Copies? Clones? Lookalikes? Counterfeits? Spawn of Be-Stringed Satan? Maybe we should do a poll, but it would probably end up with “Bassy McFake Face”.
Last edited:
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
"Lawsuit" and "pre-lawsuit" instruments do not exist
- Thread starter BassAgent
- Start date
That usually happens when you make a big deal out of meaningless semantics and then try to tell people what they should or shouldn't say or how they should or shouldn't refer to something.
The thread devolved exactly as expected for anyone that's been on this site for more than 10 seconds.
The actual case number in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is 77-cv–2262. This is before the institution of electronic filing, so if you want a copy of the actual complaint or other public documents associated with the case, you will have to write to the clerk of the court.
SirMjac28
Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion
Guess dude never heard about the Squier Stagemaster. The name Stagemaster was trademarked and used by Kramer. Then Fender decided to use the same name on a line of Squiers. Kramer took issue with that, threatened a lawsuit, some say it was actually filed. But Kramer and Fender came to an agreement with Fender dropping the name and opting to use the name "Showmaster" instead. Details of the settlement have never been made public to my knowledge.
I gave this one to a friend several years ago.
Since time moved ahead the “Law Suit Basses are kind of a mote point. Once the Beatles hit the stage in February on the Ed Sullivan show the demand for guitars and basses skyrocketed. Neither Fender or Gibson could have kept up the demand for inexpensive instruments so enterprising U.S. distributors approached the manufacturers in Japan to build inexpensive versions of U.S. made instruments at a lower cost. Initially the quality was petty bad but in less than @ 10 years the Japanese instruments were as good or better than their U.S, counterparts. Fender began producing
student lines Mustang and Music Master basses and guitars. Now days instruments are produced world wide. Personally I only own two U.S. built Lakland 55-94’s and a Fender Precision. Those purchases were made when all three of those basses were considerably less expensive. I’m very fortunate to be able to own and play them. Just my take.
student lines Mustang and Music Master basses and guitars. Now days instruments are produced world wide. Personally I only own two U.S. built Lakland 55-94’s and a Fender Precision. Those purchases were made when all three of those basses were considerably less expensive. I’m very fortunate to be able to own and play them. Just my take.
Last edited:
I just sent you a letter to cease and desist sending cease and desist letters.
Lawyer up!
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,582
- 221,924
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Wandering into this thread is risky, but since it will most likely be closed soon... DISCLAIMER: I may be wrong... but, as far as I've read about from a reputable source, Fender suing Gibson over the early '60s Thunderbird bass was bogus. Pre-internet folklore said the reason Gibson stopped production in '65 of the "reverse" (also dubious as it wasn't a 'reverse' of anything prior) T-bird was because Fender claimed it looked like their Jazz bass, which is ridiculous even if a Jazz bass was 'reversed'. The reality was that that bass wasn't selling, at least not by Gibson financial quota needs. So in mid '65 they reversed (~) the body style of the bass (now referred to as "non-reverse') which in some ways looked more like a Fender.
A couple of related posts found on-line on the topic -
In a Dutch guitar magazine, there's a translated story of Tony Bacon about Birds. He states that Fender was busy around that time to get patents on the Jazzmaster/Jaguar and that they didn't file a lawsuit at all. But they did print ads about the Jag/Jazzmaster with 'the most copied design around' * or something with a similar meaning. He also states Gibson made the nonrev because it just was cheaper to make. A bit less radical and no
neck through.
*which was true then and still is definitely true
Gibson pushed the Firebirds and Thunderbirds to a decent degree, but that did not result in big sales. They were pegged as a Gibson take on Fender stuff from the get go. I have never seen any evidence of a lawsuit over them though. They weren't bolt on necks - which was the big difference between the companies - but they were Fender ish. The non reverse birds were more Fender looking but also far less involved to make, and embraced an off-the-shelf vibe as far as pups and tuners. So in that sense they were more Fenderish than the earlier ones. They were eventually popular, but neither version set the world on fire, no pun intended.
