Fender bid gets knocked down!

[froglips]

This chick is so hot, and can really play that bass!

 

[Marlat]

It does not matter how long it took Fender to take action either.

Mistake of law.

I understand Sadowsky is not cheapening their name, but why would such a great luthier such as Sadowsky even need to copy Fender in the first place I ask?

There are only two reasons I can think of ... Being lazy and could not come up with a better, or even slightly different design

Mistake of fact.

if they at least called their "Knock Off" "A Fender style blahh blahh blahh", or something along those lines. It seems that in your mind as long as the law says its ok (Even before the law said it was ok actually!), and as long as you have your own head stock on it, that for some reason it is just fine to call it all your own.

Mistake of law (Fender is a trademark, Sadowsky cannot use their trademark without permission (eg call it a Sadowsky Fender Jazz bass)

No offence meant to you, Mr Sadowsky, this is just the way I feel about these types of issues, and you just happen to be the face/company I can rant to about it herin.

IMO its quite childish to call someone lazy and unable to come up with an original design (have you see the Sadowsky modern basses?) and then hide behind "no offence meant to you". Either have the metal to be offensive or don't be offensive.

 

[NickyBass]

What else do I need to know exactly?

Well, for starters....

-Fender was asked if they could use the body shape. Fender said ok---just don't use the headstock.

-Roger started building basses because there was a NEED for them, not because he wanted to get rich. He based his mods on years of dealing with thousands of clients. Sadowsky basses are the result.

-Fender, the company, did not invent anything. Fender, the man did.

-Roger has paid homage to Leo Fender and has sung his praises time and again. He makes no claim to have invented anything. He gives credit where credit is due.

 

[NickyBass]

The first part casuses me to digress my original opinion. If that is the case, then I say more power to ya Mr Sadowsky.

The second part does not really matter for the argument I was trying to make. I was just lumping Fender as one entity from the past to present for the sake of the amount of space it would take to write out the obvious difference you stated.

In a way, they kind of relate....Fender has changed hands a few times. When they were first approached (by John Suhr, I believe) they said that it wasn't a problem. Now, many years later, they are changing their tune. The issue is, is that there are alot of people who are making their living by building 'Fender style' basses. Now the current powers-that-be at Fender want to pull the rug out from under them. That's just wrong, in my book.

 

[Febs]

What else do I need to know exactly?
If I am incorrect about something here please fill me in so I can adjust my opinion accordingly.

Did you read the decision?

 

[Marlat]

I am not trying to offend him at all. I am just voicing my opinion about this. I did not call him lazy. I just incenuated that there are only two reasons "I" can think of that would cause him not to modify the body to make it truly his own. That does not mean there are not others.. Like his for instance.

Please do not try to make this an attack. That was not my intention at all. I just have a very abrasive way of speaking/writting my thoughts. I appolagize for the wording I chose to use.

Insinuating that someone is a "thief" and a "dishonest person" is generally considered an attack on their character where I am from. If you didn't mean to offend, you wouldn't have said such things. In any event, I wouldn't worry, Roger has a pretty thick skin, but maybe you should look into all the relevant facts and circumstances before commenting publicly about a well respected luthier's honesty. There was no need to be as abbrasive as you were. What good would it have done if you had hurt Roger's feelings?

 

[Eric Perry]

I think Fender should have won this too. I hate thieves!

Sadowsky "May" make a finer instrument than Fender does, but at the end of the day a Sadowsky is still nothing more than a Fender with a Sadowsky head stock on it! It does not matter that the pick-ups may be better, the hardware is better, or that the wood itself is better in some way. If it looks like someone elses original design it is a freakin "Knock off", and it makes the copier look like a thief and a dishonest type of person IMHO!

The first thing I think when I see a "Knock Off" is that some thief out there stole a great original established design so they can make money from a cheapened version of the original. I understand that in Sadowskys case the end result is supposedly better than the original, but at the end of the day it is still just a copy of a Fender with a different headstock thrown on the end.

There are many original body styles out there that get credit on their own merit, and do not have to steal from someone else to create what they would call an original.

It would not take much at all to "Tweak" the body to be original. Others have done it, why couldn't you? I will tell you why. It is because you are lazy, a thief, and because the Fender design is the prettiest, and most recognizable one invented so far in most peoples opinions!

It is NOT because the Fender design is the best ergonomically designed body. Even if it was, you do not need the cut outs too look exaclty the same! Do you? NOPE YOU DO NOT! So why did you leave them exaclty the same then?

It does not matter how long it took Fender to take action either. It is their design so it should be protected from people out there attempting to cheapen their good brand name. I understand Sadowsky is not cheapening their name, but why would such a great luthier such as Sadowsky even need to copy Fender in the first place I ask?

