Fender Decals On Non-Fender Basses

[aborgman]

Please help me understand you better, Aborgman. You are acknowledging that Fender is still legally entitled to protect it's trademark,

No.

I acknowledge that under current legislation and court precedent Fender is still entitled to protect it's trademark.

I don't acknowledge that current law and precedent are legal from a Constitutional perspective though.

yet you still support the right of a counterfeiter to sell it's decals? I admit, I'm confused.

If your trademark/patent/copyright has expired - they aren't counterfeiters.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

If your trademark/patent/copyright has expired - they aren't counterfeiters.

No their scavengers.

 

[scotch]

No.

I acknowledge that under current court precedent Fender is still entitled to protect it's trademark.

I don't acknowledge that current law and precedent are legal from a Constitutional perspective though.



If your trademark/patent/copyright has expired - they aren't counterfeiters.

So it's legal - but not as far as you personally are concerned. Good to know.

Has Fender's trademarked logo expired?

 

[CTbass613]

Fender has no monopoly over electric bass guitars. What the hell are you talking about?!? There are plenty of legal competitors. Hundreds if not thousands of companies are making competitive products. Where's the monopoly? Fender has it's own brand.

you are correct...but most of those companies like warmoth, nash, i even think that Sadowsky pays a royalty to fender to use designs similar to theirs...if fender didn't ask for these royalties, we might actually be able to get a NYC sadowsky for under 3K.

By the way i play fenders too, kind of silly arguments going on here, It shouldn't matter what the headstock says...or rather if someone wants to put a fender decal on the headstock of their squier...i don't think fender would be mad if you advertise there brand for them...

however they may be mad if your bass is a piece of garbage and you attempt to get it into the hands of every bass player who is naive enough to believe that every single bass fender makes is a representation of that instrument...remember...you play something on the wall at a local GC, its probably going to suck considering it may have been there for 6 months with no care....provided the neck isn't shot get it to a luthier it will play like gold.

 

[JOE EDO]

Is anyone using the Stewart Spector logo on their non Spector basses?

 

[smcd]

You see those giant pics of cars up there? Here's a tip: they are not actually what they say, they are recreations.

How about you say something about it rather than ignore it?

This issue isn't about cars, or haven't you noticed?



aborgman has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[smcd]

No.

I acknowledge that under current legislation and court precedent Fender is still entitled to protect it's trademark.

I don't acknowledge that current law and precedent are legal from a Constitutional perspective though.



If your trademark/patent/copyright has expired - they aren't counterfeiters.

Jesus H. Christ....

 

[aborgman]

No their scavengers.

Sure, just like the bald eagle.. symbol of our nation.

 

[THand]

Link Removed

 

[aborgman]

So it's legal - but not as far as you personally are concerned. Good to know.

Yes, it is currently legal, albeit unConstitutional.

Has Fender's trademarked logo expired?

No.

Under current trademark law trademarks NEVER expire... and are thus in direct contradiction to the IP specifications of the Constitution.

 

[Burlington]

This issue isn't about cars, or haven't you noticed?



aborgman has no idea what he's talking about.

Did you miss the giant pic of the amps?

This topic bugs you so much, it's hilarious what arguments you come up with!

 

[aborgman]

aborgman has no idea what he's talking about.

Right...

How many patents/copyright/trademark/other bits of IP law have you been involved with?

I mean - I've written patents, got payed for being involved with patent creation, and still make money from patents every time a dividend check comes out... How about you?

 

[Dark Horse]

 

[Chebass88]

...
IP law.... Well, that is not doing any good for society, it protects the profits of the few over the betterment of the many, pretty backwards way to serve society if you ask me. Who cares if there are trade secrets? Trade secrets should be what protects your monopoly, not government enforcement. If I can make a product why shouldn't I be allowed to do so and profit from it? Ideas? everyone gets them, some have ideas that are exactly the same as others. Some see others ideas and can instantly improve them. Why do we protect profit for someone who ran and paid the govermnent?

...

Morals? Ethics? those things have nothing to do with any of this. It's all about greed. IP law isn't moral or ethical at all, it is about showing preferance to a small few over the benifits that would be good for society.

-eSmith.

I'm sensing from your posts that you don't own any IP. If you did, you would not be shouting this tripe.

I can guarantee that any idea I have that I can turn into profit for ME is infinitely more important to me than any alleged benefits to society obtained by freely sharing those ideas will-nilly. My ideas - my property. IP law protects that property. I can protect my physical property with other means, but IP law protects my ideas.

