Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 65 of 65

Thread: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

  1. #51
    Registered User Tom Haywood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    PTC GA
    Posts
    1,348

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    In the Armadillo (Dean) case outcome last month (as reported in the news). a Texas jury apparently found that Dean violated Gibson's body shape trademarks on 3 guitars, as well as the headstock shape on a 4th and the name on a 5th. It is not clear from the reporting whether they determined that Dean counterfeited Gibson guitars. But the shapes and name are not generic and are protected as trademarks. However...... The jury awarded zero ($0.00) actual damages to Gibson, on the basis that Gibson's delay in asserting it's trademark rights was "inexcusable" and caused undue prejudice to Armadillo. The statutory award for winning the case was $4,000.00. That will all likely be some kind of precedent in other cases.

    Both sides claimed this as a victory. The Gibson spokesman is quoted as saying, “Gibson can now focus attention on continuing to leverage its iconic past, and invest in future innovation, with confidence.”

    IMO, "leveraging it's iconic past" explains where they are going.

    Heritage's private antitrust claim may likely not be a winning proposition. However, they have the financial resources to play ball with Gibson for the full nine innings, and that does make a difference.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tom Haywood For This Useful Post:


  3. #52

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    From what I understand of the Dean case the jury did in fact find Dean guilty of counterfeiting Gibson product.

    It basically came down to this - Gibson created the designs, used them in commerce, filed for and received registered trademarks which the jury upheld as valid.

    The time to challenge Gibson was when they were registering their trademarks via an opposition. Failing that they could have filed for a cancellation within 10 years of the registration date, which didn't happen either.

    Crying foul because of an apparently long delay on Gibson's part comes across as a bit disingenuous when the accusing party is knowingly and boastfully making copies of Gibson's product which they are actively selling to Gibson's customers through the same channels of trade. As a creator myself I have a fundamental problem with the thinking behind that.

    As I look back over the past 100 years or so, there was a distinct point in time when counterfeiting came on the scene. That was sometime in the 1970s and 80s to be fueled by the internet. Prior to that every company made an attempt to be unique - Harmony was different from Valco was different from Fender was different from Gibson and etc.

    Even the period of early Japanese Teisco imports were unique designs. They lifted features from all the others, but they didn't begin as direct copies like we have today. The UK had Burns and Italy was happy making up stuff nobody else would possibly think of.

    When I look at the acoustic mandolin crowd, I see a group of independent luthiers dedicated to their craft. Part of that involves learning from the best by emulating them and I'm sure many aspire to a full-time job making F-5s for a steady paycheck.

    Encouraging independents by not cracking down on them was in Gibson's interest as it helped foster a talent pool for them to draw on - nothing every other industry sector doesn't do. Some of those independents grew into competitors as they became successful, but their underlying IP is lifted directly from Gibson. Those independents are now parties to the current litigation, so this has been in the mail for some time.

    As I noted earlier, the internet has dramatically changed the trademark landscape as they are now being used as the basis for holding and using virtual business assets, which are mandatory for staying in business for the foreseeable future.

    These are good days for trademark attorneys.
    VerneAndru.com | oKee.ComX

    - ---==< V >==--- -

  4. #53
    Moderator MikeEdgerton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    26,874

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    I don't recall seeing shape for shape copies of known guitars until the late 60's and they came with advent of imported guitars from Japan when suddenly thernt company Norlin purchased a distributor in Oregon that was importing Gibson copies so they could get a foot hold into the game and start importing their own copies.
    Last edited by MikeEdgerton; Jun-21-2022 at 11:43am.
    "It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
    --M. Stillion

    "Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
    --J. Garber

  5. #54

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    The game of copying and counterfeiting started when corporate marketeering droids took over Gibson and Martin and those companies started making awful products that were no longer good instruments. As the sales and marketeers will tell you it does not matter if they are selling a computer chip or potato chip it is all the same. Marketeering and promotion schemes took precedence over making a good and useful product. Cut costs to the bone on the production and development side and milk the name in a branding exercise. 1970s Martins and Gibsons do not hold much value even today. Overseas makers could produce copies of that same poor level of product for a much lower price.

    That also left an opening for small makers who made counterfeits and copies of the instruments from the era when they actually made good instruments, such as the 1920s mandolins and 1930s Martins. Chris Martin saw this as a bad path. He took the company back and returned it to making good and excellent instruments. Martin is not having to depend on lawsuits to protect their name.

    No one, including Gibson, knows exactly what they are trying to accomplish. I wonder what would happen if they took the money poured into lawsuits and acquisitions and fancy headquarters buildings and put it into producing consistently great instruments? We will probably never know.