There are only two reasons I can think of ... Being lazy and could not come up with a better, or even slightly different design, so they stole one that everyone would recognize right off the bat instead.

I would have more respect for a person who states they are not stealing, even though they actually are, if they at least called their "Knock Off" "A Fender style blahh blahh blahh", or something along those lines. It seems that in your mind as long as the law says its ok (Even before the law said it was ok actually!), and as long as you have your own head stock on it, that for some reason it is just fine to call it all your own.

No offence meant to you, Mr Sadowsky, this is just the way I feel about these types of issues, and you just happen to be the face/company I can rant to about it herin.

I am sure there is nothing I can say that will change your mind, and there is definitely not anything anyone here can say that will change my mind either ... So we will just have to agree to disagree here.

I have no words for this.

 

[Bocete]

I think Fender should have won this too. I hate thieves!

Sadowsky "May" make a finer instrument than Fender does, but at the end of the day a Sadowsky is still nothing more than a Fender with a Sadowsky head stock on it! It does not matter that the pick-ups may be better, the hardware is better, or that the wood itself is better in some way. If it looks like someone elses original design it is a freakin "Knock off", and it makes the copier look like a thief and a dishonest type of person IMHO!

The first thing I think when I see a "Knock Off" is that some thief out there stole a great original established design so they can make money from a cheapened version of the original. I understand that in Sadowskys case the end result is supposedly better than the original, but at the end of the day it is still just a copy of a Fender with a different headstock thrown on the end.

There are many original body styles out there that get credit on their own merit, and do not have to steal from someone else to create what they would call an original.

It would not take much at all to "Tweak" the body to be original. Others have done it, why couldn't you? I will tell you why. It is because you are lazy, a thief, and because the Fender design is the prettiest, and most recognizable one invented so far in most peoples opinions!

It is NOT because the Fender design is the best ergonomically designed body. Even if it was, you do not need the cut outs too look exaclty the same! Do you? NOPE YOU DO NOT! So why did you leave them exaclty the same then?

It does not matter how long it took Fender to take action either. It is their design so it should be protected from people out there attempting to cheapen their good brand name. I understand Sadowsky is not cheapening their name, but why would such a great luthier such as Sadowsky even need to copy Fender in the first place I ask?

There are only two reasons I can think of ... Being lazy and could not come up with a better, or even slightly different design, so they stole one that everyone would recognize right off the bat instead.

I would have more respect for a person who states they are not stealing, even though they actually are, if they at least called their "Knock Off" "A Fender style blahh blahh blahh", or something along those lines. It seems that in your mind as long as the law says its ok (Even before the law said it was ok actually!), and as long as you have your own head stock on it, that for some reason it is just fine to call it all your own.

No offence meant to you, Mr Sadowsky, this is just the way I feel about these types of issues, and you just happen to be the face/company I can rant to about it herin.

I am sure there is nothing I can say that will change your mind, and there is definitely not anything anyone here can say that will change my mind either ... So we will just have to agree to disagree here.

Woah

I am not trying to offend him at all. I am just voicing my opinion about this. I did not call him lazy. I just incenuated that there are only two reasons "I" can think of that would cause him not to modify the body to make it truly his own. That does not mean there are not others.. Like his for instance.

Please do not try to make this an attack. That was not my intention at all. I just have a very abrasive way of speaking/writting my thoughts. I appolagize for the wording I chose to use.

You've called him lazy several times in that post. And a thief :scowl:

IMO, it's Fender that's lazy, not improving their basses over time. They are doing exactely what you you say Roger does - they're sitting on a gold mine that was made by mr. Fender 50 years ago. If they were improving, they would be offering quality instruments in a familliar shape, not other luthiers. As it is now, the best Fender-like instruments are not being made by Fender at all.

The fact is, Sadowsky basses are Sadowsky basses because of their quality, not because of the headstock. They are instruments, much more than a piece of wood on which to put your company logo on, and it's in those things that Sadowskys differ from Fenders. A copy can be called a rip-off, but not an all-around improvement (which might not be here if Fender were to improve their instruments)

All IMO.

 

[JimS]

As Roger has stated in more threads than their are morons in this world, he had considered an original design or shape for a bass. But at that time in the late 1970s and early 1980s in NYC, his home playing field, studio engineers only wanted to see Fender basses or something akin to them. So Sadowsky basically made 'a wolf in sheeps clothing.' (Not that a Fender is a sheep but just go with the analogy before you reach for tampon. ) Later on he did come out with his Modern bass which deviates from that style.

 

[JimS]

Mr Sadowsky's instruments look exaclty like a Fender but with a differnet head stock on them.

