Gibson and Intellectual Property

[wengr]

Legislation can be free and it can cost millions. It depends on how much your senator or representative charge in their "pay to play" scam (also known euphemistically as "campaign financing").

And therefore we stop crafting and tweaking legislation?

[John A.]

No fan here of Henry - just pointing out that the thought that if anyone with a cnc could not impersonate them and grab market share, maybe they would be better positioned to weather his various buffoonery.

But that's not really the history of the phenomenon. It starts back with the CBS and Norlin take-overs and messing up the guitars themselves. That opened the door to copies that were _better_ (e.g., Fernandes vs Fender) and to better mouse-traps like Hamer and PRS. If not for the volute, 3-bolt neck, and bullet trussrod, we might not be having any of these discussions. Subsequently, Gibson and Fender solved their quality problems, launched their offshore knock-off brands (in multiple tiers) to reclaim different tiers of market share, and established the US-made instruments as the premium versions. The revolutions in CNC-based manufacturing and international logistics happened AFTER this was pretty well advanced. But when it did, consumers knew the difference between the different segments and have sorted themselves accordingly. That $400 Vintage V100 is highly unlikely to be sold at the expense of a $3000 LP Standard, though it might be costing Epiphone a sale. But even there, you have to look at other confounding factors -- e.g., Gibson's onerous dealer agreements. Maybe if the terms were more reasonable, Epiphone would be hanging on the wall in that independent rural store, but it seems more likely that Gibson Inc is not interested in that sale in the first place. I'm not saying that there's no effect of this form of copying, but to actually demonstrate it quantitatively, strikes me as very difficult.

Going back to the original subject, in that context, I think the narrow headstock trademarking has protected these makers just fine. And I think you're advancing a point that doesn't hold up particularly well.

John

[wengr]

But that's not really the history of the phenomenon. It starts back with the CBS and Norlin take-overs and messing up the guitars themselves. That opened the door to copies that were _better_ (e.g., Fernandes vs Fender) and to better mouse-traps like Hamer and PRS. If not for the volute, 3-bolt neck, and bullet trussrod, we might not be having any of these discussions. Subsequently, Gibson and Fender solved their quality problems, launched their offshore knock-off brands (in multiple tiers) to reclaim different tiers of market share, and established the US-made instruments as the premium versions. The revolutions in CNC-based manufacturing and international logistics happened AFTER this was pretty well advanced. But when it did, consumers knew the difference between the different segments and have sorted themselves accordingly. That $400 Vintage V100 is highly unlikely to be sold at the expense of a $3000 LP Standard, though it might be costing Epiphone a sale. But even there, you have to look at other confounding factors -- e.g., Gibson's onerous dealer agreements. Maybe if the terms were more reasonable, Epiphone would be hanging on the wall in that independent rural store, but it seems more likely that Gibson Inc is not interested in that sale in the first place. I'm not saying that there's no effect of this form of copying, but to actually demonstrate it quantitatively, strikes me as very difficult.

Going back to the original subject, in that context, I think the narrow headstock trademarking has protected these makers just fine. And I think you're advancing a point that doesn't hold up particularly well.

John

This is a series of straw man arguments.
Firstly, it has nothing to do with Norlin and changes they decided to make to their own product. If Norlin guitars opened the door to ibanez and others, that is happenstance, and in no way should be any factor in the question of whether designers should be protected from bandwagon impersonators.

Second, the history of cnc is irrelevant to the question at hand. I mentioned cnc because as it stands, anyone with the tool can appropriate these valuable designs. Or anyone else for that matter.

Third straw man - who said anything about $3k Les Pauls? Completely irrelevant. Gibson has a Gibson branded les paul piece of crap which streets at a similar price to Vintage, et al.

But lastly, you have made my point much better than I myself have by bringing up Epi.

Yes Epiphone, the brand which gibson has held for the purpose of meeting lower price points without cannibalizing their domestic output, is exactly the instrument that is passed over for product like the Vintage line etc. Btw, there is nothing rural about the Wilkes Barre/Scranton region, the third largest metro region in Penna. Actually, five miles away there is guitar center, where Epis collect dust while sales are made on all this other crap.
And Gibson not interested in selling Epi Lp's - really?
It is what it is, and at the end of the day I can't get too upset about whatever happens to Gibson, but the idea that lax protections for these makers has not been very detrimental is crazy.