 

[scotch]

I guess Aborgman wins the argument. He does have a better grasp of the U.S. Constitution than any sitting Supreme Court in history & of course, HIS patents deserve protection but not Fender or Disney's!

Congrats, Aborgman!

 

[aborgman]

I'm sensing from your posts that you don't own any IP. If you did, you would not be shouting this tripe.

I can guarantee that any idea I have that I can turn into profit for ME is infinitely more important to me than any alleged benefits to society obtained by freely sharing those ideas will-nilly. My ideas - my property. IP law protects that property. I can protect my physical property with other means, but IP law protects my ideas.

Only as long as it's benefits to society outweigh it's costs.

It's a PRIVILEGE granted by the government to benefit society as a whole. Its entire reason for existence is benefit to the public at large by promoting disclosure.

IP law protects your property FOR A LIMITED TIME as long as you're willing to make it public domain at the end of that period.

Don't want it to eventually be public? Then you don't get IP protection and you have to go the old school way of trade secrets. Like how Coca-Cola protects their recipe.

 

[aborgman]

I guess Aborgman wins the argument. He does have a better grasp of the U.S. Constitution than any sitting Supreme Court in history

No, quite a lot of past Supreme Courts have ruled in ways in agreement with me. Current case law just disagrees.

As Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice) said - "The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions -- knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas -- become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use."

& of course, HIS patents deserve protection but not Fender or Disney's!

No - all patents deserve protection, for a limited time period ending with them going into the public domain to advance the state of the art... whether they're mine, Fender's, or Disney's.

 

[Chebass88]

Only as long as it's benefits to society outweigh it's costs.

It's a PRIVILEGE granted by the government to benefit society as a whole. It's entire reason for existence is benefit to the public at large by promoting disclosure.

IP law protects your property FOR A LIMITED TIME as long as you're willing to make it public domain at the end of that period.

Don't want it to eventually be public? Then you don't get IP protection and you have to go the old school way of trade secrets. Like how Coca-Cola protects their recipe.

And of course, this is the case for continual innovation and growth. By the time the initial IP expires, there are other ideas cooking & marinating in the market.

 

[CTbass613]

This issue isn't about cars, or haven't you noticed?



aborgman has no idea what he's talking about.

yeah please make a point that suggests he doesn't know what he is talking about...

Fender does not have a monopoly on the bass market as far as being the only manufacturer of basses and preventing any company from entering the market, however they do create a barrier to entry in which any company who wants to make an instrument that looks like a fender will have to pay a royalty to fender for there design (again not a monopoly). Any company that is making a profit on a brand new bass that looks like a fender....
lakland, sadowsky, lull, SX, warmoth, Suhr, Don Grosh, Nash, tom anderson (list goes on) is most likely paying a royalty or licensing (sp?) fee to fender, with the except of maybe G and L because it was created by Leo himself.

I am not sure all the curiosity about patents, because all the patent does is protect the property, it doesn't prevent someone from making a copy of it, they just have to pay for it, however aborgman, you probably no more about that than i do, so please correct me if i am mistaken.

If you are a bass builder, building basses for resale, and they look like fenders, you should expect to have pay a cost to fender if they catch you selling there basses without their expressed permission. If you are adding a decal onto a manufactured bass by one of the above companies, or a bass you built with no intentions to resell as a original fender (thats a whole nother fraud issue there) then you are doing no wrong to fender, because ultimately the company is not being directly hurt by you adding that decal, Fender already received their cut.

Its only in resale of copied designs is there a concern here, doing so is ILLEGAL, and Fender can sue you for it.

Should fender release the patent and allow the barriers to entry to be lifted...honestly...fender cannot afford to do that...while I do love there instruments, i think that if they were not charging these companies the royalty and these Hi end or boutique companies were able to lower there cost, Fender would indeed be in trouble because Fenders quality does not come close to some of these companies. So they are indeed protecting there brand and company and their employees.

 

[aborgman]

And of course, this is the case for continual innovation and growth. By the time the initial IP expires, there are other ideas cooking & marinating in the market.

..but the problem is, some IP (due to it's owners having lots of money) de facto never expires.

It also ignores the point that reason for IP is to get that IP into the public domain, so that it can be the underpinning of future ideas cooking & marinating in the market.