Judge throws out Gibson's claim that Dean is in contempt of court

[Mandolin Cafe]

Judge throws out Gibson's claim that Dean is in contempt of court

[oldwave maker]

Only email I ever got from Charlie D said I could no longer use their flowerpot. My next one was pipestone/abalone. No complaints......yet!

[MikeEdgerton]

Only email I ever got from Charlie D said I could no longer use their flowerpot. My next one was pipestone/abalone. No complaints......yet!

Very subtle and hysterical actually.

[MikeEdgerton]

Despite its victory, Gibson was awarded just $4,000 in damages, a mere fraction of the $7 million it sought.

It cost GIbson more than that in the first few billable hours from the attorney's they hired to file this suit.

[Bob Buckingham]

Gibson has lost its mojo.

[sunburst]

“Gibson can now focus attention on continuing to leverage its iconic past..."

...no big surprise that the focus is apparently not on building instruments...

[TheMandoKit]

Sounds like the motion for contempt was mooted by the parties actions/resolution outside of court, so the dismissal is not surprising.

More importantly, I've seen Bill's flowerpot inlay before, and I like it more each time I do.

[thumbknuckle]

Gibson has lost its mojo.

Yes.

I love my old Gibson guitars and I am glad Gibson survives along with the craftspeople/ employees.

Still, when I hear 'Gibson' I remember Frank Zappa singing, to the strains of 'Midnight Sun'...

"...strictly commercial..."

[rcc56]

I've decided to take the pledge on making comments about Gibson's activities.
Wish me luck.

[thumbknuckle]

I've decided to take the pledge on making comments about Gibson's activities.
Wish me luck.

The right thing to do, of course.

Good Luck!

[Southern Man]

Bad headline. Implies that the judge decided Gibson's claims were not meritorious. Which is not what happened

[MikeEdgerton]

Bad headline. Implies that the judge decided Gibson's claims were not meritorious. Which is not what happened

Correct, after all he did award them $4,000.00. Surely that has to carry some weight.

[Jeff Mando]

This keeps getting brought up again and again in one form or another. A couple thoughts...

First, $4K probably only pays for about a week of "big time" lawyer fees in a complaint that has taken years.

Second, Gibson's timing is off in bringing up the complaint, IMHO. We have become accustomed to "generic" copies of most everything consumable. Especially, Les Paul shapes, Flying V shapes, Explorer shapes, Strat and Tele shapes, etc., to the point it is no longer considered news. At an earlier time, it might have been more relevant in the public eye. Today, apathy abounds. I am old enough to recall the German import Opal GT was criticized for being a nearly exact copy of the current Corvette when first offered, at least as the body shape was concerned. In my view, playing a copy of a Gibson only makes the player desire a REAL Gibson.

Lastly, this generations criticism of Gibson's current corporate etiquette has ZERO bearing on how great their instruments from 100 years ago were and ARE STILL to players. In a sense, Gibson has become guilty of "cloning themselves" in an attempt to reissue their glory days, IMHO.

[Verne Andru]

I know I'm in a minority here but I find this legal case to be poorly understood, a situation exacerbated by the poorly written linked article and the misleading title of this thread.

Here's what the link actually says:

The new order, issued by Mazzant, states that “the parties informed the Court that they had resolved almost all the issues raised in Gibson’s contempt motions”, adding, “any new arguments that were raised in the pending motion were resolved by the parties”.

I'm not seeing where the judge made a decision like the title of this thread implies. The parties consented to deal with the issue between them and the contempt motion became moot - this is a civil case so if the parties have lawfully settled the court has no business interfering.

And the last sentence states:

Despite its victory, Gibson was awarded just $4,000 in damages, a mere fraction of the $7 million it sought.

but that relates to the earlier case, not the one about contempt. From my understanding of the first case the court found in Gibson's favor on all points of law; Dean was found guilty and fined for making counterfeits.

The low quantum of damages reflects the court's wish that Gibson had moved sooner and more aggressively against Dean. Had they done that I would imagine the anti-Gibson vitriol would be magnitudes greater than it has been.

There are no "wins" for Dean in any of this. Gibson carried the day and the courts followed the laws in upholding their intellectual property rights.

Dean was blatantly violating another company's legal IP rights. I find it amazing they are given a pass for behavior normally found abhorrent - i.e. theft.

[thumbknuckle]

This article in 'Forbes' might be of interest.

Be sure to check out the link embedded in the 5th paragraph
about A.O. Appleton's pre-Les Paul-Les Paul.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/william...guitar-shapes/

Gibson is owned by KKR & Co.
Hard to see those guys as victims.

Still love my 1924 L-2 though!

[mandocrucian]

Flower pots, vines, inlays, etc.:

I'm sure if one was to spend enough time doing image searches of Art Nouveau images (Mucha, Grasset, Beardsley, Privat-Livemont, Wm Morris, Walter Crane etc. etc.) from the 1880s > 1910, you could probably find direct copying of design motifs - Putting it in THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

(I painted a version of Privat-Livemont's "Absinthe" poster on my rectangular mando case back in 1986. Beside the decorative motive, I wanted something that would stand out to identify my case at nighttime festival (inebriated) jams where there might by 4 or 5 nearly identical black rectangular cases. I always had a phobia that I would check the case in the car and that it wasn't mine, and my instrument had been picked up, whether mistakenly or intentionally, and was on its way to OH or KY.)

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.7954...,f8f8f8.u1.jpg