average person even begins to consider.

 

m

 

 

Agreed! Just having fun with your analogy!!!

 

 

 

[damian]

PaperJamz should make a Firebird X model.......it'll be better than the real thing.......and so won't the re-tissues... [flapper] :unsure: ..................