• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Gibson strikes again!

#141
40Hz said:
Interestingly enough, in Gibson’s own literature they pointedly say it “takes its inspiration” from their 1967 Flying V. And despite further flat out scifi references, there’s no mention of StarTrek at all. Hmm…

Possibly Paramount realized there would be a bigger battle pursuing it than it was worth and possibly losing in the process. So they negotiated one of those mutual non-aggression agreements trademark holders sometimes do where Gibson would agree to not make any scifi TV series or movies, and Paramount Pictures would agree not to build guitars.

Apple (if Beatles fame) agreed not to attempt to enforce their trademark on Apple Computer if Steve Jobs and company would agree not to create any music related products.

Many years later, when Apple released the iPod music payer and later created their iTunes services I’d guess the even someine as iconic as the Beatles realized they weren't going to win anything bucking a giant corporation with deep pockets, a rabid and adoring customer base, and enough lawyers on payroll to staff a very large legal firm with decades of experience in IP litigation. So they let it go.
Click to expand...

Apple Corps made 100 million out of it which wasn't bad forty years after The Beatles ended, and if I remember correctly it allowed members to buy back song rights. Corps did OK
 
#145
-Asdfgh- said:
Indeed, you're not going to get people to licence things if people aren't even sure if they need to. Putting the fear of legal god into small competitors may encourage them to sign even if not required. Whether that would affect future court cases I don't know, but mostly things go to out of court settlements. Even apple and Samsung do that on occasion and they can both afford expensive lawyers, so this isn't necessarily a big bucks opportunity for the legal profession.
Click to expand...

Settlements are easier wins for attorneys and preferred by most of their clients. Nobody wants to go to court, including attorneys. They get paid for their services whether they go to court or not. Court appearances are time consuming. And the outcome is unpredictable. Get an unsympathetic judge or jury and you’re sunk. So you could wind up having to go through the whole appeal process.

Ending up in a courtroom is no victory. Going to court is always the last resort. It’s also the mark of failure to some extent. You (and your attorneys) failed to reach agreement with the other party and are now stuck with the expense and annoyance of having a court settle the issue.
 
#146
40Hz said:
Apple (of Beatles fame) agreed not to attempt to enforce their trademark on Apple Computer if Steve Jobs and company would agree not to create any music related products.

Many years later, when Apple released their hugely popular iPod music player, and later created their iTunes service, I’d guess that even someone as iconic as the Beatles realized they weren't going to win anything bucking a giant foreign corporation with deep pockets, a rabid and adoring customer base, and enough lawyers on payroll to staff a very large legal firm with decades of experience in IP litigation. So they let it go.
Click to expand...

Nope, there were several lawsuits between Apple Corps and (then) Apple Computer from 1978 to 2007. Apple Computer paid settlements on the first two (over $27m total) and then won the big lawsuit that allowed Apple Computer to run iTunes. Apple Corps had to pay Apple Computer's legal bills of £2m.

A settlement in 2007 granted (now) Apple Inc. the rights to "Apple" and licensed certain trademarks back to Apple Corps. That settlement amount isn't pubic knowledge, despite speculation of Apple Inc. buying Apple Corps for $500m, which was incorrect, and iTunes finally got to sell the Beatles music in 2010 (the solo albums had been on for a while).
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregC and nbsipics
#147
Clark W said:
Yeah, something to with his divorce from Mary Ford I think. Dont remember the reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no.

The Les Pauls were discontinued by the end of 1960.

"Les Paul" branded SGs came out in '61 and lasted for about a year under that name until Les Paul who didn't like the guitar had his name peeled off of it.

Les Paul and Mary Ford were divorced on December 16th, 1964.
 
#148
43ManSquamish said:
Nope, there were several lawsuits between Apple Corps and (then) Apple Computer from 1978 to 2007. Apple Computer paid settlements on the first two (over $27m total) and then won the big lawsuit that allowed Apple Computer to run iTunes. Apple Corps had to pay Apple Computer's legal bills of £2m.

A settlement in 2007 granted (now) Apple Inc. the rights to "Apple" and licensed certain trademarks back to Apple Corps. That settlement amount isn't pubic knowledge, despite speculation of Apple Inc. buying Apple Corps for $500m, which was incorrect, and iTunes finally got to sell the Beatles music in 2010 (the solo albums had been on for a while).
Click to expand...

Thx for the correction! :):thumbsup:

I acknowledged the error deleted the erroneous part in my earlier post. No point in perpetuating wrong info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 43ManSquamish
#149
Templar said:
I'll be surprised if there's any earth shaking decline in Gibson fanhood among guitar players. Too much good history, too much momentum. Could just end up being a tempest in a teapot, in the end.

Ibanez restored their sullied reputation (and then some) after years of stealing designs back in the day. Any harm done to Gibson's image (by Gibson themselves) can easily be overcome.
Click to expand...

You have a good point. The blindness of the fanboys is a powerful force to be reckoned with.
 
#151
rodv66 said:
the reason this matters is that basis and guitars maybe narrow to a few brands that are controlled by a cup of corporations will have the ability to Jack prices up because it will be less competition
Click to expand...

Just like it's the case in all other areas of our lives, unfortunately.

But this is hardly newsworthy. Both Gibson (under Henry J.) and FMIC have been swallowing smaller fish for the past three decades.

The music instrument industry is not a business with much of a future IMO, and very few will remain standing a decade from now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
#155
rodv66 said:
the reason this matters is that basis and guitars maybe narrow to a few brands that are controlled by a cup of corporations will have the ability to Jack prices up because it will be less competition
Click to expand...
Hmm. Couldn't they just do what Gibson did, and come up with an original design? Copyright it? Offer it up, and see if it sells? Seems like none of this limits anybody to do anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajkula66
#158
Bander said:
Hmm. Couldn't they just do what Gibson did, and come up with an original design? Copyright it? Offer it up, and see if it sells? Seems like none of this limits anybody to do anything?
Click to expand...
"See if it sells" is the problem. It doesn't all that well. That's the whole reason why Gibson and Fender themselves are stuck in a loop of always recycling the same old shapes and cluttering half of their product line with "reissues". They have become the real selling item. A significant part of the market is based on replicas with minimal to no deviations to the point that buyers will shun improvements like rounded neck heels for the sake of the clumsy originals. That's why you'll see people moan that they can't buy a P-Bass without an added J pick-up.
Popularity is seldom achieved by originality. Conformity sells best so "owning" it is a key business goal.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back