It's pretty commonly accepted in the electric instrument world that body shapes do not constitute IP.
While "Warwick" as a brand may not have existed prior to 1982, the Wilfer lutherie family was operating under the Framus brand name for decades before that, since 1946, when Fred Wilfer established the company, with the Framus Triumph electric upright being made available in the 1950s. It's not like Warwick suddenly appeared on the scene with no history. Aside from a few years in the late 1970s after the original Framus company folded up to the launch of Warwick (and subsequent relauch of the Framus brand) by Fred's son, Hans-Peter, in 1982, the family has a nearly-continuous history in the musical instrument business.
But, it's true that small luthiers like Stuart Spector, Ned Steinberger, and Vincent Fodera (all of whom inhabited the same workshop in Brooklyn in the 1970s) aren't gigantic companies with the reach and ubiquity of brands like Fender and Gibson, whom people copy at will, it's equally true that neither Framus nor Warwick were in the 1980s companies on the scale of Fender and Gibson, and global supply chains certainly weren't what they are today. Even today, a lot of American brands aren't readily available in Europe, and vice versa.
So, yes, it's absolutely true that the Warwick Streamer started out as a copy of the Spector/Steinberger NS-1, and the history of the legal relationship between the two was been well-documented with primary sources citations. It's pretty clear to me that Hans-Peter Wilfer wasn't trying to put Stuart Spector out of business, he was making his own take on a good idea available in a place where it wouldn't otherwise have been readily available.
But, by the 1990-2000s, the Warwick Streamer and Spector NS basses had become very different instruments that just happen to share the same basic outline, and comparing the two is much akin to comparing a Gibson Les Paul and a PRS Singlecut. Over my 25+ years of playing bass, I've played a lot of instruments at a lot of dealers, and all I can really say is, I think that Spector's aesthetic choices don't agree with my aesthetic sensibilities, and Warwick's do.
I'm sure the Spector basses are fine instruments. Some of my favorite players play them. But from the moment I first picked up a Warwick Streamer LX5 is 2002, while trying to decide which Warwick model I wanted to place an order for with Warwick's Custom Shop, I knew that Warwick was the right choice for me. The same dealer was also a Spector dealer, at the time. I can't say that Spector made any other impression on me other then "god that's gaudy", due to the finish and inlay choices—gloss over bright dyes, gold hardware, and those overly large fretboard inlays. Had a Spector NS distinguished itself to me in any other way, soundwise or feelwise, I might be playing a Spector, today.
Ultimately, I decided to go with a Corvette Proline rather than a Streamer LX, because I was ordering a short-scale 4-string fretless, and the Streamer LX4 is a PJ instrument, while the Corvette Proline 4 is a JJ instrument, and I was a Jazz Bass player, at the time. If I buy another Warwick, it will likely be a Streamer CV or a Fortress.
There is one thing I really don't like about Warwick, and that is that their 5-string basses have a very narrow string pitch, and the few models they offer with their "broad neck" option (the Streamer LX is one) have a string pitch that is too wide.
This is virtually identical to the bass I demoed in 2002, except back then, the neck would have been ovangkol instead of wenge, and this one seems to have a slight amber tint to the finish, instead of being natural finish.
My actual 2003 Warwick Custom Shop Corvette Proline short scale fretless:
. Here's a pic of the finished Streamer with Yin/Yang dots similar to the Warwick Custom Stage model... (w/a MEC BEC III preamp added)