  6. #55

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    Alessi mentions the Loar archtops of the 20's. So suppose someone builds a copy of one of those, an early L5? (it's been done). Gibson doesn't currently make that or plan to (unless by chance there was suddenly a big demand for them).
    The way I see it that's exactly what the earliest F5 copy builder were doing. Gibson didn't make that anymore. They were building replicas of a long gone instrument to fill a small but growing demand that Gibson had no interest in.
    The import copies were intended to ride the wave of popularity of Gibsons instruments. The mandolin market wasn't like that.

  7. #56
    Registered User sunburst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    15,863

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    To some extent whether Gibson or Dean or Heritage or whomever has the law on their side, whether patents or copyrights are deserved, have been defended or not or should be challenged in a court of law... basically whatever the legal situation is is beside the point. There is pretty good on-line evidence that Gibson is consistently loosing in the court of public opinion. How much public opinion affects the bottom line, I don't know, but for a company that makes consumer products (guitars etc.) and sells them to the public, putting more effort into improving those products and less into alienating said public seems like better policy to me, but...what do I know...

  8. The following members say thank you to sunburst for this post:


  9. #57
    Teacher, repair person
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Southeast Tennessee
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    You must know something-- you're still in business, and so far as I know you haven't gone bankrupt, nor are people saying not-so-nice things about you.

    In the long run, I think that Gibson is going to lose, even if they win some of their court cases. So far, they've lost more cases than they've won.

    And, for the record, I do support their efforts to do whatever they can to stop the imported counterfeits that have Gibson logos and labels. I've seen some of those instruments, and they are true forgeries or counterfeits in the literal sense of the word. That kind of activity absolutely should be curtailed as much as possible.

    But suing everyone who makes 13" single cut solidbodies and double-cut semi-hollowbodies that have different appointments than a Gibson product is not the same thing. And for the record, Gretsch and Guild were making such instruments as far back as the 1950's. At that time, Gibsons outsold them. Why?? Because the Gibsons were better instruments. If that's not necessarily true today, it's Gibson's own fault for not maintaining good quality control and competitive prices. The constant flurry of lawsuits are a much more recent phenomenon.

  10. #58

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton View Post
    I don't recall seeing shape for shape copies of known guitars until the late 60's and they came with advent of imported guitars from Japan when suddenly thernt company Norlin purchased a distributor in Oregon that was importing Gibson copies so they could get a foot hold into the game and start importing their own copies.
    That makes sense and is consistent with business practices of the day.

    Back then there was no internet, computers and no ability to stop counterfeits at the border. Everything was done on paper. Today there is a registry businesses can use that automatically flags counterfeits at the points of entry making enforcement much easier. It actually makes enforcement possible for the first time now as the tools simply didn't exist when this was all going down.

    The entry of imports from Japan in the late 60s was a game changer for the industry. It created a race to the bottom on price with quality across the board suffering, so it wasn't just Gibson. Horror stories around Fenders horrible product as well. The Stratocaster was something easily copied and it remains hugely popular so it is probably ground zero. Dean is basically a continuation of that selling Asian made counterfeits and pushing the window on what they could get away with.

    I remember reading an article that one of the main reason's Gibson's mandolin quality suffered was due to the long, slow introduction of machinery on the shop floor. This apparently created so much noise-pollution that makers couldn't hear the instruments leading to the poor builds many complain about from the period.

    A company does make a Loar era knock-off of Gibson's L5 and that is The Loar. Which brings me to something that may be worth tossing out.

    As I understand it Greg Rich is a former Gibson builder who ventured on his own. His first product was the Paris Swing line of mandolins with some Selmer-styled guitars. I found the products to be thoughtfully designed, well priced and made. They retained the basic elements of Gibson's mandolins but with enough individuation in the design to not cause a problem.

    But Paris Swing was not successful and the brand went away.

    Greg's next venture was The Loar. In that case he used his skills to create direct counterfeits of Gibson L5 guitars and F5 mandolins. Those have been very successful and generally well thought of.

    In a way Mr. Rich is a case study in how the various forces are at odds. On the one hand if you make something unique that keeps you safe from the lawyers the market shuns it yet, if you take a chance and sell counterfeits the market embraces it but you're left with a looming legal liability that can put you out of business.
    VerneAndru.com | oKee.ComX

    - ---==< V >==--- -

  11. #59

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    No, the sole reason mandolin as well as guitar quality suffered was that the company was bought out, as was Fender and Martin by corporate entities who were focused on a marketing and branding exercise to milk the name and goodwill and had no interest in making good instruments. They were there just to drain as much profit out as possible, all other considerations cast aside. Not a unique problem to the musical instrument industry.

    Machinery had been on the shop floor at Gibson since the 1920s or earlier. They were not hand building then suddenly introduce machinery in the 1960s. The quality reduction was designed into the instruments. Tops were made heavier to allow them to be churned out. Heavy finishes were put on to make the process more dummy proof. Martin had a huge problem with tooling becoming so worn from lack of investment that intonation and geometry was off by miles. Every 70's Martin has had to have the bridge relocated and sometimes a new fingerboard. They were off location right out of the box .

