SX Stingray

[Smallequestrian]

Yes, but the disclaimer on the guitar patent says only the headstock "shape" is protected, and the SX shape is clearly different than the MM. I prefer the MM. The SX hook is doofy, but I'll forgive it because I like the rest of my bass.

I'm pretty sure there are other mfr.s using 3+1 and 4+2 (guitar) tuner configurations. Can anybody name them? I think I remember a 3+1 Epiphone. Do these basses upset the MM defenders? We've pretty much established that nothing else, not the body, not the pg shape, not the electronics, not the neck dots, is protected. Right? Call Epiphone right away, those trade dress violations are harming EBMM sales!

Legally EB has succesfully defended this many times. This isn't exactly the first time this has happened, and it most certainly won't be the last. Its not like this was made up out of thin air.

I am speaking in generalities as IANAL, but just because you interpret the trademark in that manner does not mean that is the legal interpretation.

 

[jondog]

Yes, I took a look and couldn't find that epiphone or others so it does seem that 3+1 is well policed. The Turser copy is 2+2.

So, I understand why the 4 string won't be back. However, I bought the 5 string, and 4+1 is not protected. Does this mean you guys will be my friend?

Seriously, this discussion has remained pretty civil and we've dealt w/ real facts like the patents and pictures of the basses. Hooray TB!

 

[toad]

-I see it as these people stole something, and that is just about as basic as it gets. So you're either in favor of thievery or you're not, and I know how I would feel about someone breaking into my house and stealing my basses. I mean, it's either okay to steal your stuff or it isn't.

I can respect you have a personal interest in the well-being of EBMM, but principles are a funny thing; they don't allow for alot of finagling. In principle, alot of highly touted bass makers do the same "stealing" and get praised here all day. "I mean, it's either okay to steal your stuff or it isn't, right?" I'll start hearing your point on what terrible thieves rondomusic is when the same principle is applied across the board with the same vehemence. Until then, it just sounds like a lot of hot air and hyperbole.

 

[bovinehost]

Seriously, this discussion has remained pretty civil and we've dealt w/ real facts like the patents and pictures of the basses.

I've tried to remain civil even though I'm clearly on the unpopular side of this issue.

I'll start hearing your point on what terrible thieves rondomusic is when the same principle is applied across the board with the same vehemence. Until then, it just sounds like a lot of hot air and hyperbole.

I've said it before, probably in this very thread - all those Fender copies? I think that's wrong, too, but Fender took 40 years to decide to try to close the barn door. Music Man has taken a different approach and whether or not I profit from my relationship with the company (I do), I respect that they defend their property, designs, whatever you want to call it.

Some of you know me well enough to realize that when I have nothing good to say, I don't say it. If someone starts a thread about a bass that I don't care for, I'm not involved. I see no point in insulting someone else's choice.

I'm not really that controversial.

 

[Smallequestrian]

Yes, I took a look and couldn't find that epiphone or others so it does seem that 3+1 is well policed. The Turser copy is 2+2.

So, I understand why the 4 string won't be back. However, I bought the 5 string, and 4+1 is not protected. Does this mean you guys will be my friend?

Seriously, this discussion has remained pretty civil and we've dealt w/ real facts like the patents and pictures of the basses. Hooray TB!

Actually I don't really have any blame for the people who bought one, so wear that dang thing out man.

 

[redheadbass]

No kidding? Gosh, you must be really smart.

Don't worry, I get the difference in a legal sense.

Morally - and viscerally - theft is still theft.

To me, that is.

You are making an absolute ass of yourself.

Pilotjones was making a statement, what seem to me to be a pro-EB statement…and you flame him for it.

You’re a great representative of EB.

 

[Smallequestrian]

You are making an absolute ass of yourself.

Pilotjones was making a statement, what seem to me to be a pro-EB statement…and you flame him for it.

You’re a great representative of EB.

Unfortunately for you, in this case Bovine isn't the jackass. If you read a little more carefully you would have noticed the quote Bovine is referring to came not from Pilotjones, but 12bass who was not making a pro-eb statement. Therefore, Bovine's argument is still consistent and he is not the small equine...

 

[DJ Bebop]

IANAL, but many of you are failing to understand some basic principles of Intellectual property.

A) its not the fact that Rondo made a bass that looks like a Stingray with the "similar" electronics. As stated before many companies have tried that. The part that EB has trademarked is the 3+1 headstock. If Rondo had made a Stingray copy similar to that of Jay Turser's, they could probably still be making them.

B) If you do not actively protect your trademarks, you actually lose the ability to enforce it. This is a key to intellectual property. This also is supposed to prevent a company from patenting/trademarking/copywrighting something, letting another compmany make something for 5 years and then saying, "oh, we own that so you owe us all your profits and you must close now"

You may not like it, but its the system that we live under.

Why is Rondo Music at fault, Team International Music Co. are the makers?

 

[Jazzbassman23]

Why is Rondo Music at fault, Team International Music Co. are the makers?

Okay, you're not serious, are you? So using your logic it's okay to sell an illegal product as long as the seller didn't produce it. Is that about it?

 

[bovinehost]

You are making an absolute ass of yourself.

Pilotjones was making a statement, what seem to me to be a pro-EB statement…and you flame him for it.

You’re a great representative of EB.

I have had nothing but respect for Mister Jones throughout this discussion.

Your starting point appears to be a big hole in the ground, however.

Please - you must keep up with who's saying what or at least bring us some sparkling water and pretzels.

Not an EB representative, by the way. I do sell them, but I'm not paid by Music Man or anything. (Kind of mostly not.)

Jack

 

[Joe Nerve]

I have had nothing but respect for Mister Jones throughout this discussion.

Your starting point appears to be a big hole in the ground, however.

Please - you must keep up with who's saying what or at least bring us some sparkling water and pretzels.

Not an EB representative, by the way. I do sell them, but I'm not paid by Music Man or anything. (Kind of mostly not.)

Jack

I prefer chips and an o'doulls.

 

[bovinehost]

I prefer chips and an o'doulls.

Bring on the chips, Sir Joe of Bongolandia, but could you ask the bartender for a martini?

 

[FaithNoMan]

Bovinehost, I think you're nuts, but I can see your point - I just hope you don't own any "Fender copies" for your own credibility!

I guess I'm just as fanatical about Ric basses and using a pick.(that's right, I said "fanatical" )

 

[DJ Bebop]

Okay, you're not serious, are you? So using your logic it's okay to sell an illegal product as long as the seller didn't produce it. Is that about it?

I didn't state a position one way or the other, I just asked a question.

 

[bovinehost]

Bovinehost, I think you're nuts, but I can see your point - I just hope you don't own any "Fender copies" for your own credibility

I am nuts, I'm sure, but no, I don't own any Fender copies. I have 5 Bongos, a Sterling, a Stingray 5, a Lakland hollowbody and a Rumblefish 5. I hope none of those violate my beliefs!

And, now that I think about it, a friend of mine is building me the coolest Ric ever. I look forward to it, but it's not a 'copy'. It's a real Rickenbacker, but with a psychedelic naked chick/cosmic motif.

Be glad to show it to you when it's done.


Jack

 

[Hambone]

Man, I just have to get in on this. Here are some random observations about the whole situation...

1. If a 3+1 headstock is what MM has a gripe with, what is that saying about their commitment to the rest of the design? Go ahead a clone the hell out of the rest of our innovation just leave that incredibly original headstock alone? And, if a 3+1 headstock is a the center of MM owners gripes, what does that say about their commitment to the quality of MM?

2. What if SX's intent is to compete with the OLP line of instruments? MusicMan licensed the OLP for production because they didn't see them as a threat to the top MM line (just one reason). So, if SX's were designed to compete with the "inferior" design of the OLP, one might make the case that MusicMan isn't the subject of the cloning but rather it's the OLP.

3. If OLP was licensed to produce MM style products, and they were never intended to compete directly with the Stingray, how can a less expensive instrument design intended to compete with the OLP be seen as any threat to MusicMan? If the intent here was to injure the sales of Singrays, the case could be that OLP and SUB do the same thing - only they are "sanctioned" by MM. Of course they pay license fees to MM but the argument that Stingray sales are hurt by SX and not by the licensed products would be significantly weakened.

4. I believe that one of the driving factors in Fender's active pursuit of clone makers in the late 70's and early 80's, was the fact that the clones were at or near the same quality as the Fenders while copying Fenders designs. Cloners were also applying graphics that were intended to mimic the Fender registered logo and were intentionally designed to deceive buyers - there's no doubt. So, Fender took action in the only way they had available and sued over the trademarked shape of the headstock. The result was clone headstocks that were differently shaped even while some of the logo reproduction continued for use on these headstocks. That seemed sufficient to Fender (and the courts) to insure that their superior product was protected from the rabble as to not hurt sales.

5. As usual, mheintz injects much needed knowledge into the fray. My question would be, Wouldn't EB need to have a patent on the function of the 3+1 and wouldn't that patent application have to describe how a 3+1 differed in function significantly enough from other tuners arrangements so that it could be claimed to significantly improve (or otherwise) the basic function of tuners on a headstock?

6. With the assumption that EB has all of the 3+1® trademark stuff all tightly sewn up, what prevents a clone maker from using the same tuner arrangement and calling it a "1+3" or "offset split 4" description?

 

[mrmoonjam]

Bovinehost:

I hadn't caught up on this thread in a while, and just realized you have a close connection with a member of the Ball family, and personally know them to be good people. Thanks for letting us know, cause it helps me appreciate the strength of your reaxtion.