Mr Sadowsky does not call his instruments 'Fender Type something or other' instruments. He calls them Sadowsky's.

Mr Sadowsky started this thread to state how happy he is about the fact Fender lost any right to have it's instruments' body's trademarked.

Mr Sadowsky does not feel bad in the least about stealing Fenders body styles and calling them his own when they are in fact not his own.

What else do I need to know exactly?
If I am incorrect about something here please fill me in so I can adjust my opinion accordingly. I can change my mind if the facts I am using to form said opinion are flawed, or incorrect in some way. I am not trying to be negative just to be negative here, folks!

Again, I am sorry if I sound as if I am attacking you, Mr Sadowsky. I am not. I am just using you as the poster child for my opinion/argument. I am sure you are a good person, and a great luthier. I just think you could have changed the body on your stuff along the way, but since you did not, it casuses me to ask why. I mean, it would be nothing to drill a hole in it, square off one of the cut outs, or something along those lines. Then it would be all yours, and not just 10% for the headstock, and maybe another 5% for the hardware differences.

I just do not understand how someone could call something theirs when they know for a fact it is not theirs... And then be happy when the people who did originally create it lose a case that allows a person to steal their stuff.

BTW, my ex g/f nickname was froglips. Have you and I made violent love together?

 

[Eric Perry]

BTW, my ex g/f nickname was froglips. Have you and I made violent love together?

<shudder>

 

[Brad Johnson]

It's an elementary question for those of us schooled in intellectual property law - the equivalent of asking you how a standard four sting bass is tuned. You can ask Pete a question directly through private messages, but if you ask a question in an open discussion forum you'll have to suffer the pain of being involved in an open disucssion.

And the silly answers that that entails. This ain't my first rodeo, conversations like this are entirely expected.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Or you could wait till the question is answered and then join the discussion and be relevant and not just a noisebot...

Thank you.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Maybe we could put to rest this idea that only one party in this, Fender, was building instruments for profit and others were doing it for noble reasons.

 

[NickyBass]

Maybe we could put to rest this idea that only one party in this, Fender, was building instruments for profit and others were doing it for noble reasons.

Since I brought up nobility a while back, I feel I should comment....or was that directed to someone else, and I should wait for them to comment first.

Obviously, everyone involved has something to gain financially, but there is a big difference between what Fender is doing, and what Sadowsky is doing. You know that. I know you do. Don't even pretend you don't.

Fender is resting on their laurels (or their purchased laurels.) Roger (and the others) is building an instrument that he truely stands behind because he has spent time in the trenches with the players and has spoken with countless musicians and knows what they want....and he delivers it.....consistantly.

Like the tone or not, there is no question that Roger has accomplished what he set out to do.

You know, I would love to see a quiz show with Roger, Jimmy, Rudy, Carey, etc ---- ~vs~ the faceless Fender execs. That would make for must-see tv.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Since I brought up nobility a while back, I feel I should comment....or was that directed to someone else, and I should wait for them to comment first.

Obviously, everyone involved has something to gain financially, but there is a big difference between what Fender is doing, and what Sadowsky is doing. You know that. I know you do. Don't even pretend you don't.

There is also a big difference between what Fender is doing and what Sadowsky is doing... don't even pretend you don't know that.

Fender is resting on their laurels (or their purchased laurels.) Roger (and the others) is building an instrument that he truely stands behind because he has spent time in the trenches with the players and has spoken with countless musicians and knows what they want....and he delivers it.....consistantly.

At the risk of you (and who knows who else) taking this the wrong way, I'll preface this by asking you not to. Okay?

I just played one of Fender's NEW Steve Bailey SIX STRING fretlesses. It's an excellent bass and it leads me to ask... exactly what laurel were they resting on when they came up with that?


Players want six string Fender style instruments, you can pretend to not know that if you like. Can they get one from the company that's leaning on their laurels (maybe you don't know what Fender offers?) or at Noble's?

Were Roscoe Becks more laurel leaning?

Like the tone or not, there is no question that Roger has accomplished what he set out to do.

Not sure where that came from.

You know, I would love to see a quiz show with Roger, Jimmy, Rudy, Carey, etc ---- ~vs~ the faceless Fender execs. That would make for must-see tv.

And I really have no idea where that came from or what it's leading to. Maybe they could school Fender on how to run an extremely large scale, global business with products that not only run the gamut from beginner to pro basses and guitars but also amps, PA systems, keyboards, etc.

That would be must-see tv. Again, no offense to Roger, I just find the romanticized notion by his fans of why he builds vs. the evil empire known as Fender a tad too LOTR-ish. I only hope they can save the Shire.


Kevin Brubaker now has a J bass inspired model (with a twist) and he didn't do it for noble reasons, he did it because that's what some people asked for and like Roger, he's doing his take on it. Building instruments is what he does for a living. I could be wrong but I'd think that's what Roger does for a living too.

 

[NickyBass]

The bottom line is that I'm glad that Fender doesn't have sole control over the two most popular body shapes. And, yes, I firmly believe that Roger and the 16 others involved have more noble reasons for wanting to keep the shape in the public domain. (Notice I didn't say that they were in it for noble reasons. I said that their reasons were noblER than Fender's.)

I know, I know, "but they invneted them. blah blah blah" I stand behind what I said.

 

[Brad Johnson]

The bottom line is that I'm glad that Fender doesn't have sole control over the two most popular body shapes. And, yes, I firmly believe that Roger and the 16 others involved have more noble reasons for wanting to keep the shape in the public domain. (Notice I didn't say that they were in it for noble reasons. I said that their reasons were noblER than Fender's.)

Hey, I thought you'd at least respond to my post. Oh well.

I know, I know, "but they invneted them. blah blah blah" I stand behind what I said.

I didn't say that so why address that to me?

What you actually said was: No, I'm saying that Roger's motives are alot more noble than Fender's.

Whatever your thoughts are on Roger and Sadowsky basses, NOONE can argue that the man doesn't take great pride in his work and confidently stands behind it.

Was anyone arguing that?


How is that any more noble than how Fender started out? And yes, I know you're one of the folks who likes to try to seperate Leo Fender from Fender, the company that followed him and I see that as purely a semantics tactic at best. Would you do the same if Sadowsky grew as large? I doubt it.

You also said: -Roger started building basses because there was a NEED for them, not because he wanted to get rich.

Maybe you're privy to conversations where Roger said he's in it for altruistic reasons, not the money. Cool.

 

[NickyBass]

Hey, I thought you'd at least respond to my post. Oh well.
.

Fair enough.

I didn't say that so why address that to me?:.

My intention wasn't to address it to you. I was just anticipating that someone would comment on that, and I thought I would nip it in the bud.

What you actually said was: No, I'm saying that Roger's motives are alot more noble than Fender's.

Whatever your thoughts are on Roger and Sadowsky basses, NOONE can argue that the man doesn't take great pride in his work and confidently stands behind it.

Was anyone arguing that?

You said:
Maybe we could put to rest this idea that only one party in this, Fender, was building instruments for profit and others were doing it for noble reasons.

Who were you arguing with then?

How is that any more noble than how Fender started out? And yes, I know you're one of the folks who likes to try to seperate Leo Fender from Fender, the company that followed him and I see that as purely a semantics tactic at best. Would you do the same if Sadowsky grew as large? I doubt it.

Semantics? That's not semantics. It is a fact that the current day Fender corporation had nothing to do with inventing the P or J bass.

Let it be known that I don't have an issue with Fender, other than the fact that they are marketing themselves as 'the original,' etc. It's the same as Ampeg and a hundred other companies that get bought and sold.

You also said: -Roger started building basses because there was a NEED for them, not because he wanted to get rich.

Maybe you're privy to conversations where Roger said he's in it for altruistic reasons, not the money. Cool.

Players wanted a 'better' Fender. I can't speak for Roger, so I won't argue this, but from his history working on basses, it seems to be the logical progression of events.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Fair enough.

My intention wasn't to address it to you. I was just anticipating that someone would comment on that, and I thought I would nip it in the bud.

Then prefacing that with something that says that would make that point clear. Like "Generally speaking".

You said:
Maybe we could put to rest this idea that only one party in this, Fender, was building instruments for profit and others were doing it for noble reasons.

Who were you arguing with then?

Who is that an argument with? You weren't the only one who spoke of Roger's business motives. If we couldn't put it to rest, then someone could certainly argue as to why they still felt it was true. With this reply it appears that at least on your part, you're operating on a guess.

Back to the actual point... you said: NOONE can argue that the man doesn't take great pride in his work and confidently stands behind it.

I asked who was arguing that? The question remains. The answer still seems to be "no one".

Semantics? That's not semantics. It is a fact that the current day Fender corporation had nothing to do with inventing the P or J bass.

So Sadowsky still operates the same way as it did in the beginning?

Let it be known that I don't have an issue with Fender, other than the fact that they are marketing themselves as 'the original,' etc. It's the same as Ampeg and a hundred other companies that get bought and sold.

Semantics. Again. As if nothing changes.

Players wanted a 'better' Fender.

And since way back then Fender has also built better Fenders.

I can't speak for Roger, so I won't argue this, but from his history working on basses, it seems to be the logical progression of events.

Good, because you were speaking to his motivations without actually knowing them. That was my point. You've already argued for them and now say you won't.