Was there a G&L Lawsuit

[Nighttrain1127]

I had heard that there was a G&L lawsuit a ways back But no other info . Any Idea what it was about and all the good info?

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by Nighttrain1127

I had heard that there was a G&L lawsuit a ways back But no other info . Any Idea what it was about and all the good info?

I don't know all the particulars, but G&L was either sued or under threat of suit to change the original shape of the headstock. Fender felt it was too close to theirs. There was also a limited run of Broadcaster Guitars. Again, no specifics, but Leo had a legal issue with Gretch while at Fender over the name in the 1950's. For whatever reason, he did it again in the 1980's.

Mike

[ljazz]

The headstock thing has me confused..... how did he get away with continuing the old headstock on the SB's for so long afterwards?

Ljazz

[Nighttrain1127]

Ok I found out that there was never a lawsuit that Fender told then they were going to go to court over the headstock and they then changed it sometime after that to the eye gouger. The same thing happened with Leo's signature they were told no more sigs or they would go to court so that stopped too.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by ljazz

The headstock thing has me confused..... how did he get away with continuing the old headstock on the SB's for so long afterwards?

Ljazz

Strictly a guess, but I suppose they agreed to stop producing the old headstock and just took their time using up the remaining stock on one model.

Mike

[metron]

The '80s SB headstock is not the same shape as the headstocks on the early L1000 and L2000 basses. It is odd that they discontinued one but not the other since they were both Fender-ish. I think the non-pointy SB headstock can be found through a good part of the '80s on the SB models.

[ljazz]

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

Strictly a guess, but I suppose they agreed to stop producing the old headstock and just took their time using up the remaining stock on one model.

Mike

I doubt they would have had years worth of necks laying around......

I bet it had something to do with Leo's original patents on the P and J's..... the headstock with those pup configs were his, not Fender's. But the dbl coil stuff was done after, so he wasn't able to use the older style headstock on those...... just my guess.

Ljazz

[Kompressaur]

Originally Posted by Nighttrain1127

Ok I found out that there was never a lawsuit that Fender told then they were going to go to court over the headstock and they then changed it sometime after that to the eye gouger. The same thing happened with Leo's signature they were told no more sigs or they would go to court so that stopped too.

well stone me,lol fender wouldn't let him use his own name..maybe if they spent more time over the years doing some R&D which amounted to more than a new colour for this years model and actually stopped living off what leo left them then they'd not need to be worried about some competition and filing lawsuits..must be galling for them that Leo's later companies are where a lot of bass players would rather be

[MaddAnthony_59]

A friend of mine has an older SB-2 bass with the Smooth, Non-Eye-Gouger headstock. He thinks it's a '99, but I told him it MUST be much older, as my '84 El Toro is an EyeGouger.

This got my attention when I saw a picture of him playing his bass, and I know he plays a G&L. It had a Fenderish/ErnieBallish head stock. When i saw him play a show this weekend, I got closer, and looked at it. Sho' 'Nuff! It's a G&L, with the Bass by Leo Fender inscription on it as well!

Any idea what Era these Smooth headstocks are from?

[earlgray]

Originally Posted by MaddAnthony_59

A friend of mine has an older SB-2 bass with the Smooth, Non-Eye-Gouger headstock. He thinks it's a '99, but I told him it MUST be much older, as my '84 El Toro is an EyeGouger.

The SB-2s for some reason kept the original smooth headstock until the late 80's, but some other models switched to the new style as early as 82.
http://www.ggjaguar.com/gnl.htm shows an 89 SB-2 with a smooth headstock.

[MaddAnthony_59]

Originally Posted by earlgray

The SB-2s for some reason kept the original smooth headstock until the late 80's, but some other models switched to the new style as early as 82.
http://www.ggjaguar.com/gnl.htm shows an 89 SB-2 with a smooth headstock.

Yeah! That is EXACTLY his bass, down to the color.

http://www.ggjaguar.com/sb-2-89.htm

I'm trying to get his curiosity up enough to take the neck off, and see what's in the Pocket

Very Interesting! Thanks...

[ZenderBender]

I can believe that there was a lawsuit, but personally, I find the idea of big corporate Fender suing Leo Fender's own company to be such BS. If the late Leo were to open a custom shop right across the street from Vinnie Fodera, Fodera should have just tipped his hat (Fodera's fedora, if you will.) Leo Fender built the bass industry with his own two hands. For any bass company to sue him is BS. The idea of CBS-Fender suing G&L for use of "their" headstock would be like Elvis Presley suing Big Joe Turner for singing "my song" despite the fact that Turner originated it.

[bkbirge]

Or like DC Comics suing the descendants of the creator's of Superman (and vice versa).

Or like Bob Moog being legally unable to use his name until the last few years of his life.

Or like Apple computer suing New York's tourism department.

Or like ... fill in the blank. There are hundreds of examples of this type of thing.

Originally Posted by ZenderBender

The idea of CBS-Fender suing G&L for use of "their" headstock would be like Elvis Presley suing Big Joe Turner for singing "my song" despite the fact that Turner originated it.

[spideyjg]

Or like John Fogerty getting sued for plagarising himself.

Jim

[play4zero]

Part of the price of a business when you sell it is the "blue sky" that goes with the name recognition and reputation of the product. No one would buy Fender if Leo could just walk across the street and set up shop again using the same name and the same design, etc. You can bet Leo's contract included some form of non-compete clause and also the relinquishing of rights associated with the use of his name for competing business purposes.

CBS, or anyone else who spent the money buying Fender, has every right in the world to enforce the conditions of the contract Leo signed when he left. The shame is Leo's if he failed to honor the conditions of the sale.

Finally, those original Fender designs are classics. That's what CBS bought and paid money for. I don't blame them for flogging that horse right into the ground, and hope they continue to do so forever. The latest reissues, closet classics and custom shop units give every player the opportunity to play a musical classic, and not just some wealthy collector. I have a '57 P-bass reissue and custom shop Jazz bass and a bass created using fender parts made to look like Jaco's bass of doom, and they're all wonderful instruments. Thank God they're still available.

That said, another upside is that Leo was forced to move his ideas forward, and my 2500 is the result of that progress and I'm delighted to have that in my arsenal also. It goes out to play as often, and perhaps even more so, than the originals.

[francisl2500]

For shure if you can't go with winning config , winning body/headstock, winning pups that you already know the results, you must redo the works again and again, search for new ideas and recreate the weel. This is one of the reasons the entire music market go foward and progress. And it's important for builders to protect the brand name like CBS did. That gave the opportunities for Leo to create brand new bass that we all enjoy now and that gave to the Fender original label "the must to do" job to upgrade and improve the pruducts.

Francis

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by play4zero

Part of the price of a business when you sell it is the "blue sky" that goes with the name recognition and reputation of the product. No one would buy Fender if Leo could just walk across the street and set up shop again using the same name and the same design, etc. You can bet Leo's contract included some form of non-compete clause and also the relinquishing of rights associated with the use of his name for competing business purposes.

CBS, or anyone else who spent the money buying Fender, has every right in the world to enforce the conditions of the contract Leo signed when he left. The shame is Leo's if he failed to honor the conditions of the sale.

Finally, those original Fender designs are classics. That's what CBS bought and paid money for. I don't blame them for flogging that horse right into the ground, and hope they continue to do so forever. The latest reissues, closet classics and custom shop units give every player the opportunity to play a musical classic, and not just some wealthy collector. I have a '57 P-bass reissue and custom shop Jazz bass and a bass created using fender parts made to look like Jaco's bass of doom, and they're all wonderful instruments. Thank God they're still available.

That said, another upside is that Leo was forced to move his ideas forward, and my 2500 is the result of that progress and I'm delighted to have that in my arsenal also. It goes out to play as often, and perhaps even more so, than the originals.

Spot on. Leo didn't have to sign any contract, so if he did sign one then he should have lived with it. I don't like the pointy head stocks as much either, but in the end it's only a head stock. All that matters is that it holds the tuners in the right place. I'm also glad Fender is seemingly getting their act together in terms of quality and making some of the classic designs available for everyone. I could care less if Fender ever releases another bass that does anything else but faithfully reproduce that original magic. there are plenty of companies out there taking things in new directions.

As a person who is fairly new to G&L, I'm loving what George and Leo did there as well. Both my L-2500 and SB-2 are just great basses. I think an L-2000 is in my future, or an ASAT.

Then there's the Stingray which is dear to my heart.

I appreciate Leo as much as anyone, but all the god-like worship of him as untouchable seems a bit much to me. I can think of a lot of luthiers who have done things with basses that Leo would have never dreamed of. In the end I'm just glad to have so many options now versus what was available 25 years ago.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Eublet

I appreciate Leo as much as anyone, but all the god-like worship of him as untouchable seems a bit much to me. I can think of a lot of luthiers who have done things with basses that Leo would have never dreamed of. In the end I'm just glad to have so many options now versus what was available 25 years ago.

I gotta disagree, Leo deserves the god-like worship. Nobody has done as much for instrument innovation that has shaped music as we now know it. Today's luthiers maybe doing interesting things, but they're all based on Leo's orginal innovations - they're simply adjusting the last 10% of the details. Leo put innovation into the hands of the masses and in so doing, changed the musical landscape - how many comtemporary luthiers are doing that?

The point is - he did it first. Doesn't mean others wouldn't have eventually, but - he did it first.

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I gotta disagree, Leo deserves the god-like worship. Nobody has done as much for instrument innovation that has shaped music as we now know it. Today's luthiers maybe doing interesting things, but they're all based on Leo's orginal innovations - they're simply adjusting the last 10% of the details. Leo put innovation into the hands of the masses and in so doing, changed the musical landscape - how many comtemporary luthiers are doing that?

The point is - he did it first. Doesn't mean others wouldn't have eventually, but - he did it first.

Actually, Leo didn't do it first, but that's another argument.

I partially agree, but the timing was right for what Leo did, which isn't necessarliy spectacular. The timing was right for electric bass from a recording perspective, and we all got used to the sound of Leo's designs. I think they're great, and I fully respect what he did.

What I DON'T like is the god-like worship, is if Leo could have never done any wrong. The case here by getting sued for using the headstocks is a classic example. He deserves his place in history as an innovator on bass guitar, but that's about it.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Eublet

He deserves his place in history as an innovator on bass guitar, but that's about it.

No, he deserves his place in history as an innovator in bass guitar. And electric guitars. And guitar amps. And designs that lend themselves to mass production techniques that have been copied millions of times by countless manufacturers.

And I think that's enough to warrant the praise.