MrMJ

 

[pilotjones]

I'll answer Hammy's 5 & 6 as best I can.

- EB has no patent on the functionality of a 3+1 arrangement.
- - Even if they had patented it, the patent would have run out by now (I think- the dates can be checked).
- EB holds a trademark on the headstock and tuners. A trademark protects the appearance, and its identification with a company or product--not the functionality.
- I believe mheintz said that while EBMM has no explicit trademark on the wording "3+1", that it might be implied, and therefore legally defensible, by the presence of the trademark that they do hold. (see next point)
- The trademark that EBMM does hold is entirely graphical and non-verbal, and shows a headstock and tuners. Discussion here would indicate that this has been legally defended for both the headstock shape aspect and the tuner arrangement aspect, although I have no direct knowledge of this.

[opinion] This leads me to think that you could do a 3+1 arrangement, as long as it could be in no way confused with / mistaken for an EBMM product. For example, an independent luthier, with his own headstock design, that happens to have three tuners on the bass side and one on the treble side, but doesn't look like an EBMM headstock.

 

[jondog]

OK, here's a pic of me last nite w/ my 100% legal SX MM5.

I have to admit, I didn't play it past sound check. The room/pa was very boomy and the soundguy didn't help right away so I switched to the SX Jazz behind me so I could have a tighter tone. I'm sure I could've made the MM copy work out, but I didn't feel like messing with it right then. It was a fun show!

 

[Smallequestrian]

Hambone, I replied to some of your points in bold below. I typed this kinda fast so I apologize for the typos. I am looking at this issue from Musicman's point of view, not as a fanboy. Although I realized after rereading your post that some of your contention is with the MM fanboys as well as MM.

1. If a 3+1 headstock is what MM has a gripe with, what is that saying about their commitment to the rest of the design? Go ahead a clone the hell out of the rest of our innovation just leave that incredibly original headstock alone? And, if a 3+1 headstock is a the center of MM owners gripes, what does that say about their commitment to the quality of MM?

Thats nonsensical. The only reason the headstock is the center of the gripes is because that is the only "legal" point of contention

2. What if SX's intent is to compete with the OLP line of instruments? MusicMan licensed the OLP for production because they didn't see them as a threat to the top MM line (just one reason). So, if SX's were designed to compete with the "inferior" design of the OLP, one might make the case that MusicMan isn't the subject of the cloning but rather it's the OLP.

Musicman is a business, they makes money on the OLPs. They licensed their trademark to OLP specifically in order to gain money from that part of the market where they do not have a presence. Whether SX clones take away directly from MM sales or OLP sales, the onus is still on MM to defend what they have a legal right to defend.

3. If OLP was licensed to produce MM style products, and they were never intended to compete directly with the Stingray, how can a less expensive instrument design intended to compete with the OLP be seen as any threat to MusicMan? If the intent here was to injure the sales of Singrays, the case could be that OLP and SUB do the same thing - only they are "sanctioned" by MM. Of course they pay license fees to MM but the argument that Stingray sales are hurt by SX and not by the licensed products would be significantly weakened.

Possible injury of sales isn't the only reason for trademarks/copyright. Just because you may believe it won't hurt the sales (I personally don't think they really do), doesn't mean its anymore legal. Also I am sure the intent of SX wasn't to injure the sales of Stingrays, I don't think anybody feels they are that sinister, their intent was probably to sell basses where they thought they could.

4. I believe that one of the driving factors in Fender's active pursuit of clone makers in the late 70's and early 80's, was the fact that the clones were at or near the same quality as the Fenders while copying Fenders designs. Cloners were also applying graphics that were intended to mimic the Fender registered logo and were intentionally designed to deceive buyers - there's no doubt. So, Fender took action in the only way they had available and sued over the trademarked shape of the headstock. The result was clone headstocks that were differently shaped even while some of the logo reproduction continued for use on these headstocks. That seemed sufficient to Fender (and the courts) to insure that their superior product was protected from the rabble as to not hurt sales.

Makes sense for the most part, but I am not all that familiar with Fender around that time period.


5. As usual, mheintz injects much needed knowledge into the fray. My question would be, Wouldn't EB need to have a patent on the function of the 3+1 and wouldn't that patent application have to describe how a 3+1 differed in function significantly enough from other tuners arrangements so that it could be claimed to significantly improve (or otherwise) the basic function of tuners on a headstock?

and

6. With the assumption that EB has all of the 3+1® trademark stuff all tightly sewn up, what prevents a clone maker from using the same tuner arrangement and calling it a "1+3" or "offset split 4" description?

IP law is very complicated, with weird loopholes abound. Trying to understand it on common sense alone is not always the most accurate way to examine these types of issues. I am not sure all the legalities involved, but Musicman has defended this before, and while I am sure there is some legal leg room, apparently nobody has really successfully found a way around it yet.