Your honor... I rest my case -
A couple of related posts found on-line on the topic -
In a Dutch guitar magazine, there's a translated story of Tony Bacon about Birds. He states that Fender was busy around that time to get patents on the Jazzmaster/Jaguar and that they didn't file a lawsuit at all. But they did print ads about the Jag/Jazzmaster with 'the most copied design around' * or something with a similar meaning. He also states Gibson made the nonrev because it just was cheaper to make. A bit less radical and no
neck through.
*which was true then and still is definitely true
Gibson pushed the Firebirds and Thunderbirds to a decent degree, but that did not result in big sales. They were pegged as a Gibson take on Fender stuff from the get go. I have never seen any evidence of a lawsuit over them though. They weren't bolt on necks - which was the big difference between the companies - but they were Fender ish. The non reverse birds were more Fender looking but also far less involved to make, and embraced an off-the-shelf vibe as far as pups and tuners. So in that sense they were more Fenderish than the earlier ones. They were eventually popular, but neither version set the world on fire, no pun intended.
Your honor... I rest my case -
Last edited:
All I remember is that my first bass guitar, was a Zim Gar from the B&B Loan in Muncie, Indiana was a FSO ( Fender Shaped Object)
I loved that bass until(I didn’t) the pickups self destructed. That was circa 1968, so there weren’t any viable import basses then. I saved my
money from mowing lands and working at the Chevy dealership washing cars so I could afford to buy a Fender Precision in 1969.
I loved that bass until(I didn’t) the pickups self destructed. That was circa 1968, so there weren’t any viable import basses then. I saved my
money from mowing lands and working at the Chevy dealership washing cars so I could afford to buy a Fender Precision in 1969.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,582
- 221,924
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Rickenbacker & the now US owner of VOX will send out cease & desist letters, and as someone pointed out - using the words "Rickenbacker" and "VOX" to describe a clone (regardless of it being only one, or a production) in an eBay ad will be removed after an algorithm search/scan.
Last edited:
I almost hate to wade into this mess, but this quote raises a hypothetical I’ve always wondered about:
What would the world of basses look like today if Fender *had* protected their body shapes (and pickup placements) from the get-go, assuming they could? Let’s say that nobody but Fender could make a P-bass shape with a split-coil pickup or a J-bass shape with two single coils.
Part of me thinks we’d have more diversity and more interesting choices… while another part is scared of just how “interesting” those choices might get.
(At least we’d still have Hofners, Gibson, and Rics…)
An interesting note to this is that the split coil hum cancelling p bass pickup was designed as it was because the original dual coil humbucker was patented and a different design was needed to provide the same benefits.I almost hate to wade into this mess, but this quote raises a hypothetical I’ve always wondered about:
What would the world of basses look like today if Fender *had* protected their body shapes (and pickup placements) from the get-go, assuming they could? Let’s say that nobody but Fender could make a P-bass shape with a split-coil pickup or a J-bass shape with two single coils.
Part of me thinks we’d have more diversity and more interesting choices… while another part is scared of just how “interesting” those choices might get.
(At least we’d still have Hofners, Gibson, and Rics…)
Leo decided to make his hum cancelling pickup look different by putting it in two housings - maybe Gibson will let it slide if it looks different. It worked. Would it have stood up to the challenge if Gibson sued? That's a legal....grey area.
It’s difficult if not next to impossible to look into a crystal ball and divine why “might have been’ If we look art a time line and rewind back a little. Leo was already contemplating heading out the door around the same time the Beatles hit the stage in February 64. The legacy company had a brilliant run between 1951-1965 . Regardless of the legalese Leo built the Music Man which might never jace happened. Speculation is fun!I almost hate to wade into this mess, but this quote raises a hypothetical I’ve always wondered about:
What would the world of basses look like today if Fender *had* protected their body shapes (and pickup placements) from the get-go, assuming they could? Let’s say that nobody but Fender could make a P-bass shape with a split-coil pickup or a J-bass shape with two single coils.
Part of me thinks we’d have more diversity and more interesting choices… while another part is scared of just how “interesting” those choices might get.
(At least we’d still have Hofners, Gibson, and Rics…)