    Martin turned around when Chris Martin took back control of the company and focused on making good instruments while running the company ethically.

    Gibson, Martin and Fender were all at much higher price points than the overseas product. They were not in competition with the Japanese product. The problem was that with the corporate ownership and focus on branding and marketeering instead of producing product, the quality was not there to reflect the higher price. People decided why pay a high price for junk with poor tone and bad intonation no matter how much marketeering was inflicted on them.

  12. #60
    Teacher, repair person
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Southeast Tennessee
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    At least Martin has been working very hard over the past few years to improve the quality of their professional instrument line.

    It was almost as if someone in the front office woke up one day, looked at the sales figures of their competitors, realized that they were losing a lot of business, and figured out that a lot of things had to be addressed.

    Then they made a concerted effort to find out why buyers were going for the other brands, and did what was necessary to improve their own instruments and make them more appealing. Did they try to establish belated trademarks and file suits against Collings and others? No, they addressed their problems, and as a result, their current instruments are much better than they had been for many decades.

  13. #61

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    There was a lot going on in the 1960s and 1970s. I remember it well. The many and varied problems with the MI industry were no different from the rest and trying to enforce trademark rights was so difficult and costly it was always taken as a last resort. Especially for publicly traded companies that are always risk-adverse.

    Post war baby-boomers, who are one of the first populations groups to receive public education hence are literate, forced society through an emancipation period like it hadn't seen since the Suffragettes. The peace, love and understanding of the Summer of Love turned into Kent State, draft dodgers, Nixon's impeachment and etc. - and that was on top of the Kennedy assassinations and putting the first man on the moon. Music was always part of the soundtrack and from country to psychedelia to metal there was a guitar in there somewhere.

    The mass-consumer society was just getting started. My dad, who had been a SS Kresge's store manager till then, was catapulted into managing one of the first K-Mart stores the chain opened in 64 iirc. It was an unheard of expansion of mass-retailing that ballooned through the big box era to be replaced today by Amazon and internet retailing that sees no borders and is open 24/7. That was the beginning of globalization that was enabled and supported by business, education and government and globalization stresses bigger is better. "Think local, act global" was the mantra.

    Gibson and Fender were part of what was going on at that time. Mergers and acquisitions are always part of the corporate playbook. In Gibson's case, it started out in the late 1800s as a corporation, so nothing has changed in that regard. Fender went through it's various ownership travails and is now a mega-corp producing a vast line of quality product at competitive pricing. As is Epiphone, a Gibson owned company, so it's not all doom and gloom. Instruments coming out today are consistently better designed, built and priced than ever before belying the assertion that corporate run guitar companies are inherently bad.

    That said I've managed companies that have gone from seed to public offering and will state unequivocally that it is the best way to destroy the soul of a company. The focus always shifts from product and service to stock value with decisions being made accordingly. That's why I value companies like Rickenbacker that prove you can put out a quality product, remain a private company and stay in business over the long term.
    VerneAndru.com | oKee.ComX

    - ---==< V >==--- -

  14. #62

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    A conceptual note on trademark rights might help some misconceptions.

    Consider that when you go into a store and purchase a beautiful F-5 mandolin and take it home you own that mandolin. It is your property which is protected by the various and sundry property right laws and regulations that exist. With proof of ownership in hand, you are free to play your mandolin whenever you wish (circumstances permitting).

    You are also free to not play your mandolin if you so choose. Some may argue leaving such a beautiful mandolin in its case is not right. It must be played to be appreciated.

    But it's your right to do with your property as you see fit and if that means not playing your mandolin, that's your right as the property owner.

    Now consider the shape of that beautiful F-5 mandolin. Under existing laws Gibson earned trademark rights the moment they started using that shape in commerce as a source identifier. Registration has always been optional but Gibson did go through the bother to get the shape put on the federal register and have the receipts to prove it.

    Gibson decides to take the F-5 mandolin off the market. As a company that has been in business since before electrification and Henry Ford's Model T, Gibson has made various decisions as to what products to offer and when based on market conditions and business circumstances. Some products sell well at some times, others at others. There are no absolutes in marketing - you are constantly moving with market forces that show themselves over time. There has been no precedent because Gibson and Fender (and you and I) are making history as we live it, so industry norms are/were whatever Gibson and the others were doing at the time.

    Now consider that intellectual property rights are deemed by the courts to be the same as any other property right. That means that owning a physical mandolin has the same rights as owning the trademark for that mandolin shape.

    Both are considered property under the law. The difference between the two is that ownership of a mandolin is ownership of a tangible, ownership of a trademark is ownership of an intangible. A trademark is an "association" which can be hard to envision as a tangible piece of property, but that's how the courts view it.

    Notwithstanding those differences, just like I have no right to go into your house and play your F-5 mandolin because I believe it should be played, I have no right to make counterfeits of Gibson's trademarked designs for personal gain. Both are wrong legally as well as morally.
    VerneAndru.com | oKee.ComX

    - ---==< V >==--- -

  15. #63
    harvester of clams Bill McCall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Forest Grove, Oregon
    Posts
    2,775

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    Quote Originally Posted by Verne Andru View Post
    There was a lot going on in the 1960s and 1970s. I remember it well. The many and varied problems with the MI industry were no different from the rest and trying to enforce trademark rights was so difficult and costly it was always taken as a last resort. Especially for publicly traded companies that are always risk-adverse.

    Post war baby-boomers, who are one of the first populations groups to receive public education hence are literate, forced society through an emancipation period like it hadn't seen since the Suffragettes. The peace, love and understanding of the Summer of Love turned into Kent State, draft dodgers, Nixon's impeachment and etc. - and that was on top of the Kennedy assassinations and putting the first man on the moon. Music was always part of the soundtrack and from country to psychedelia to metal there was a guitar in there somewhere.

    The mass-consumer society was just getting started. My dad, who had been a SS Kresge's store manager till then, was catapulted into managing one of the first K-Mart stores the chain opened in 64 iirc. It was an unheard of expansion of mass-retailing that ballooned through the big box era to be replaced today by Amazon and internet retailing that sees no borders and is open 24/7. That was the beginning of globalization that was enabled and supported by business, education and government and globalization stresses bigger is better. "Think local, act global" was the mantra.

    Gibson and Fender were part of what was going on at that time. Mergers and acquisitions are always part of the corporate playbook. In Gibson's case, it started out in the late 1800s as a corporation, so nothing has changed in that regard. Fender went through it's various ownership travails and is now a mega-corp producing a vast line of quality product at competitive pricing. As is Epiphone, a Gibson owned company, so it's not all doom and gloom. Instruments coming out today are consistently better designed, built and priced than ever before belying the assertion that corporate run guitar companies are inherently bad.

    That said I've managed companies that have gone from seed to public offering and will state unequivocally that it is the best way to destroy the soul of a company. The focus always shifts from product and service to stock value with decisions being made accordingly. That's why I value companies like Rickenbacker that prove you can put out a quality product, remain a private company and stay in business over the long term.
    There’s so much wrong here, but:

    Martin has been family owned since 1833.
    Gibson was formed in 1904 when Orville was bought out.
    Sears and Wards really started mass consumerization with catalog sales in the late 19th century. Any farmer could buy a house, mail order.

    Companies change, succeed and fail for a wide variety of reasons. Internal and external factors compete for the prime role of destruction.

    I really don’t care if Gibson or any other maker succeeds or fails. Clearly Gibson’s history has shown other people will fill any niche they abandon, or build a better mousetrap. It’s the way things work.
    Not all the clams are at the beach

    Arrow Manouche
    Arrow Jazzbo
    Arrow G
    Clark 2 point
    Gibson F5L
    Gibson A-4
    Ratliff CountryBoy A

  16. #64
    Teacher, repair person
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Southeast Tennessee
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    For those who don't know, Chris Martin is retiring. He has stepped down as CEO. For the time being, he is maintaining his position as chairman of the board. How long he will keep doing that is something that we don't know.
    His daughter is just turning college age, and at least at this point in her life, is not interested in taking over the business.
    We may seeing the end of Martin being a family run business.

    During the 1930's, a company that had been an independent banjo manufacturer learned to make very good arch top guitars and became Gibson's number one competitor. That company was called Epiphone. They survived the Great Depression and WWII, but were unable to adapt to the changes in consumer demand that occurred in the 1950's. Gibson bought them in 1957, and in 1970 became a name that was slapped on student grade imported instruments. So it goes in the instrument business. It would be ironic if Gibson followed the same course as Epiphone.
    Last edited by rcc56; Jun-21-2022 at 9:31pm.

  17. #65

    Default Re: Gibson Must Now Face Antitrust Litigation in Heritage Case

    Corporate ownership is not inherently bad. Corporate ownership where the marketeering tail wags the dog is inherently bad. A company that maintains an appropriate balance between making a profit, treating employees well and producing a decent, worthwhile product while behaving lawfully and ethically is a value to society. A company, like many today, that preaches the sole purpose of running a business is to make a profit and that lets marketeers take over, treating all other aspects of the business, like production and product development, as waste and a cost burden, as is taught in most business schools today, is a detriment. I have seen that approach ruin several businesses including employers who explicitly said those things. That is what happened to Gibson as well as Fender and Martin during the 1970s.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •