[ShortcutToMoncton]

Harlot...I feel your pain, right down to the bottom of my slightly alcohol-numbed toes.

Hilarious.



greg

[DBursey]

IMO the PRS is a better guitar. Lighter, nicer neck, better tonal quality. I'm quite surprised that Gibson is able to patent the body style as they have, given that ergonomic and accoustic properties limit the possible design variations.

For years manufacturers have been making Les Paul clones. Were any of those produced under licence from Gibson? Conversely, were they threatened with lawsuits? I doubt it, since a cheap copy would not threaten the Les Paul's standing in the marketplace, unlike, say a high quality instrument like the Paul Reed Smith.

No musician worth his salt would mistake a PRS for a LP. It has been left to the lawyers to find and exploit those similarities.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by DBursey:
For years manufacturers have been making Les Paul clones. Were any of those produced under licence from Gibson?

Epiphones were/are. Other than that, I don't know.

Originally posted by DBursey:
Conversely, were they threatened with lawsuits? I doubt it, since a cheap copy would not threaten the Les Paul's standing in the marketplace, unlike, say a high quality instrument like the Paul Reed Smith.

If you read the thread: Yes, most all were slapped with Cease & Desist orders or lawsuits. However, most were calculated one-off production runs, where the c&d would only come after the initial run was already sold. And apparently, the manufacturers of these cheap clones (mostly Asian) were rather difficult to make out, nevermind sue.

Originally posted by DBursey:
No musician worth his salt would mistake a PRS for a LP. It has been left to the lawyers to find and exploit those similarities.

The musician worth his salt is not the danger here.

I think parents buying their kids "a guitar just like Jimmy Page's" are one danger.

The bigger danger is NOT sueing for copyright infringements and eventually losing the copyright entirely (since the infringing party can point to precedents where the copyright holder was obviously not interested in upholding the patent - why should he now?). They HAVE TO sue.

-s*

[philzilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The difference is. Those looked JUST LIKE the PRS. Some were even trying to sell them as such.

dude, the PRS looks JUST LIKE the Les Paul.

i can see this is another one of those arguments you'll refuse to lose. instead, you'll twist and turn things to your supposed advantage. ahh well, on with the show...

[AB^2=BCxAC]

I had a late 70's "Lawsuit" Ibanez Les Paul. It was a solid practice guitar, but the nut needed to be rebuilt and the tuning posts needed to be replaced with something better, which made it not as nice as a real Les Paul to set up. It cost me about $300 in the late 80's, and it had wonderful tone. And I mean wonderful. Afterwards, I learned how to be more careful about tone and electronics because guitars I could afford (under $2k) were hard pressed to match the great sound, even though they hardly had the trouble I was having making repairs to the electronics every ffew years because I was using cheap used parts. Having said all that, I decided I didn't care much for Les Paul type guitars after many years and sold it for $200. Currently, I'm in love with Mustangs and Jaguars (which are more rewarding than a typical $3k strat) because the saddle and vibrato are as near to perfect for me as these things get (just basic machinery) and dressing the frets and nut to how I like them couldn't be easier! "Lawsuit" models of great guitars are an infringement, but no luthier is gonna scowl at a great guitar just because it's a knock-off. If anything, it's always neat to investigate and compare the quality. -My 2 cents.

[DBursey]

Thanks, Spheric; I admit to skimming the thread. I seriously doubt that Gibson went after the clone makers in any substantive way.

The musician worth his salt is not the danger here.

I think parents buying their kids "a guitar just like Jimmy Page's" are one danger.

It's been my observation that parents buying little Jimmy his first guitar do not typically shell out for a Les Paul or a Paul Reed Smith. Those guitars are usually perused by serious musicians or by hobbyists with a measure of disposable income and a commensurate degree of familiarity with the product in question.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If you put the PRS over the Gibson you'd see the lines aren't the same. Not nearly.

The PRS is also THINNER.

Different scale length, different neck and headstock design. Different electronics. Different "finish"

True. but the Gibson is the son of god. Cheeses, if you will. And will always remain superior, like Mel. Praise be to cheeses, and praise be to Mel Gibson, the keeper of the cheese. The PRS is probably just a commie knock-off, with a Taiwanese headstock, Iranian lines and Iraqi scale lengths. And Korean electronics.

It's the Axe of Evil.

[Spheric Harlot]

[zigzag]

Just to be clear, it's not a patent - it's trade dress, a form of trademark. A patent is an invention (functional); trade dress is a product's distinctive appearance (cosmetic). Both are protectable forms of intellectual property but for different reasons and in different ways. Sorry if I sound pedantic - just wanted to clarify.

An infringing product doesn't have to look exactly like the original - just close enough to confuse people or to unfairly exploit the original's look. The eMachine didn't look exactly like an iMac, but it was close enough for infringement purposes. I'm quite sure that in this case, Gibson presented a few guitar experts to testify to the similarities and the nature of the guitar market. Of course, if PRS appeals, it isn't over.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

If you read the thread: Yes, most all were slapped with Cease & Desist orders or lawsuits. However, most were calculated one-off production runs, where the c&d would only come after the initial run was already sold. And apparently, the manufacturers of these cheap clones (mostly Asian) were rather difficult to make out, nevermind sue.
The musician worth his salt is not the danger here.

ESP is not a cheap clone maker. And no, they were no slapped with anything.

And yes, they are STILL making said clones. They have been for years.

Look at pics I posted.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by philzilla:
dude, the PRS looks JUST LIKE the Les Paul.

i can see this is another one of those arguments you'll refuse to lose. instead, you'll twist and turn things to your supposed advantage. ahh well, on with the show...

No

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
True. but the Gibson is the son of god. Cheeses, if you will. And will always remain superior, like Mel. Praise be to cheeses, and praise be to Mel Gibson, the keeper of the cheese. The PRS is probably just a commie knock-off, with a Taiwanese headstock, Iranian lines and Iraqi scale lengths. And Korean electronics.

It's the Axe of Evil.

BZZZZZZZZZZZT PRS is all made the the good ol US of A.

And they have a rep of being superior in quality compared to Gibsons. THAT is why Gibson is having such a fit.

There is a reason professional Gibson guitar players play custom shop Gibsons, or vintage ones.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
ESP is not a cheap clone maker. And no, they were no slapped with anything. [/B]

I never claimed they were, and if you look closely, you will find I was actually answering somebody else's question.

However, I find it interesting that you just said that ESP was not slapped with a copyright infringement claim, since their having lost just such a lawsuit is the subject of this thread.

I hope one day to achieve your level of absurdity on my path to enlightenment beyond the constraints of worldly logic.

-s*

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Just to be clear, it's not a patent - it's trade dress, a form of trademark. A patent is an invention (functional); trade dress is a product's distinctive appearance (cosmetic). Both are protectable forms of intellectual property but for different reasons and in different ways. Sorry if I sound pedantic - just wanted to clarify.

An infringing product doesn't have to look exactly like the original - just close enough to confuse people or to unfairly exploit the original's look. The eMachine didn't look exactly like an iMac, but it was close enough for infringement purposes. I'm quite sure that in this case, Gibson presented a few guitar experts to testify to the similarities and the nature of the guitar market. Of course, if PRS appeals, it isn't over.

There are three types of patents:

You are referring to a Design Patent which protects the appearance of the object.
Ther other two are Utility and Asexual patents. True. The Utility Patent protects the functionality of the object, and the Asexual is plant related, so it protects the color of the leaves and shape, which makes it more like a Design Patent, but for horticulture.

You didn't sound pedantic at all, and you were right on with the fact that by definition the object in question should just look enough like the original to cause confusion at the consumer level.

The fact that the copy makes better music than the original gives me a chuckle, and I think they can simply change the design based on this lesson in court, and still make great guitars that sound better. We all know why they were sued. They did it better.

I recall seeing a show about a violin maker that uses very high tech production values and materials to reproduce the sound of a Strat of another kind... for a fraction of the price. I don't know if they had any problems, or if time was on their side, but if time is on their side, one can only hope that this copycat can survive and produce some quality instruments for the world to sue, er use....

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I never claimed they were, and if you look closely, you will find I was actually answering somebody else's question.

ESP guitars did not fit into your description. They were not one-off, and they are not getting sued.

However, I find it interesting that you just said that ESP was not slapped with a copyright infringement claim, since their having lost just such a lawsuit is the subject of this thread.

It is? ESP = PRS?

WOW.

I hope one day to achieve your level of absurdity on my path to enlightenment beyond the constraints of worldly logic.

-s*

You might want to get the foot out of your mouth first.

[Zimphire]

Oh, and this was made before the LesPaul, or before Fender even existed.

I think Bigsby should sue them both.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh, and this was made before the LesPaul, or before Fender even existed.

I think Bigsby should sue them both.

Zim, I admire your tenacity, and I'm sure you would find some excellent examples of how you are correct in your 'argument', but many lawyers have spoken, and the bad guys have won this one. Sure, they may have stolen that design, but if it was no longer covered by any patents, then it is fair game. I'm hoping that the defence made a good case, but if you feel this strongly about it, then I would suggest that you take this to serious research, and give the obviously superiour design (sounding) guitar company the benefit of your friendship. To quote Ben Stiller in Starsky & Hutch. Do it. Do it.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No

hmm. concise. not exactly up for a nomination in the Convincing Arguments Of The Year awards though, is it?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Zim, I admire your tenacity, and I'm sure you would find some excellent examples of how you are correct in your 'argument', but many lawyers have spoken, and the bad guys have won this one.

For the time being.

Sure, they may have stolen that design, but if it was no longer covered by any patents, then it is fair game. I'm hoping that the defence made a good case, but if you feel this strongly about it, then I would suggest that you take this to serious research, and give the obviously superiour design (sounding) guitar company the benefit of your friendship. To quote Ben Stiller in Starsky & Hutch. Do it. Do it.

I wouldn't be so pretentious to think I knew more than the lawyers representing Paul Reed Smith.

I just think the judge that ruled this case was a moron. And had no clue about guitar design or history.

Very much like some of the judges in the MS cases.

[skio]

Zim, you first said that they were suing because of the name 'single cutaway', Spheric argued that it wasn't, but rather it was the look. You disagreed, then you came back to say they were suing based on the look, and not the name.

Why can't you be wrong, just for once, please? pretty please with jesus on top?

[ASIMO]

Zimph, define "is."

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
ESP guitars did not fit into your description. They were not one-off, and they are not getting sued.

It is? ESP = PRS?

WOW.

You might want to get the foot out of your mouth first.

Whoops.

Well, that's what I get for bothering, I guess.

Ah well.

My apologies to all for dragging this thread out far too long beyond the point where it got zimphucked.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
Zim, you first said that they were suing because of the name 'single cutaway',

If that is what came out that isn't what I meant. I meant suing for the usage of singlecut. And that is indeed what they are doing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Whoops.

Well, that's what I get for bothering, I guess.

Ah well.

So why aren't they suing ESP? They make even closer rip-offs. Why haven't they went after them?

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If that is what came out that isn't what I meant. I meant suing for the usage of singlecut. And that is indeed what they are doing.

Since this topic is veering all over the place, I'll just jump in here and say, Zim, you're sig is way off. I was in Hizbollah in the 80's, and 90's, and I know their ideology well, very well, and they are not wanting to eliminate anyone but those who are in their country, their territory, and that is fair. Your sig is impling that they have some war against the rest of humanity and wish to eliminate all those who are not willing to believe as they do, which is cr@p.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
Since this topic is veering all over the place, I'll just jump in here and say, Zim, you're sig is way off. I was in Hizbollah in the 80's, and 90's, and I know their ideology well, very well, and they are not wanting to eliminate anyone but those who are in their country, their territory, and that is fair. Your sig is impling that they have some war against the rest of humanity and wish to eliminate all those who are not willing to believe as they do, which is cr@p.

No it's not total crap. Believe what you wish. They want to destroy anyone that doesn't believe like they do.

Unless you can prove said quote by said person is false. You have nothing to stand by.

I wouldn't brag about being in such a animalistic group skio.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No it's not total crap. Believe what you wish. They want to destroy anyone that doesn't believe like they do.

Unless you can prove said quote by said person is false. You have nothing to stand by.

I wouldn't brag about being in such a animalistic group skio.

Zim, I know you're talking crud, you are utterly ignorant of this fact. It's not that the quote is false, it's that it has been taken widely out of context. You do not know these people, so do not presume for a second to be able to speak on their behalf about their agenda. I spent more than 7 years with them, and I am proud of it, very proud, and I won't stand by and listen to erroneos statemens being made, and suppositions that do not stand up.

it's so typical, your view is so skewed that it isn't funny,m you ound like FOX news, 'Oh look, the Muslims wnat to take over the world and blow us all up, and convert us to their backwards way of life'. Go read a bit more about this, and read what thewse people actually say before spouting off such dangerous nonesense.

Animilistic? try not to be insulting next time, let's see what yo'd do if someone invaded a part ofyour nation, how you would fight back.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They want to destroy anyone that doesn't believe like they do.

as do you, in every single point you argue.

[skio]

Originally posted by philzilla:
as do you, in every single point you argue.

I think Zim has a Jesus complex, he'd like to think he is also being persecuted for his beliefs, you know, bring him closer to the dude in the sky by thinking all that he says here is so radical that he must be right cause society is against him. Thing is, Jesus (if he existed) actualy said something of value, zim on the otherhand, says nothing of value, and should be crucified for that exact reason

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
There are three types of patents:

You are referring to a Design Patent which protects the appearance of the object.
Ther other two are Utility and Asexual patents. True. The Utility Patent protects the functionality of the object, and the Asexual is plant related, so it protects the color of the leaves and shape, which makes it more like a Design Patent, but for horticulture.

A design patent is a subset of patent law that protects an ornamental design. Because it deals with ornament, it's similar to trade dress protection. In fact, a product can be protected by both a design patent and trademark/trade dress. However, the two types of protection operate differently: design patents expire just like utility patents, whereas trademarks can last indefinitely. In this case, if there was a design patent on the Les Paul, it has long since expired along with the utility patent. That's why this is a trademark/trade dress case rather than a design patent case.

Again, not trying to be pedantic, just want to clarify. It's a pretty confusing area.

That particular look, with the curved/rounded horn, etc., has come to be associated with the Gibson Les Paul, just as the unique shape of the Coke bottle has come to be associated with Coke. That, according to the judge, gives Gibson a protectable trademark interest. PRS probably argued that the design is strictly functional, not ornamental, but the judge doesn't appear to have bought it.

What Zimphire is missing is that the suit is not over the single-cutaway style - anyone is free to make a single-cutaway guitar - but over a particular look that has come to be associated with Gibson. The PRS looks suspiciously similar, if not identical, to the LP. It's a combination of both the details and the overall shape. As I said earlier, if PRS changed the shape of the horn so that it didn't look so much like the Gibson's - made it pointed or whatever - Gibson probably wouldn't have a case. Anyone can use a pointed horn because it's never become associated with a particular brand.

Again, however, the case is not necessarily over. An appellate court might decide differently.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
Zim, I know you're talking crud, you are utterly ignorant of this fact. It's not that the quote is false, it's that it has been taken widely out of context. You do not know these people, so do not presume for a second to be able to speak on their behalf about their agenda. I spent more than 7 years with them, and I am proud of it, very proud, and I won't stand by and listen to erroneos statemens being made, and suppositions that do not stand up.

it's so typical, your view is so skewed that it isn't funny,m you ound like FOX news, 'Oh look, the Muslims wnat to take over the world and blow us all up, and convert us to their backwards way of life'. Go read a bit more about this, and read what thewse people actually say before spouting off such dangerous nonesense.

Animilistic? try not to be insulting next time, let's see what yo'd do if someone invaded a part ofyour nation, how you would fight back.

Again, prove the quote is wrong. Unless you can do that. You are just running off at the mouth.

I would advise you to take it to the political lounge.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
I think Zim has a Jesus complex, he'd like to think he is also being persecuted for his beliefs, you know, bring him closer to the dude in the sky by thinking all that he says here is so radical that he must be right cause society is against him. Thing is, Jesus (if he existed) actualy said something of value, zim on the otherhand, says nothing of value, and should be crucified for that exact reason

And you'd be wrong again.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And you'd be wrong again.

Let me get this straight. You make a statement about the Hizbullah, and you also try to mpy that I am wreong about what it means. yet, I make a statement about you, and I am wrong also?

Hmm, funny old world. Yo uget to discredit someone else, and you cna't take being corrected.



P.s. I think I'm right about you, in fact, I know exactly your type, the newly converted, sad.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, prove the quote is wrong. Unless you can do that. You are just running off at the mouth.

I would advise you to take it to the political lounge.

Look you, one more time. I anm TELLING you it was taken out of context, you are twisitng it your desire. I have already told you, I will take you to the people who publish these statements, I am willing to show you the people behind this, to prove you wrong. What more can I do? do you think there's some magical internet search which suddnely says, ' Yes, I meant this' get real

One more time, You are so woefully wrong in this, and you should be more careful when trying to ascribe sayings to people, it makes you look bad when you get it wrong.

If you want to be proven wrong, I'l take you to those who say these things. open offer dude. Up to you if you want to hear it.

[funkboy]

No one is changing their opinion here, this is a pointless thread. Just bickering for no reason, since no one is changing their view.

For my money (and I'm not a guitar pro), those guitars look identical, except for the head. Even the gradient colors, knob placement, everything, is the same.

If any of you ever got angry at a PC maker for copying the iMac's design, this should anger you, too.

Personally, I don't like it, and think the copying company could have definitely come up with *something* of a different idea, even if slightly different colors.

[skio]

Originally posted by funkboy:
No one is changing their opinion here, this is a pointless thread. Just bickering for no reason, since no one is changing their view.

For my money (and I'm not a guitar pro), those guitars look identical, except for the head. Even the gradient colors, knob placement, everything, is the same.

If any of you ever got angry at a PC maker for copying the iMac's design, this should anger you, too.

Personally, I don't like it, and think the copying company could have definitely come up with *something* of a different idea, even if slightly different colors.

The world is better for people copying things. Anyhoo, I prefer my Levinson blade guitar, nice.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by skio:
Zim,... rest of the BS snip snip.

I had to check the title to this thread. What is it with you jerks? Attacking Zim because he is religious in a thread that has NOTHING to do with religion. He is commited to his belief that an injustice has been perpetrated on a company, and is attempting to back it up with research, but all you can do is attack his personal beliefs.

Why are so many of you afraid of religous people, the word God, or religion in general? What has religion or the belief in God done to you? Enough with the personal attacks.
Where are the moderators? Wait. Nevermind. They don't care. According to one of them, my God is a pagan God. Leave it for another thread.

ON TOPIC:

I think he has an interesting argument, though the case has been settled and finished for now, an appeal may be in the future. So, how many of you would apologize should the case be overturned? Let me answer that for you. None.

The only true damage is that the so-called copycat guitar is far better in quality than the original. This could have been settled out of court I'm certain, but the desired result was not to settle, but to eliminate competition. I would submit they create a guitar that changes enough of the design, so that it complies with the court's order, and then continue to produce the superior product.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by funkboy:
If any of you ever got angry at a PC maker for copying the iMac's design, this should anger you, too.

yeah, that's why i made the remark about Apple, somewhere back there.

i like PRS guitars, but i think they've overstepped the mark this time. they were individual with their initial guitar range, and that's still a fantastic instrument, but they shouldn't have copied the Les Paul so obviously. tsk.

[skio]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I had to check the title to this thread. What is it with you jerks? Attacking Zim because he is religious in a thread that has NOTHING to do with religion. He is commited to his belief that an injustice has been perpetrated on a company, and is attempting to back it up with research, but all you can do is attack his personal beliefs.

you ar ejoking, jerk-off, aren't you? Oh, you did jsut call me a jerk, didn;'t you. Zim has been spouting madly insane crud in here, the nhe posted somethgin with a sig that is offensive to me, so I objected.
get the picture now?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by skio:
you ar ejoking, jerk-off, aren't you? Oh, you did jsut call me a jerk, didn;'t you. Zim has been spouting madly insane crud in here, the nhe posted somethgin with a sig that is offensive to me, so I objected.
get the picture now?

Really? "Insane crud" eh? What did you just spout?.

[philzilla]

this thread is now the equivalent of the 18 year-old family dog - you know you might be able to drag a bit more life out of it, but it's best that it's put to sleep. and soon.

[Demonhood]

how bout you all just shut it about anything not on topic.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
you ar ejoking, jerk-off, aren't you? Oh, you did jsut call me a jerk, didn;'t you. Zim has been spouting madly insane crud in here, the nhe posted somethgin with a sig that is offensive to me, so I objected.
get the picture now?

pot, kettle, black

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
pot, kettle, black

Fist, face, smash. you are unbelievable, you sad, sad little person. Oh and ghost flash, what the hell are you all about?

Ok demonhood, I am done with the terror twins.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by skio:
Fist, face, smash. you are unbelievable, you sad, sad little person. Oh and ghost flash, what the hell are you all about?

Ok demonhood, I am done with the terror twins.

What do you mean? You want to know me? How nice.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Originally posted by gadster:
True. but the Gibson is the son of god. Cheeses, if you will. And will always remain superior, like Mel. Praise be to cheeses, and praise be to Mel Gibson, the keeper of the cheese. The PRS is probably just a commie knock-off, with a Taiwanese headstock, Iranian lines and Iraqi scale lengths. And Korean electronics.

It's the Axe of Evil.

BZZZZZZZZZZZT PRS is all made the the good ol US of A.

And they have a rep of being superior in quality compared to Gibsons. THAT is why Gibson is having such a fit.

There is a reason professional Gibson guitar players play custom shop Gibsons, or vintage ones.

This has to be the funniest post combination ever. I was literally howling on the floor.



greg

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
Fist, face, smash.

Puhlease. Showing some of your Hezbollah violence off?

you are unbelievable, you sad, sad little person.

I am not the one that is trying to defend a terrorists organization.