Online petition against Gibson & Fender

Site announcements and information<br>

Moderators: ian, ned

Guitar God
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Online petition against Gibson & Fender

Post by ned » Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:40 am

If you disagree with Gibson and Fender sueing other guitar manufacturers for body shapes they let slide for 50 years please fill out the online petition below.

Guitar God
Posts: 2133
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:35 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Post by Paladin2019 » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:15 am



Post by Guest » Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:17 am

done too :P
death to gibson

Power chords are my friend
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: anaheim, ca USA

Post by xstaygold » Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:18 pm

i dont know if im actually against this since it was their distinct design in the first place and thats what theyre known for....

but i love tokais so i signed it haha

Guitar God
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:10 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by ArthurS » Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:17 am

xstaygold wrote:i dont know if im actually against this since it was their distinct design in the first place and thats what theyre known for....

but i love tokais so i signed it haha
Both Gibson and Fender have nothing to do with the companies that designed the guitars in question.
Furthermore, they both failed to enfore their copyrights for over 25 years. Especially Fender has done nothing to stop Tele and Strat copies (except from the head stock). If you neglect your copyrights for so long, after a while it's just void. Both legally and morally, in my opinion.

Guitar God
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:46 am
Location: London

Post by ian » Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:18 am

Agree with Ned & Arthur, so I also signed it.


Guitar God
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 9:19 am
Location: New Mexico

Post by tokaigeezer » Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:37 am

and I agree with the guys that agree with the other guys! :)

so of course I signed

this societal intellectual property concept has gone berserk. many of the consumer products we take for granted are improvements on earlier designs that did not work as well. if all original designers sued against similar improved designs we would probably be starting the morning coffee (or tea) by lighting a wood stove to boil some water, or be bringing a rooster inside to wake up on time (not recommended :lol:)

Guitar God
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Post by ned » Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:13 am

There is a great article in Vintage Guitar about the Gibson lawsuit thing, focus's on their claim against PRS, and how the US government really screwed up in allowing the copyright after 40 odd years.

It will take someone with more lawyer money than Gibson to get this changed.

Didn't visit Gibson during NAMM but I heard they would only allow you into their space with a appointment. The rumor is one of their endorsing artists was even turned away.


Guitar God
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 9:19 am
Location: New Mexico

Post by tokaigeezer » Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:51 am

Hey Ned,

I was reading that article last night and I was surprised how bitter some of the major U.S. Gibson dealers (Dave's Guitars, Music Machine) were. Imagine being the country's top dealer of Historic and Custom Shop Les Pauls and being told you'd better load up on some of their cheaper products (Epiphone, maybe?) or you'll get it in the neck even worse.

Was hanging out at the local guitar shop lately and heard the owner tell another dealer that he wasn't even going to try and get a Gibson franchise because they want you to buy $50,000 of product up front. If that is true, then you won't find Gibsons in any town under 100,000 population because unless they do a whopping Internet trade, they are not going to move that much Gibson stuff. Pretty appalling for the consumer, because you'll probably be forced to go to a Guitar Center to even see one. And, at least in my experience, that is so much dang fun, with music blasting through the place so loud you can't even hear what you're playing while you are ignored by the high-school-student sales staff.

Apparently Music Machine is having a closeout sale on some of their high-end Les Pauls. Sheesh - was does that say about Gibson?

Thank God for Tokai, G&L and other makers who have a passion for quality and customer service.

Rant over :wink:

Guitar God
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 12:52 pm
Location: Kennedy Town, Hong Kong

Post by Cybercat » Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:27 pm


- Dunno how I missed this before. I guess I need glasses, & not the kind that hold liquor... :roll:
Bill - Hong Kong.

My current Skype status is : -

Guitar God
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 3:12 am
Location: Australia

Post by Watto » Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:52 pm


Personally I wouldn't and haven't brought American Gibson/Fender since the early 80's when I discovered Fender Japan and Tokai etc.All my Strats have Australian pickups(kinman) Callaham bridges and Japanese everything else and my LP is 100% Tokai,
I only have one US made strat and that was made in the 60's,go figure

Big corporations are ruining the world,

Rock on
Proud Les Paul Reborn Owner

Guitar God
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: madrid

Post by chu71 » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:12 pm

done how cud i miss this for so long

mike martin
Guitar God
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:32 am


Post by mike martin » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:20 pm

i signed too

Guitar God
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: USA

Post by ScottA » Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:03 pm

As someone who works in a very IP (intellectual property) intensive industry (semiconductors), I can see both sides of this issue.

You have to respect a company's need to recoup an initial investment, and also you have to consider that without the inherent "safety net" that IP protection provides, entry into a market would be inadvisable in many cases. Consider what is happening with the pirating of movies and music right now especially in China where IP rights (at least as westerners consider them) are virtually non-existent. If companies are faced with the prospect of immediate and relatively high quality "knock-offs" entering the market soon after they introduce a product, what motivation do they have to spend the money to do R&D, product development, marketing and production tooling?

Now given, I don't think that is what is occurring here. I have a hard time understanding how these lawsuits are being won. First of all, the application of trademark protection to a body shape seems to me to be thin at best. Second, trademarks in particular are considered void if they are not constantly and actively protected. If this does not happen consistently, they are considered abandoned. To me a body shape seems like it would have to be a design patent, which would expire 17 years (I think this is the old number, this might have been extended recently) after the original patent was granted. Clearly any patent on these vintage designs has long since expired. It is this part of the law that I think is valid and should be respected and enforced. The IP protection provided by a patent is part of what fuels our innovative economy.

Now for the ugly part: Although the spirit of patent law is noble, the practical application of it leaves much to be desired. I was recently involved in an episode where a foreign partner company of my company was sued in an international trade case. They way the suit was designed, by trying the case in this court the validity of the patent was not challenged. As one of the technical people involved I became very intimate with the details and it was clear to me that the patent that was the heart of this case was clearly not being infringed and was probably not even valid. But the very shrewd lawyers of this very large conglomerate (you?d know them but I won?t mention the name) had figured this stuff out and they were successful in barring the ?infringing? products from being imported. Clearly, in this case justice was not served. And, in fact, the original decision was subsequently overturned based on countersuits brought where the validity of the patent was considered, but not before we spent millions of dollars and lost years of sales opportunities. Also, the patent review process seems to be broken, and many patents that are issued are basically crap.

I think the Gibson situation is similar to this. Shrewd corporate lawyers are looking for work-arounds to extend their protection beyond its? originally designed limits.

What is also troubling to me is Gibson?s policy of severely limiting their distributor?s ability to market their products by not allowing them to post pictures of guitars anywhere. What are these guys afraid of? Don?t they think their reputation speaks for itself (or could anyway)? I?ve got a couple of Tokais. I?ve also got a couple of Fenders and a couple of Gibsons including a high end R9. Of course, I didn?t pay full price for it and I got it used. I think this is the heart of it. Gibson wants to limit high end competition so they can continue to charge the outrageous prices for their custom shop models.

One has to be careful not to consider any kind of IP litigation like this as a case of ?The Man? trying to keep the little guy down. IP protection is a useful and essential part of our economy. But alas, like anything else when abused it becomes a problem.

I'll sign.


PS: Does anyone have a link to the article metioned above? I tried to find it on VG's web site but couldn't.

Guitar God
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:43 am
Location: my room

Post by chrislpp » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:08 pm

gibson do(did) make good guitars, now they see people just suck up to them so they can charge whatever the f"$k they like

2 and a half grand ($5000) for a pretty shite Black beauty to me????

Wtf? that is such a joke, it had that blunt dampened Gibson tone that all the standards have........
Rohypnol Rehab Advice
Last edited by chrislpp on Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply