# Gibson threaten to sue Tom Anderson for Bulldog design



## JP Universe (Mar 14, 2015)

The Bulldog is no more....

http://andersonforum.com/board/showt...ed=1#post77707

Seriously Gibson!!!??? So glad I've never bought one!


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 14, 2015)

I'm getting a 404 on that link. Is it just me?


----------



## Edika (Mar 14, 2015)

Me too. Gibson even shut down the Tom Anderson forum and any discussion about this. I expect this thread to dissappear in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 14, 2015)

Anderson Guitar Forum - Sponsored By Northeast Music Center Inc - View Single Post - Bulldog disappointment...



> Supreme Commander of the Anderson Empire
> Join Date: Oct 2003
> Location: thousand oaks, CA
> Posts: 9,357
> ...


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 14, 2015)

Well, that's interesting, because the LP shape is often one of the ones brought up when talking about people copying designs. It's always, "Well, every company makes a Les Payl knock off, and nobody cares, so why can't we make a Blackmachine knock off." Welp, looks like Gibson cares! The real issue probably was that Tom Anderson is thought of as higher quality than Gibson, and that would eat into the sales of their expensive models.


----------



## Discoqueen (Mar 14, 2015)

Edit: sorry Holloway, you ninja'd me

^ honestly, with how many Bulldogs I've been seeing lately, I could see why Gibson really had to get agressive in the matter. Just kidding. Gibson should stop looking at other people's production lines and really concentrate on their's. That way maybe if I buy another one in the future I won't have to fix the nut, or worry about the truss rod not working, or oil the fret board right out of the box, or clean it for that matter because they didn't because they were too busy getting their panties in a bunch over a small company building a single-cut model. /rant
Honestly, though, the Custom Shop needs to get their shit together.


----------



## Slunk Dragon (Mar 14, 2015)

If a small-time luthier can build a better product at a lower cost than your mass-produced guitars, which sometimes cost over twice as much, then I think that speaks for itself.


----------



## fogcutter (Mar 14, 2015)

That's a shame, honestly. But it officially puts Gibson firmly into the business model of selling expensive lifestyle accessories, not guitars. If they had interest in the the growth and success of the music gear industry overall, they wouldn't take actions like this. The reason I say that is because they are doing nothing to defend themselves and their designs, they are only doing this to harm other businesses in order to defend a perceived "competitive advantage". 

Anyone reading this forum would never be confused as to who makes a better guitar. Gibson's only move at this point is to maintain and promote their "cool factor" in order to sell their brand. 

Last weekend, I saw a Gibson Custom Shop Ace Frehley model in a local shop for 38,000 SGD (about 27k USD). It was relic'ed and the neck pickup was mushed down into the mounting ring. For me, that's a clear illustration of whatever it is they are doing with their company.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Mar 14, 2015)

I think this sort of thing will big to see Gibson come unstuck. Modern guitar music is so diverse as to prevent an 'old guard' company from monopolising market share and Gibson don't have the reputation they used to in the hands of great players. Eventually the lawyers and doctors who are buying R9s these days are going to get arthritis and stop playing, leaving Gibson without a target audience as the next generation of lawyers and doctors will be after an original vintage Petrucci 

Gibson need to work on quality guitars not quality law suits, or maybe Gibson's lawyers will get their own signature models for other lawyers to,lust after?


----------



## RevelGTR (Mar 14, 2015)

Sucks that Gibson does stuff like this, especially to a great company like Anderson. As far as the above, I can confidently say that Gibson will never stop being popular. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Vhyle (Mar 14, 2015)

Gibson is now 27% more stupid.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 14, 2015)

If a luthier was selling a guitar with a shape that was a slightly modified Strandberg Boden without getting a license from Ola, would everyone still react the same if Ola sent them a cease and desist?

And I do mean _slightly_. I mean, let's be real here:






That's not just a singlecut with a passing resemblance to an LP.

Seriously, what do people advocate Gibson does? They have a trademarked product, should they ignore infringement from other companies? It's odd that a group that's normally so vocal about an artist's rights to profit from their own work gets so riled up when a company defends trademarks on their own designs. 

I mean, I get that bashing on Gibson is what all the cool kids are doing these days, but where and how exactly do you people draw the line on when artistic "borrowing" or "influence" are okay and when they aren't? I'm not being rhetorical, I'd really like to know what's so bad about this, versus any other company doing the same thing.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 14, 2015)

Slunk Dragon said:


> If a small-time luthier can build a better product at a lower cost than your mass-produced guitars, which sometimes cost over twice as much, then I think that speaks for itself.




You can get a Gibson LP for _way_ less than pretty much anything Anderson makes.


----------



## Vhyle (Mar 14, 2015)

I don't know. I just wanted to make a 27% joke. 

I've never liked Gibson anyway, even before it became cool to dislike them.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Mar 14, 2015)

Gibsons won't stop selling Les Pauls because of the Bulldog. Corporate America, praise Jebus.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 14, 2015)

Yeah, I am also of the opinion that Gibson is well within their rights to request a cease and desist, and I don't fault them for that at all. I don't think that absolves them of having to work on their quality, though. But with respect to IP, if you don't draw the line here, where DO you draw it?


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 14, 2015)

I love Gibson and play one regularly. 
Haters gonna hate - a Gibson.
Players gonna play - a Gibson.


----------



## neurosis (Mar 14, 2015)

Gibson is a huge corporation and to be honest whether we like it or not they also own some of the designs that created this market to begin with. I will give them shit for their current quality control every day but in this case they are just doing what they have done with every other company before, all along. 

This particular Anderson model really didn´t move away from the original LP design enough to argue that they are different designs. If you changed the headstock on this thing it would actually look like a LP. I think they could easily do some tweaks all around and actually make the Bulldog an improved take on the Paula and not just their own take on it. 

Anderson is an amazing company and I am sure they can figure it out and make more original designs than what they have. 

Let´s be honest here... you can see a Caparison Angelus or certain Mayos have a similar aesthetic to a PRS but they are not the same design. In this case the Bulldog looks exactly like a Les Paul.


----------



## shadowlife (Mar 14, 2015)

So how come Heritage can keep making guitars that are basically *exact copies* of Gibsons?

Are they owned by Gibson?
Do they pay some sort of licensing fee?


----------



## bhakan (Mar 14, 2015)

Personally my gripe with these types of lawsuits from Gibson isn't that they are protecting their shapes, because they have every right to, but because they leave gaps in the market and then sue anyone who tries to fill them. Gibson should totally continue to police copies, because that's their right as a company who created the shapes, but they should take some pages from those who they shut down sometimes. An old example is with the ESP MX series. It was totally a copy of an '84 explorer, which Gibson has every right to shut down, but then Gibson refuses to make '84 reissues. I just want an '84 style explorer, and ESP offered a great option. Then it got shut down, and all Gibson had as an alternative was one year of limited production '84 reissues which had rampant QC issues.


----------



## Black Mamba (Mar 14, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim is right on the money. + Rep if we still had it. 

It baffles me that just because Gibson is a large successful company, in the minds of some people; they're in the wrong for doing this.


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 14, 2015)

bhakan said:


> Personally my gripe with these types of lawsuits from Gibson isn't that they are protecting their shapes, because they have every right to, but because they leave gaps in the market and then sue anyone who tries to fill them. Gibson should totally continue to police copies, because that's their right as a company who created the shapes, but they should take some pages from those who they shut down sometimes. An old example is with the ESP MX series. It was totally a copy of an '84 explorer, which Gibson has every right to shut down, but then Gibson refuses to make '84 reissues. I just want an '84 style explorer, and ESP offered a great option. Then it got shut down, and all Gibson had as an alternative was one year of limited production '84 reissues which had rampant QC issues.



But its up to Gibson if they want to do a reissue - and if they opt to do one, they shouldn't have to compete against a clone of one of their designs. Also, its not like they aren't making Explorers in both their main line and their import line. I wish Cadillac would make cars that looked they did in the 50s, but I'm also glad they are still making cars all the same.


----------



## vansinn (Mar 14, 2015)

Yup, Gibson of course have the rights to sue copycatters - and the TA in question is, well.. a pretty lookalike cat.
Their need for doing so does bug me, though, having tried stroking their shafts and felt the frets ends - or maybe that's why they feel the need.. 

Now, perhaps if Gibson spend less energy buying up bizzes for their patents (and sometimes shut down, like with the Echoplex looper), and recycled more of this energy on QC, they'd receive more of the old love that actually build their original reputation.
You know, by far most of the music I grew up with through the 60's 70's and 80's were done on Gibsons and Fenders..

Personally, I don't like seeing an otherwise great Icon being watered out [through copycatting]. Like I could buy a Suzuki bike with a V engine; only, it would never feel like a Harley, would it now..
Just a well as I can have distaste for the IP clashes, I likewise could advise other bizzes to spend half their lifetime building their own Iconic reputation - on their own designs.
Sortof goes both ways..


_"A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere."_
-- Groucho Marx


----------



## tedtan (Mar 14, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Seriously, what do people advocate Gibson does? They have a trademarked product, should they ignore infringement from other companies? It's odd that a group that's normally so vocal about an artist's rights to profit from their own work gets so riled up when a company defends trademarks on their own designs.



I wouldn't take issue with Gibson defending an original design like the Flying V or Explorer, but I do with the Les Paul because, shape-wise, it is just an classical guitar with a single cut away and this general shape has been in use prior to Gibson's use of it. Plus, there have been dozens of similar shapes used in the 40's, 50's, 60's, etc. by Gibson's competitors (D'Angelico, Guild, Gretsch, et. al.) where Gibson took no action. And the differences always come down to minor differences in the shapes and relative sizes of the upper and lower bouts and the shape of the horn.




neurosis said:


> In this case the Bulldog looks exactly like a Les Paul.



But it doesn't, though. The lower bout on a Les Paul is round and this is not, it is flatter. Plus, the horn is much rounder than a Les Paul's. And those dot inlays. And the different headstock. These are different enough that I think Tom Anderson would win in a court case, they just don't want to waste the money to do so.


----------



## Mprinsje (Mar 14, 2015)

vansinn said:


> Yup, Gibson of course have the rights to sue copycatters - and the TA in question is, well.. a pretty lookalike cat.
> *Their need for doing so does bug me, though, having tried stroking their shafts and felt the frets ends - or maybe that's why they feel the need.. *
> 
> Now, perhaps if Gibson spend less energy buying up bizzes for their patents (and sometimes shut down, like with the Echoplex looper), and recycled more of this energy on QC, they'd receive more of the old love that actually build their original reputation.
> ...



But why does this bug you? Anderson is making a pretty blatant copy of the LP, These aren't PRS's or ESP eclipses we're talking about here. Sure, gibson might be slacking in the QC department but it's still their product.


----------



## yingmin (Mar 14, 2015)

shadowlife said:


> So how come Heritage can keep making guitars that are basically *exact copies* of Gibsons?
> 
> Are they owned by Gibson?
> Do they pay some sort of licensing fee?



The main Gibson factory used to be in Kalamazoo, Michigan. When they moved to Nashville, some of the builders stayed behind and used the factory to launch Heritage guitars, which is a very fitting name given the circumstances. I'm not sure if the legal status of Heritage is, but I don't recall Gibson ever pursuing them. Maybe Gibson sold them permanent licenses in lieu of a severance package or something.



tedtan said:


> I wouldn't take issue with Gibson defending an original design like the Flying V or Explorer, but I do with the Les Paul because, shape-wise, it is just an classical guitar with a single cut away and this general shape has been in use prior to Gibson's use of it. Plus, there have been dozens of similar shapes used in the 40's, 50's, 60's, etc. by Gibson's competitors (D'Angelico, Guild, Gretsch, et. al.) where Gibson took no action. And the differences always come down to minor differences in the shapes and relative sizes of the upper and lower bouts and the shape of the horn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're really overstating the differences between a Bulldog and a Les Paul, and between a Les Paul and other guitars. The Les Paul design is about much more than the body shape: it's that body shape in mahogany with a carved maple cap, the placement of the toggle switch, the independent volume and tone controls, angled mahogany neck, angled 3x3 headstock, etc. Obviously the body shape is the most important factor, but all of those elements combine to constitute the Les Paul design. In view of all those elements, the differences between a Les Paul and a Bulldog are very minor. ESP used to make guitars that were exact copies of Les Pauls, and after legal action from Gibson, the modern Eclipse is far more distinct. I'd even argue that ESP benefited from the lawsuit inasmuch as it forced them to design something more original which has since become iconic in its own right.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 14, 2015)

Gibson actually sued Heritage in the late '80s, which is apparently why the Heritage LP clone isn't an exact copy.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 14, 2015)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Gibson actually sued Heritage in the late '80s, which is apparently why the Heritage LP clone isn't an exact copy.




The thing is, a company can trademark a name (so long as it doesn't merely describe what they are offering) or a 2-D visual design, but that's all they can do. And, more importantly, different from copyrights or patents, trademarks don't exist to protect a company's IP - they exist to protect consumers.


The purpose of trademarks is to prevent companies from passing off knock off items as the real thing. So if Gibson were to take Anderson to court over this, they would have to:


One, prove that the Anderson design is the same as a Gibson design, or at least close enough to it to fool Gibson's customer base (e.g., guitars buyers, not the general population) (which it is not), AND
that Anderson is deceiving customers into believing that the instruments Anderson makes are the original Gibson instruments.
From a legal perspective, neither has anything to do with the actual Les Paul design, and everything to do with trying to take care of the modern guitar players, so:


Henry Juszkiewicz is a business person, not a musician, luthier, or anyone else who cares about musicians. His purpose is to maximize the money Gibson makes for it's owners. There is nothing wrong with that, but at the same time, let's not pretend that he isn't bullying smaller builders around simply because he has more money to do so with, because that's exactly what he's doing.


The Tom Anderson guitar would probably survive a trial, it just doesn't have a chance to do so because Gibson has $$$,$$$,$$$ and Tom Anderson only has $$,$$$.


As always, this situation comes down to "who has the money and willingness to buy the outcome he wants?"


----------



## tedtan (Mar 14, 2015)

yingmin said:


> You're really overstating the differences between a Bulldog and a Les Paul, and between a Les Paul and other guitars. The Les Paul design is about much more than the body shape: it's that body shape in mahogany with a carved maple cap, the placement of the toggle switch, the independent volume and tone controls, angled mahogany neck, angled 3x3 headstock, etc. Obviously the body shape is the most important factor, but all of those elements combine to constitute the Les Paul design. In view of all those elements, the differences between a Les Paul and a Bulldog are very minor. ESP used to make guitars that were exact copies of Les Pauls, and after legal action from Gibson, the modern Eclipse is far more distinct. I'd even argue that ESP benefited from the lawsuit inasmuch as it forced them to design something more original which has since become iconic in its own right.



No, I am not, because only the name and/or 2-D shape can be trademarked. Everything else is superfluous.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Mar 14, 2015)

tedtan said:


> The Tom Anderson guitar would probably survive a trial, it just doesn't have a chance to do so because Gibson has $$$,$$$,$$$ and Tom Anderson only has $$,$$$.
> 
> 
> As always, this situation comes down to "who has the money and willingness to buy the outcome he wants?"



This is what bugs me, it's not that Gibson has filed a legal action, it's that Anderson don't feel they can afford to meet the legal action. In other words it's not whether they would win or lose, it's that they can't _afford_ to have their day in court


----------



## tedtan (Mar 14, 2015)

_MonSTeR_ said:


> This is what bugs me, it's not that Gibson has filed a legal action, it's that Anderson don't feel they can afford to meet the legal action. In other words it's not whether they would win or lose, it's that they can't _afford_ to have their day in court



Absolutely!

At least in the US, he who has the bigger bank account wins, even if he's not in the right.

Which sucks ass, but is it the way it is, unfortunately.


----------



## JSanta (Mar 14, 2015)

_MonSTeR_ said:


> This is what bugs me, it's not that Gibson has filed a legal action, it's that Anderson don't feel they can afford to meet the legal action. In other words it's not whether they would win or lose, it's that they can't _afford_ to have their day in court



But this is what is literally afforded to huge corporations like Gibson. They don't necessarily have to sue because ongoing litigation is not going to affect them nearly as much as it would a smaller company. 

Just as a note, one of the large tobacco companies actually threatened to sue an African Government. Their GDP is not nearly as large as the annual revenues and decided to stop what they were doing to limit tobacco use.

Right or wrong, this is how it works.


----------



## boogie2 (Mar 15, 2015)

The Bulldog is substantially different than the LP, in many way more so than the PRS single cut (remember the lawsuit that Gibson lost?). In terms of quality, any bulldog is going to be better quality than 99% of the gibsons out there.

Gibson decided to bully a small builder that was building a better guitar than theirs in hopes that the little guy would decide it wasn't worth the time and money it would take to fight a bunch of corporate jerks. They were right and took a competitor that was building a better guitar out of the mix.

I'm through with Gibson, but I'm pretty sure an Anderson 7 string just moved up on my list.

Better sounding and playing guitar than any Gibson and it holds its value better too.


----------



## Black Mamba (Mar 15, 2015)

^ Tom Anderson make absolutely world class instruments; but it sounds like you've never played a really high end Gibson (let alone a vintage piece). Also, whether you love 'em or hate 'em, on the whole; no guitar holds it value better than a Gibson.


----------



## rifftrauma (Mar 15, 2015)

Gibson is the like Comcast of the guitar world....


----------



## wankerness (Mar 15, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> If a luthier was selling a guitar with a shape that was a slightly modified Strandberg Boden without getting a license from Ola, would everyone still react the same if Ola sent them a cease and desist?
> 
> And I do mean _slightly_. I mean, let's be real here:
> 
> ...



Thanks for the pic, after reading all the outrage in this thread I thought the guitar must have looked completely different, but you're right, that is pretty damn close. Gibson might be evil but that guy shouldn't have been surprised.


----------



## boogie2 (Mar 15, 2015)

Black Mamba said:


> ^ Tom Anderson make absolutely world class instruments; but it sounds like you've never played a really high end Gibson (let alone a vintage piece). Also, whether you love 'em or hate 'em, on the whole; no guitar holds it value better than a Gibson.



I bought a used LP Custom (in nice shape) for $1200 bucks a couple years ago. I bet the original owner wasn't impressed. I finally sold it to a buddy because it wasn't getting played at all. I had other guitars that were just a lot better (including my main Anderson Hollow Droptop).


----------



## rikomaru (Mar 15, 2015)

I'm pretty far from being a Gibson fan, but this case seems to be valid.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 16, 2015)

boogie2 said:


> The Bulldog is substantially different than the LP, in many way more so than the PRS single cut



In what ways is it different? I know nothing about the Bulldog other than the pic posted in this thread, and I see that the HS is different, but I honestly would have thought it to be a Gibson were it not for that. Are there other things going on that distinguish it?

EDIT: I just looked up the PRS single cut side by side with the LP. If I were not a savvy guitar buyer I would not be able to tell the difference. I'm glad I was not the lead counsel on defending that case! That would have been a tough one. 
Me: "Your honor, there's only so many shapes you can make a guitar and still have it function."
Judge: "Umm, no, it's wood. There are an infinite number of shapes. Nice try riding Les' coat tails."


----------



## CTID (Mar 16, 2015)

The lower horn is slightly different, the headstock is different, and dot inlays instead of trapezoids.

That's all I've got though. I've heard nothing but fantastic things about Tom Anderson guitars but honestly it's so close to an LP that a cursory glance would probably tell you it was a Gibson. I'm not a fan of Gibson at all but they're in the right here.


----------



## Dooky (Mar 16, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I mean, I get that bashing on Gibson is what all the cool kids are doing these days.


Haha, quote of the month! So true


----------



## absolutorigin (Mar 16, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> In what ways is it different? I know nothing about the Bulldog other than the pic posted in this thread, and I see that the HS is different, but I honestly would have thought it to be a Gibson were it not for that. Are there other things going on that distinguish it?
> 
> EDIT: I just looked up the PRS single cut side by side with the LP. If I were not a savvy guitar buyer I would not be able to tell the difference. I'm glad I was not the lead counsel on defending that case! That would have been a tough one.
> Me: "Your honor, there's only so many shapes you can make a guitar and still have it function."
> Judge: "Umm, no, it's wood. There are an infinite number of shapes. Nice try riding Les' coat tails."



With regards to the court case against PRS, I'm quoting a few different sites with the following information. 

"In the litigation, Gibson alleged that concert goers in a smoky concert hall might not be able to differentiate a PRS Singlecut from a Gibson Les Paul. The appellate court rejected that trademark theory out-of-hand, emphasizing Gibsons concession in court arguments that only an idiot would confuse the two products at the point of sale.

I do agree that with how much these guitars cost it would be idiotic to confuse the two when purchasing. But no doubt the PRS Singlecut is incredibly similar and takes it inspiration from the Les Paul.


----------



## JP Universe (Mar 16, 2015)

I'm starting to think that it's actually now cool to defend Gibson!


----------



## vilk (Mar 16, 2015)

I don't see how you can say a single cutaway guitar is a design in and of itself. I mean, the traditional drednaut shape of a guitar predates the patent system. To make a cutaway on the high end of the guitar is logical, and the shape of a les paul is just one of the most obvious ways to make a playable electric guitar.

Now, to make one with the same switch/knob locations and same headstock and same other stuff I could see calling it a copy. But I don't agree with the idea that what we have come to commonly call the LP guitar shape is something that should "belong" to someone. It's like saying that Ford should be able to sue other companies for putting the brake pedal down on the floor next to the gas.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 16, 2015)

Oh no, a les paul shape not being allowed production. What ever will I do? It's not like there are dozens of other companies that make them or anything. 

I'm sort of indifferent on this. It's kind of shitty, but at the same time if somebody outright plagiarized an explorer or Jackson kelly, then those companies would easily file suit. Like it or not, Gibson thought to legally protect the design first, so it's theirs. Hell, with the headstock not present I thought they were gibsons. They sort of look like those weird cheap knockoffs from third world countries. Not saying they're garbage, but those dot inlays and goofy headstock sort of screams "we're deliberately trying to make money off of someone else's design!"

Dozens of other companies made due, I think this guy can too.


----------



## neurosis (Mar 17, 2015)

tedtan said:


> The thing is, a company can trademark a name (so long as it doesn't merely describe what they are offering) or a 2-D visual design, but that's all they can do. And, more importantly, different from copyrights or patents, trademarks don't exist to protect a company's IP - they exist to protect consumers.
> 
> 
> The purpose of trademarks is to prevent companies from passing off knock off items as the real thing. So if Gibson were to take Anderson to court over this, they would have to:
> ...




This reminds me a lot of the old PRS lawsuit which makes all these points valid. Anderson is not in the same market position as PRS was in those days so I get what you are saying. Same with Heritage if I recall right.

Let´s also not forget ESP with the Eclipse and the four knob versus three knob configurations for the Japanese and American market respectively.

Despite the horn contour I still think the design resembles a Les Paul (like most other branded single cuts do, really) and going back to the earlier post there are plenty of Gibsons with dot inlays  just not necessarily with a maple top like this Bulldog.

I still think there is not much Anderson can do and don´t think Gibson is necessarily wrong in pursuing this. Then again... I just wish they stopped bullshitting around and put the attention where it´s due, which is making guitars. I think the mentality of the company is out of touch with the market... but then again it also does´t help that every new Tom, Dick, and Harry playing guitar wants a Gibson or a Fender. 

Fender changed their ways and started shelling out awesome guitars again. It seems that Gibson are going to be stubborn for a while since they don´t seem to think they have anyone to answer to.


----------



## neurosis (Mar 17, 2015)

absolutorigin said:


> "In the litigation, Gibson alleged that concert goers in a smoky concert hall might not be able to differentiate a PRS Singlecut from a Gibson Les Paul.



This is the best thing I have read in some time. What if is was a warfield? Or an aquarium? 

People must have laughed a lot in that court room, thinking about stoners not telling one guitar apart from the other. You would think if you of into a lawsuit like this you´d be able to prove your point better, hence why the ruling went against them. As you copied after this any idiot in a store can tell them apart.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 17, 2015)

Guys, guys, guys!

"Trademark" is there to protect manufacturers from someone else using their design *in order to fool customers into thinking they are buying another brand.*

If anyone buying this Tom Anderson *thinks he's buying a Gibson* then he's a dumbass.

This is not a patent case, as the patents are expired or irrelevant.

So many are quick to side with Gibson from a legal perspective, but their only legal leg to stand on is expensive attorneys, not actual trademark infringement.

Remember patents are for designs from a functionality perspective and trademarks are for brand identification.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 17, 2015)

I could be wrong but it also covers for people trying to make a look alike product and stealing business by offering somebody else's design at a price the original designer either couldn't or didn't want to afford.

Sort of like someone making prints of somebody else's artwork and selling them without asking the artist for permission. 

I still couldn't care much less. LP's are an overdone shape, and if you want one you have hundreds of options that are both high end and affordable.


----------



## Dooky (Mar 17, 2015)

^ This was my understanding also. Hence why ESP had to stop making the explorer shape gutars and I think they also had to make alterations to the original Eclipse design. PRS had a similar issue with their single cut as well.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 17, 2015)

The Bulldog is also bolt on and a Les Paul is Set Neck. IMHO That is a big difference. Also side by side you can see differences in the body shape.


----------



## Discoqueen (Mar 17, 2015)

Next we'll be reading, "Everyone and their mother being issued a cease and desist for making Telecaster type guitars".


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 17, 2015)

Fender didn't trademark/copyright/whatever the strat or tele body shapes. Anyone that wants to make one can make one. They only protect the headstock designs.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 17, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Fender didn't trademark/copyright/whatever the strat or tele body shapes. Anyone that wants to make one can make one. They only protect the headstock designs.



Fair enough.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 18, 2015)

vilk said:


> I don't see how you can say a single cutaway guitar is a design in and of itself. I mean, the traditional drednaut shape of a guitar predates the patent system. To make a cutaway on the high end of the guitar is logical, and the shape of a les paul is just one of the most obvious ways to make a playable electric guitar.
> But I don't agree with the idea that what we have come to commonly call the LP guitar shape is something that should "belong" to someone. It's like saying that Ford should be able to sue other companies for putting the brake pedal down on the floor next to the gas.



Well, there are LOADS of ways to make a single cutaway that looks nothing like a LP. Look at the Telecaster, for instance. Or any number of single cut shapes from all the different luthiers out there. The Bulldog is an obvious copy of the LP. And most other guitars like this are. But I don't think anyone would dispute that a patent on protecting "all single cut shapes" would be ridiculous. 

And in today's world, a patent on putting the brake pedal next to the gas would be ridiculous, too. But when Ford first made the car, and decided to put the brake pedal just to the left of the gas, there was no such expectation. A break could have been put to the right of it, or where the parking brake is now, or on the steering wheel like a bike, etc. But someone did the work and engineering to come up with that. So they should be able to patent it. 

Bottom line is that patents are pretty narrow in scope. I definitely think the body shape of the Bulldog is too close a copy of the LP to survive a patent lawsuit there. (Although, as has been pointed out, this is a trademark suit, so it's just an academic argument.) But I don't think Gibson suing Fender over the Telecaster would result in a win for Gibson. (Again, a hypothetical argument.) Because the body shapes are too different.

One of the things that pissed me off about Samsung copying Apple's iPhone is that they said that there just wasn't really any other design than a rectangle with a thin right and left bezel and a thick top and bottom bezel, with a speaker at the top and a home button at the bottom. I feel that we, as consumers, were robbed of the opportunity to see different styles of what a smart phone could be. The fact is that most companies are too scared or conservative to put out the capital to truly innovate, and so we all end up with super similar devices. I remember when everyone made computers that were beige plastic. And I HATED that. Then NeXT and a couple of other companies started to experiment with different shapes and colors and materials. I remember when all vacuums looked and worked the same. Then Dyson came along, and now everything looks and works like a Dyson. There is PLENTY of room to innovate, but most people are either not creative or too indolent to bother. 

More on topic, when I see people like Ola Strandberg, the guys at Skervesen, Eric at XEN, Joe Egan, Tom Drinkwater, etc., etc., cranking out novel designs and styles, I get really excited about guitars. It wasn't too long ago that if you wanted a guitar from a luthier you were basically looking at who you wanted to make you a strat, tele, LP, etc. Not to say that Tom Anderson is uncreative - he's obviously catering to a client that wants a LP lookalike that is built better and costs less (?). But "there's only so many shapes that can be made" should never be used as an excuse.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> he's obviously catering to a client that wants a LP lookalike that is built better *and costs less (?)*.


 


lolnope 

Andersons price tags match their craftsmanship. You can _definitely_ get a Gibson LP for less than an Anderson. Not a top-shelf Gibson, but it'd be a Gibson.


----------



## exo (Mar 18, 2015)

>



A lawsuit/cease and desist would basically be about market confusion, right?

People in the guitar buying public are really going to confuse this with an actual Gibson LP?

Double strap buttons, unbound neck with dots, and most importantly, the headstock? this looks very different to what is filed away in my mind as "Gibson LP guitar"....Theres some superficial resemblance with the generalities of the singlecut, arched body with a flamed top, but man, that neck and headstock......they just stick out like a sore thumb in terms of "overall package" to me. I don't see how folks could POSSIBLY confuse the two.....


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 18, 2015)

exo said:


> A lawsuit/cease and desist would basically be about market confusion, right?
> 
> People in the guitar buying public are really going to confuse this with an actual Gibson LP?
> 
> Double strap buttons, unbound neck with dots, and most importantly, the headstock? this looks very different to what is filed away in my mind as "Gibson LP guitar"....Theres some superficial resemblance with the generalities of the singlecut, arched body with a flamed top, but man, that neck and headstock......they just stick out like a sore thumb in terms of "overall package" to me. I don't see how folks could POSSIBLY confuse the two.....


 
That's the thing. You'd be a discerning buyer. Anyone paying Anderson money for a guitar would be. Of _course_ you and people like you can spot the difference. The casual observer, on the other hand, could be forgiven for thinking they're the same guitar, or at least manufactured by the same company.

Of course, the casual observer isn't likely to randomly be dropping $3k on a new guitar, so that plus the (honestly, still pretty minor) differences mean that Anderson would probably win if this suit went to court and they could afford the legal fees. PRS did pretty much that, on more or less the same grounds.

Still, though, it seems pretty intellectually dishonest to argue that these guitars aren't similar enough to ever be "POSSIBLY" confused. Come on. Really?


----------



## BucketheadRules (Mar 18, 2015)

JP Universe said:


> I'm starting to think that it's actually now cool to defend Gibson!



It's a hipster thing atm - start doing it now, then when everyone cottons on in a few months you'll have some killer bragging rights. 

Much as I dislike Gibson's corporate practices and most of their recent output, I do agree with Grand Moff Tim.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Mar 18, 2015)

I like more when luthiers do their own things.
When I see people ordering an exact copy of a Les Paul or an Explorer from Daemoness I cry a little bit inside.
If I want a Les Paul I buy a Gibson, not an ESP Eclipse.


----------



## død (Mar 18, 2015)

OmegaSlayer said:


> I like more when luthiers do their own things.
> When I see people ordering an exact copy of a Les Paul or an Explorer from Daemoness I cry a little bit inside.
> If I want a Les Paul I buy a Gibson, not an ESP Eclipse.



Well, what if you want an Eclipse? They are pretty different guitars compared to a Les Paul, body shape excluded. Most Eclipses are thinner than a Gibson, have a belly cut, thinner neck, etc.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Mar 18, 2015)

død;4330936 said:


> Well, what if you want an Eclipse? They are pretty different guitars compared to a Les Paul, body shape excluded. Most Eclipses are thinner than a Gibson, have a belly cut, thinner neck, etc.



Exactly, you got the point.
Some "clones" have meaning because they bear little but substantial changes in the uncustomized parts like you mentioned.
But when you copy a design 1:1 youo should know what's coming sooner or later.

That said, if I would pick a LesPaul it would be for the sound and not for the shape


----------



## KFW (Mar 18, 2015)

I wonder why Gibson hasn't gone after ESP for the Eclipse shape? They did for their Explorer copy.


----------



## stevexc (Mar 18, 2015)

KFW said:


> I wonder why Gibson hasn't gone after ESP for the Eclipse shape? They did for their Explorer copy.



They did, ESP was able to satisfy Gibson by changing the control layout and cutaway. I think the lack of a pickguard is also due to that but I feel like they've done a few with pickguards.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 18, 2015)

According to trademark law, I believe the LP design falls under "descriptive trademark", which is the weakest trademark to defend in court.

Also, according to Qualitex v. Jacobson Products:
"Secondary meaning is acquired when in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature... is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself."
The product, in this case, is clearly marked with the Anderson Logo on the headstock.

Furthermore, a legal precident set by Polaroid v. Polarad, both buyer sophistication and quality of goods in question are primary tests for trademark infringement. Since the Anderson guitar is more expensive, those two tests would fail in court if Gibson sued Anderson, assuming that the argument made it that far.

Again, Gibson's *only* advantage in this is throwing their weight around in terms of money. Tom Anderson himself has publicly stated that they are only backing down because they do not have thousands of dollars to fight it.

I think it is deplorable that a corporation can, in effect, win a legal argument, simply by having more money, and, that the ridiculousness of the argument can be offset by further widening the gap in wealth. No just legal system can work that way. If the legal argument is bogus, then the defendant should have the ability to brush it off.

I wish I could have a friendly legal debate with Gibson's attorneys over this one, just for fun. I wonder how they would even respond to the legal definition of what a trademark is, how it applies to the LP, and what that means, in general, for other manufacturers who build single cutaway solidbody electric guitars and purposely brand them to be identified, not as Gibsons, but as whatever brand they are, e.g. ESP.

*EDIT: Read this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9202173394165647635&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

It appears that the legal precident was already decided in this case, such that Gibson cannot apply trademark law to the trade-dress of the guitar (meaning similarities outside of logo branding: size, shape, color, control layout). This should have shut their lawyers up for good, yet they are still at it?!*


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 18, 2015)

bostjan said:


> I think it is deplorable that a corporation can, in effect, win a legal argument, simply by having more money, and, that the ridiculousness of the argument can be offset by further widening the gap in wealth. No just legal system can work that way. If the legal argument is bogus, then the defendant should have the ability to brush it off.



I find Anderson's lack of originality deplorable. His guitar looks like a Les Paul. Full stop. I would sue him into the next millennium if he opted to use my design to sell his instruments. This isn't about money. Its about ownership. Gibson has the right to protect their line from companies that rip off their guitars. I can't believe that people think Gibson is in the wrong here. I still can't believe that PRS was able to overturn that decision... because the single cut looks exactly like a LP.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 18, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I find Anderson's lack of originality deplorable. His guitar looks like a Les Paul. Full stop. I would sue him into the next millennium if he opted to use my design to sell his instruments. This isn't about money. Its about ownership. Gibson has the right to protect their line from companies that rip off their guitars. I can't believe that people think Gibson is in the wrong here.



The point is that, whether or not it looks like a Les Paul is legally irrelevant.

Gibson is in the wrong, legally speaking. This may be a different lawsuit, but read the Gibson v PRS opinion - everything that applied there still applies in this instance.

EDIT (since you added the last part about PRS): If you think PRS is in the wrong, morally, that's one thing, but legally, see my statements above. A *trademark* is not a patent. Trademark law cannot be decided based on applying patent law. If you trademarked your design, and you expect patent protection, then if it goes to court, you are going to have a bad time. Get a design patent on that bad boy, otherwise, you won't have a legal leg to stand upon unless someone rips off your logo.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2015)

LP copies are a dime a dozen... picking on the Bulldog, which is one of the shapes that's even remotely distinct, seems arbitrary.


----------



## canuck brian (Mar 18, 2015)

Gibson's probably just pissed off that Tom Anderson makes better guitars.


----------



## RustInPeace (Mar 18, 2015)

I cant believe anyone thinks the bulldog actually looks good. God damn that thing looks awful.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 18, 2015)

I'm not going to bash Gibson here. Lord knows, their recent QC snafus speak for themselves. I am, however, opting to not buy any Gibson brand products (from top to bottom) from here on out. I realize that what little money I may have contributed wouldn't amount to a hill of beans to them, but it's the principle of the matter. 

When Gibson went after ESP, I was fairly surprised. When they sued PRS for the Singlecut, I was shocked and appalled, but this latest C&D just seems like corporate bullying. How could a relatively small luthiery (by comparison) like Anderson ever hope to cut into Gibson's profit margins? I'll bet it's something close to 1,000 LP's sold for every 1 Bulldog. Does the Bulldog look like an LP? Absolutely! It has a closer resemblance than the PRS Singlecut did/does. Money talks, though.

I've never played a Tom Anderson, but I have heard nothing but wonderful things in regards to them. I feel terrible that Anderson will be unable to defend themselves against this onslaught. I'm just glad FMIC doesn't go after every builder that makes a Strat or Tele shaped guitar.

*Edit for FMIC quip


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 18, 2015)

Gibson has always been really iffy about approaching people. I'm pissed that I can't get any more close to proper looking explorers (with more diverse features) from Warmoth because of Gibson. Keep in mind if you really want to boycott Gibson, it goes a little further than just the "Gibson" guitars, as they own a few other things that are of interest.

Gibson Brands, Inc.


----------



## RustInPeace (Mar 18, 2015)

^^ Im glad I got my warmoth explorer when I did!


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 18, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Gibson has always been really iffy about approaching people. I'm pissed that I can't get any more close to proper looking explorers (with more diverse features) from Warmoth because of Gibson. Keep in mind if you really want to boycott Gibson, it goes a little further than just the "Gibson" guitars, as they own a few other things that are of interest.



^This 

I couldn't agree with you more! There are only a few brands in which I would even have a passing interest...Gibson, Epiphone and Kramer are on my black list. All of the other subsidiaries contain absolutely nothing of interest to me.


----------



## 3074326 (Mar 18, 2015)

I get why people don't like Gibson's business practices, but every time I see a Gibson thread I wonder if anyone on this forum actually plays Gibson guitars when they go into a shop. The QC concerns are overblown to an absolutely hilarious amount. 

They probably sued Tom Anderson because Tom Anderson's LP copy looks like _shit_. That headstock is a disaster.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 18, 2015)

I am too. (edit: should've been quicker. I'm happy I got a warmoth explorer too. I went to buy a second and that's how I found out they received a C&D.) I need to strip it of paint and redo it, as I had no ....ing clue what I was doing when I painted it and the neck is all gross from it.

I just realized I haven't officially said it, but after reading into actual copyright laws, and not just assuming, it's pretty clear that Gibson has no legs to stand on in these cases. There really should be some way of slapping them with fines for just man handling other companies with "victory by having more money." Filing suit for things you know you have no legal say over just because you know a company will fold due to lack of funds should count as frivolous lawsuits. I'm not one to hate on Gibson too heavily, as I own a few that I very much love, but I hate companies that do this shit. It's the reason the last place I worked at folded.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 18, 2015)

3074326 said:


> I get why people don't like Gibson's business practices, but every time I see a Gibson thread I wonder if anyone on this forum actually plays Gibson guitars when they go into a shop. The QC concerns are overblown to an absolutely hilarious amount.
> 
> They probably sued Tom Anderson because Tom Anderson's LP copy looks like _shit_. That headstock is a disaster.



Sort of, sort of not. The QC is still way off base from where it should be, though the errors they pump out more recently are usually negligible. The guitars generally play pretty good, but every Gibson I have access to right now (that's about 5 in house) has some really simple goof that you wouldn't even find on some budget epiphones. Stripped screws, messy inlays, incomplete coverage of paint, etc. My explorer alone has visible wood in several locations under clear coat (headstock and neck joint), every screw is stripped, and there was excess glue around the inlays. It also had paint covering one of the stop bar's holes. It looked like it only had one bushing because the second one was completely covered by black paint/clear coat. It chipped off when I took the post out though and looks fairly normal now.

Gibsons certainly aren't as bad as a lot of people seem to make them out to be, but their QC is far from spotless, and even further from acceptable at the constantly inflating prices.

edit: That Anderson LP knock off is ugly though, and your comment gave me a good laugh.


----------



## 3074326 (Mar 18, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Sort of, sort of not. The QC is still way off base from where it should be, though the errors they pump out more recently are usually negligible. The guitars generally play pretty good, but every Gibson I have access to right now (that's about 5 in house) has some really simple goof that you wouldn't even find on some budget epiphones. Stripped screws, messy inlays, incomplete coverage of paint, etc. My explorer alone has visible wood in several locations under clear coat (headstock and neck joint), every screw is stripped, and there was excess glue around the inlays. It also had paint covering one of the stop bar's holes. It looked like it only had one bushing because the second one was completely covered by black paint/clear coat. It chipped off when I took the post out though and looks fairly normal now.
> 
> Gibsons certainly aren't as bad as a lot of people seem to make them out to be, but their QC is far from spotless, and even further from acceptable at the constantly inflating prices.
> 
> edit: That Anderson LP knock off is ugly though, and your comment gave me a good laugh.



I'm in charge of a guitar department with probably 60 LPs alone and they're the most consistent guitars we carry. Unless my store gets all of the good Gibsons, I find the hilarious QC complaints on this forum to be simply incorrect. They're consistently the best-built instruments we carry. The issues that you stated your guitar has have never been present in our shop. (Not saying you're lying, just saying that it's rare based on my experiences) 

Many of the issues people complain about could be from the shop itself. We inspect every guitar as we unbox it and make sure everything is the way it's supposed to be, especially with Gibsons, because they won't let us send anything back after we've had it for 60 days (even it has not been unboxed). We send an absurd amount of Epiphones back (stay away from Epi acoustics under $300), but I can't remember sending a Gibson back in recent memory. We humidify the store, many shops don't do this. We have multiple competent employees who can set up the guitars well. We treat the instruments with respect. 

It's funny to me seeing Gibson get so much hate when we send this forum's beloved Ibanez, LTD, Jackson (Fender) guitars back on a weekly/semi-weekly basis. 

Gibson pisses me off with their lack of warranty support for the shop after 60 days and I find their 2015 lineup to be a disgrace to guitars and an insult to players, but their QC is fine..


----------



## bostjan (Mar 18, 2015)

3074326 said:


> I'm in charge of a guitar department with probably 60 LPs alone and they're the most consistent guitars we carry. Unless my store gets all of the good Gibsons, I find the hilarious QC complaints on this forum to be simply incorrect. They're consistently the best-built instruments we carry. The issues that you stated your guitar has have never been present in our shop. (Not saying you're lying, just saying that it's rare based on my experiences)
> 
> Many of the issues people complain about could be from the shop itself. We inspect every guitar as we unbox it and make sure everything is the way it's supposed to be, especially with Gibsons, because they won't let us send anything back after we've had it for 60 days (even it has not been unboxed). We send an absurd amount of Epiphones back (stay away from Epi acoustics under $300), but I can't remember sending a Gibson back in recent memory. We humidify the store, many shops don't do this. We have multiple competent employees who can set up the guitars well. We treat the instruments with respect.
> 
> ...



My apologies for the soapbox the I am about to step on. If you are disinterested, please scroll down to the next post. I also don't feel good about brand bashing, but these are my observations, and after your post, I've just gotta say this.

I gave up on Gibson's QC around 2004 or 2005. I also worked at a shop, back then, that sold a lot of Gibsons, I'd say that we sold more Fenders, but we probably made as much or more selling Gibsons.

First off, back then, the QC was, at best, sketchy. The confusing thing for me was that the higher the price tag, the more inconsistent the QC was. We received a $4k Jimmy Page LP that had the seventh fret popped right out of the board, such that you could see the fret tang across half the fret, almost the entire tang down to the bottom on the bass side edge of the fret. That was exactly how it was when we unboxed it. Months later, when they shipped another of the same model, the pickup selector didn't work, again, right out of the box. I n that case, I know it's a $5 switch, but that should have been checked before the thing left the factory warehouse. LP Studios, I don't remember any of them having issues, but quite a few of the standards we received had issues in the finish, and many of them had issues with the output jack or pickup selector switch. We never had such issues with any of our Fenders, which were $800-$1200 guitars versus the Gibson $1500-$4500 guitars we stocked. But again, ten years ago.

Gibson's QC may be stellar now. That might not be enough to save their reputation after a period of slunk in the QC, followed by Failbird X and other weird designs that have little positive effect on playability, and an inflated price tag. I have not tried the 2015 models, but, having no interest in the company for the reasons above until I saw the new adjustable zero fret nut, I promptly lost interest again after reading people's impressions here.

Anyone who plays Gibsons, hey, that's your call, and I bet you sound great on your instrument. Me, after all of what I consider BS from this corporation - endless frivilous lawsuits (and I'm not talking about this Anderson Bulldog, but ESP, PRS, and even fricken Viacom for releasing a Spongebob Ukulele that looked like a Flying V, despite being painted up like Spongebob from Nickelodeon, being a hollow body with a sound hole, and being a fricken Ukulele), ups and downs with QC, and a price point that honestly does not match with features, I just cannot get behind the company.

If Gibson comes across this, I don't mean this stuff personally, but your company, you must admit, has been through some ups and down, and lately, more downs. If you want to rebuild your reputation among players like me, not only would you approach this by designing a more modern instrument, but, more importantly, lay off these sorts of lawsuits. People perceive a company who sues another company as laying down the law. People perceive a company that sues a whole bunch of other companies and either loses or settles out of court, to simply be a bully. Some serious Public Relations work might be able to reverse this, but any PR statements that do not provide clarification will not help.

And yes, when I worked at the guitar shop, there were other guitars we had to send back. I will say that we never had to send another $4k guitar back, though, ever, unless it was a Gibson (twice). Also, during that period, perhaps because we sold so many Gibsons, we did have QC issues with Gibson more often than we did with any other manufacturer.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 18, 2015)

This one and the next are blurry, but they're insanely stripped strap button screws.


























I have 3 other guitars from Gibson with similar issues, so I wouldn't say they're all that isolated. Even then, I've owned/own plenty of budget guitars and none have any of these issues. Hell, my epiphone explorer that I sold a couple years ago was damn close to flawless, and that was one of the $400 goth ones.

You'll have to take me at my word, and I have scratched up the explorer and modified it, but the stuff in the pictures (stripped screws and really iffy headstock paint job) are all how the guitars shipped. The SG is the most laughable of the Gibsons we have, though it does play well. Also, pardon the SG dust as it's my roommate's father's guitar and he rarely/never plays it.


----------



## Zado (Mar 18, 2015)

> You'll have to take me at my word, and I have scratched up the explorer and modified it, but the stuff in the pictures (stripped screws and really iffy headstock paint job) are all how the guitars shipped.


You mean there were those scratches on the factory brand new instrument?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 18, 2015)

Which photo? On the headstock, all along the point there is some weird bubbling/scraped looking shit. That was all there from the factory, as was the gaps around the "gibson" logo.

The SG's inlays look like complete shit, and you can feel them too. That was from the factory as well, and I am unsure why it wasn't sent back. (dude's father is a bit of a hoarder and I'm not sure he's ever personally seen the guitar.)

edit: The crud around the second strap button aren't scratches, but shit left behind from the strap.


----------



## aesthyrian (Mar 18, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> If a luthier was selling a guitar with a shape that was a slightly modified Strandberg Boden without getting a license from Ola, would everyone still react the same if Ola sent them a cease and desist?



Not quite the same. I mean, Gibson is the Microsoft of Guitars, while Ola is just Ola... 

Gibson doesn't need to do this, everyone will think "les paul" when they see it. And no one who is buying a Tom Anderson guitar is unaware of the existence of Gibson. They are choosing a Tom Anderson over a Gibson because of the quality/price ratio. Maybe Gibson should focus on that rather than "protecting" their precious single cut. 

It's just a simple power move. But hey, it helped remind me that Tom Anderson makes some damn beautiful guitars, and that Gibson is just well... the same old _shit_. 

I think patents need to expire within a few years at most. All they is is delay progress and let someone hold an idea hostage; an idea they may never actually do anything with. Shit like that when applied to medications and advancements in medical science and solar technology can show you how dangerous a patent can be. But hey, $$$$$$$$$.


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 18, 2015)

aesthyrian said:


> Gibson doesn't need to do this, everyone will think "les paul" when they see it. And no one who is buying a Tom Anderson guitar is unaware of the existence of Gibson. They are choosing a Tom Anderson over a Gibson because of the quality/price ratio. Maybe Gibson should focus on that rather than "protecting" their precious single cut.
> 
> But hey, $$$$$$$$$.



Exactly - money. Its GIBSON's design. They should profit from it. If Anderson wants to make Les Paul guitars, he should pay them a licensing fee. Notice, he opted to make his version of a Les Paul, because it sells. Its totally hypocritical to say that Gibson is a bully, but Ola wouldn't be if he went after someone for ripping off his design.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 18, 2015)

aesthyrian said:


> Not quite the same. I mean, Gibson is the Microsoft of Guitars, while Ola is just Ola...



So it's okay to use another person's designs, but only if they're from a large company. Got it.

Legality and bullying tactics aside, are people here _really_ cool with that? Just using someone else's designs? Didn't Anderson even say that he thought he modified it enough that Gibson wouldn't come after him? That'd sortof imply he _knew_ he was using their design, and was trying to skirt any issues that using someone else's design might cause. 

What's the motivation here? I mean, I understand why entry-level guitars are commonly clones: Money. That's what people buy. But companies like Anderson and PRS are in a different market providing for a completely different clientele. Why do _they_ need to use other people's designs?


I'm not being rhetorical or asking a leading question here, either. I'd genuinely like to know what you guys think.

Is it okay to use someone's designs if they're a large company, but not if they're a small operation?

Is it okay to use someone's designs, but only if you make your product to a higher standard of quality than the original?

Where do people draw the line with the use of of another person's designs? Is that line in the same place for other artistic endeavors, like cars, clothes, music, or art?

Would it be better to start a new thread for this?


----------



## Discoqueen (Mar 18, 2015)

3074326 said:


> I get why people don't like Gibson's business practices, but every time I see a Gibson thread I wonder if anyone on this forum actually plays Gibson guitars when they go into a shop. The QC concerns are overblown to an absolutely hilarious amount.
> 
> They probably sued Tom Anderson because Tom Anderson's LP copy looks like _shit_. That headstock is a disaster.



This is mostly anecdotal, but from my experience, Gibson really lets some shit loose into the world. When I ordered a CS ES-339 from my local shop, the owner (who has a predominant Gibson presence in thier stock) warned me that what was coming from the Custom Shop had been shotty, particularly, the 339s. Of the four she ordered in, three of them had major defects. One of which was not caught until after it was purchased. The truss rods just didn't work and that caused major issues in the guitars. The fellow who did purchase the 339 without realizing there was a problem sent his guitar to be looked at by Gibson, and was left waiting with over $2,000 on the line. I never followed up, but from local experience, 3 out of 4 is indeed a hilarious statistic.
Mine was 1 of the 4 that came in passable. Still, the nut wasn't cut correctly, the fretboard was dry as a bone, and the fretboard had glue and shit on it. I took the guitar because I wanted it and those flaws could be corrected. I personally won't be buying Gibson again for awhile. I've also been sold a Gibson which was mis advertised to have a rosewood fingerboard, but actually had a richlite fingerboard. That could have been the retailer's mistake, but still, how many other companies have I had that issue with before? None.

Other Gibson's I've tried have had frets that hurt the hand and finishing flaws. When a dealer feels it is necessary to warn a potential customer about a specific Brand's products, that says something. 

Seeing that Gibson didn't even really have grounds for the case just fortifies my opinion, which is Gibson should get its priorities strait. A Les Paul doesn't have a bolt on neck like the Bulldog. That right there is reason enough for someone who likes the single-cut shape to look for a manufacterer who will cater to that preference. That top is gaudier than most Gibson's I've seen as well. Gibson didn't even design the damn thing on thier own either, they were the lucky company that Les Paul went to; as well as the company that later tried to abuse Paul's endorsement to sell SG's, which caused the man to sever ties with the company.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 18, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm not being rhetorical or asking a leading question here, either. I'd genuinely like to know what you guys think.



I'll play along. Here's my stance regarding the questions posed. This is going to be a LONG post. For my abbreviated opinion, skip to the bottom.

I think the solid body electric guitar, in relation to form, function _and_ mass appeal, has inherent design limitations. There are only so many ways a slab of wood can be cut and assembled before you begin to sacrifice on one of those aspects. This is why there haven't been many entirely new and exciting shapes since the 70's (an obvious exception would be *.strandberg, but even that is a niche instrument). Even a company like Parker, who I think have one of the coolest original designs going (Fly), has turned out a more traditional shape (Dragonfly) in order to increase their appeal and boost sales. 

When you really get down to the _coeur de la matière_, it's all about one thing: money. Most small operations have neither the funds, nor the time, to invest in extensive R&D. They go with what's been proven. They go with what sells.



> Is it okay to use someone's designs if they're a large company, but not if they're a small operation?



Yes and no.

I'll begin with my no. It comes down to what is known legally as _trade dress_. Trade Dress, while not defined by the Lanham Act, has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as


> the image and overall appearance of a product. It embodies that arrangement of identifying characteristics or decorations connected with a product, whether by packaging or otherwise, [that] make the source of the product distinguishable from another [...]




If a company is using something immediately identifiable with a particular brand (e.g. inlay, headstock or logo design), then that would be considered a decptive practice. The reason many Japanese companies were successfully sued by Gibson back in the 70's and 80's is because they didn't limit themselves to the guitar's shape. They decided to step into blatant infringement, by directly copying the headstock and LP Custom logo design.







That _is_, by and large, inexcusable. I would venture to say that greater than 95% of concert goers, standing 30 feet away in a darkened venue, would immediately assume "Gibson Les Paul" based on the guitar's shape _and_ headstock design. Clearly, in most cases, courts view the design of the headstock to be of greater importance than the design of the guitar itself. 

To quote an external site regarding Fender's lawsuits: 


> [...], enough time has passed, and enough "close-enough" designs have been allowed to be sold, that Fender's hold on the look of the guitar as a trademark has become extremely shaky. It may keep its headstock design as a trademark, but the visual and technical details that make a Strat the player it is are now considered public domain as of the USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 91161403 Ruling.



For my yes, I think, as previously stated, there are an extremely limited number of ways in which to build a guitar. The decision of _Gibson Guitar Corp v Paul Reed Smith Guitars_ concluded:


> We have determined as a matter of law that initial-interest confusion, post-sale confusion, and Gibson&#8217;s &#8220;smoky-bar theory of confusion&#8221; cannot be used to demonstrate infringement of the trademark at issue in this case. *Gibson has conceded that point-of-sale confusion does not occur between these high-priced guitars, and our review of the record does not suggest otherwise*. Accordingly, there is simply no basis on which Gibson can show confusion that would demonstrate trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act.


 (Gibson v PRS)

By Gibson's own admission nobody who is aware of, and can afford another high-quality, high-priced guitar could ever be confused as to what they are purchasing. 



> Is it okay to use someone's designs, but only if you make your product to a higher standard of quality than the original?



*See previous answer



> Where do people draw the line with the use of of another person's designs? Is that line in the same place for other artistic endeavors, like cars, clothes, music, or art?



Again, it boils down to trademark and branding. How many ways can you think of in which to sew a shirt or pants before they lose either their form, function or mass appeal? There can't be that many ways. Now, if a boutique clothier began branding its wares with the Polo horseman or the IZOD alligator, then, clearly they would be in the wrong. However, even though there are thousands of companies who have "polo shirts," there is only one brand that can call itself Polo. The market will decide. Despite endless competition, Polo/Ralph Lauren still posted a Gross Profit of $4.3 billion last year alone.

Art, being subjective, would be trickier. I think the biggest issue there would be blatant counterfeit. That goes beyond the realm of infringement and into the deep end of criminal activity.

The same goes for music and plagiarism. Despite the fact that there are countless songs with the I-V-vi-IV chord progression, it seems that melody is the deciding factor in musical plagiarism cases.



> Would it be better to start a new thread for this?



I would say...possibly?

*TL;DR* - As long as companies don't use the Gibson headstock shape, logo, or identifiable inlays (i.e trade dress), then I don't have a problem with a company, large or small, producing a solid-body single-cut guitar.

*Edit to clean up a quote


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 18, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> *a bunch of stuff*.



None of the legal stuff you mentioned is really relevant to the line of thought I'm chasing, but it's still interesting to read. I more meant, _legality aside_, why are people okay with taking some designs but not others? Why do people here cry themselves to sleep when Gibson doesn't want other companies using their designs, but we used to see absolute raging shitfests whenever someone posted a Blackmachine clone? 

You did touch on that a bit, though, so cool beans.



SeditiousDissent said:


> *TL;DR* - As long as companies don't use the Gibson headstock shape, logo, or identifiable inlays (i.e trade dress), then I don't have a problem with a company, large or small, producing a solid-body single-cut guitar.



Why do you draw the line at the headstock? If they can design a different headstock, why not a different body? There are _endless_ examples of original body designs out there. Most of them aren't anywhere near as successful as the big boys, but it's obviously possible to build a guitar with a body no other company is making. Why then do people have very little issue with using other people's bodies, but not their headstocks? How much of that is actually form versus function? 

Not trying to be confrontational or anything. I'm posing these questions as much for myself as anything, because new points being brought up always get my gears turning.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 19, 2015)

It's all good, Tim. I didn't sense any confrontation in either of your posts. For the record, I wasn't trying to come across that way either.

You're right about the double standard with the smaller companies. I think people want the little guy to win, especially if the little guy is offering something new or, in Blackmachine's case, exclusive. 

Personally, I draw the line with the headstock, because that is where you see the brand's name (on guitars with headstocks, of course). I think it is almost as important as the logo itself, in most cases. 

I really think that it boils down to money. You're absolutely right, there have been plenty of new designs (I would lean more toward the lines of derivatives on older designs, though). It's easier to make money by offering a design that is familiar, or comfortable, to the consumer. Humans are creatures of habit. We know what we like and we tend to stick with it. Let's face it; Most guitarists tend to lean toward some variation of the Strat, Tele or LP. Luthiers know this and that's why some folks willingly spend upwards of $25,000 on a guitar that cost much less to construct.

Haha, I actually went back and read my post to see where I had written "a bunch of stuff." I panicked there a bit.


----------



## GunnarJames (Mar 19, 2015)

Gibson is just being a big dummy. 

I mean, let's be real. So you design this legendary guitar and someone decides to copy it, right? They happen to make the guitar you designed better than you do. So when that copy guitar is on stage in the smoke filled club/bar/venue and everyone sees/hears how awesome it is, but they think it's your guitar and not a copy, I don't see where that confusion results in them buying the copy. In fact, they'd just go buy your guitar thinking that's what they saw/heard!

If that's the argument you decide to go with, I say let them sell your guitars for you. Just make sure they aren't disappointed when they open your guitar up and play it.

I dunno, I'll never own a Les Paul anyway. Not a fan. Protect your business, just bring a better weapon to the fight. 

(Only read the first two pages of the thread, apologies if this point has been made!)


----------



## yingmin (Mar 19, 2015)

This thread just reminded me of something I saw on Martin's website that was a hilariously brazen Gibson copy.

Martin CEO8: 






Gibson SJ200:






It may not look exactly like the SJ200, but that's only because they cherry-picked OTHER elements that Gibson uses on their guitars, and more importantly that Martin never has. The "Martin crown" inlay on the headstock, the logo reading "The Martin" as the logo on many old Gibsons read "The Gibson", the shape of the headstock, the split parallelogram inlays, the oversized, distinctly-shaped pickguard, the bird design on the pickguard, the pearl buttons on the tuners...everything about this reads as Gibson. The description on Martin's site even tries to pass these details off as original Martin details. It's absolutely disgraceful. It's no wonder that it's no longer anywhere on Martin's site.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 19, 2015)

I also think the headstock is more important. The LP has been copied so many times that every time I see one in a music video or in a live performance (either on tv or in person,) I check the shape, and more importantly, the markings. I was even able to identify a guitar I couldn't see because of the headstock logos. My friend was at a show where a guy was playing "what sort of looks like a les paul with a different headstock." Because of the large "C" and the guitar shape of the logo he was able to see from in the audience , I was able to tell him it was a Charvel LP clone. Had it had the diamond inlay and/or simple script font of the brand name, it might not have been so easy to identify, much like the examples above.

I think Gibson pursues these things because they don't want to lose any rights like Fender did. If they keep at it, then "enough time" cannot pass where they can't even TRY to take action.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 19, 2015)

GunnarJames said:


> Gibson is just being a big dummy.
> 
> I mean, let's be real. So you design this legendary guitar and someone decides to copy it, right? They happen to make the guitar you designed better than you do. So when that copy guitar is on stage in the smoke filled club/bar/venue and everyone sees/hears how awesome it is, but they think it's your guitar and not a copy, I don't see where that confusion results in them buying the copy. In fact, they'd just go buy your guitar thinking that's what they saw/heard!
> 
> ...



It goes deeper than that. As in, what if some neo nazi kitten stomping band is endorsed by a look-alike. Then people assume that Gibson endorses neo-nazi kitten stompers.

More realistically, it means that the band has paid other people to make their product instead of them. They MIGHT get people to buy Gibsons, but at the same time it might lure people into just buying the clones, or they might not buy anything at all; they already lost the initial artists sale due to the copy.

There are so many copies out their legally that I do think it should just be handled like fender. The explorer, and similar offerings that are unique, I do think are pretty easily distinguishable outside of simple form and function appearance. Even their V is unique enough to warrant protection.

In reference to my last post, the V and Explorer can in fact still be largely recognized from a distance based on shape alone, unlike the LP and it's many clones. At a glance of just the body, I can tell the difference in Gibson, Jackson, ESP, Agile, and warmoth explorers. With the LP, it's a little more muddy. All of the LP's look largely the same, usually with a slightly different shaped horn. Some, like ESP's are pretty simple to see. (It's a blatant point.) Meanwhile Agile, Warmoth, this bulldog, etc. all have very slightly different shapes that are legally allowed. Again, one glance at the headstock will tell you the difference, which is why I now feel it foolish that Gibson pursued this guy. Nobody would ever mistake this for a Gibson or vice versa.

Another thing about headstocks I forgot to mention is that Gibson LP's are the most counterfeited guitars out there. With slight, hopefully drastic, headstock shapes, you can still get the LP shape without having to fear somebody just refinishing a clone and calling it an LP. If someone stripped down an Agile and stuck a Gibson logo on the head, even a novice buyer could tell the difference. Can't say the same for something with one of the lawsuit headstocks.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 19, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> So it's okay to use another person's designs, but only if they're from a large company. Got it.
> 
> Legality and bullying tactics aside, are people here _really_ cool with that? Just using someone else's designs? Didn't Anderson even say that he thought he modified it enough that Gibson wouldn't come after him? That'd sortof imply he _knew_ he was using their design, and was trying to skirt any issues that using someone else's design might cause.
> 
> ...


 
As others have said, while the LP is the only singlecut design possible, it's not particularly original to Gibson, either. If you took most cutaway acoustics/archtops and drew the silhouette, it'd be as similar. Ola's design is much more of a thought design, rather than taking an existing shape and sticking more wood inside its cavities, which is how LP developed his guitar! Skerveson's Shoggie DC is pretty similar to the Strandberg but noticeably a different instrument. 

If a company wants to stop another company making something which has similarities but different abilities or strengths, I feel like they should have a limited time in which to do likewise themselves, else allow the other company to be competitive. With something as ergonomically dependant as a guitar, there's a limited amount you can do to change the appearance before it becomes functionally prohibitive. How different can you really make any functional object which requires close physicaly human interaction? How much can you realistically change a car before it destroys aerodynamics. A headstock doesn't really affect function too much, especially if you were to use banjo tuners, so you have effectively infinite things you can do to make that recognisable. Logo and name, too. 

The people buying TAs are unlikely to be buying a Les Paul. They're likely to have good reasons for buying a TA, same as why they'd buy a Suhr over a Fender Strat. They feel that the alternative has something distinctive which they like. And at that level, they'll certainly be discerning enough to know the difference.

If licensing similar shapes was an option, I'd think that was fine.

I think the line for me comes between function and design. A company started putting out cheap knock-offs of Meerkatsu's BJJ training apparel which copied the artwork on it. The artwork is the reason to buy the Meerkatsu gear. That sort of design doesn't infringe on or improve functionality. If you're copying someone's distinct functionality then that falls into patent-land. Meerkatsu wasn't pissed that the company were making trousers, as there's only so much you can do to make different trousers but when you're buying for design superimposed on function then that's ripping off the only reason to buy the product, in my mind. Meerkatsu is recognised by the art rather than the logo, so copying the art is more confusing, as the art portrays particular things which can be described literally.

I'd like to see a literal, scientific breakdown of what is allowable or not, legally. At what point does a Les Paul Junior become a Telecaster?

Art and music are issues of interpreting the world around us and representing that but there are only so many ways to interpret similar lives. If you want someone to empathise with your art, why would you make it completely alien. If you want to baffle and impress them, fair enough. Authors aren't sued for using the same sentences at various points in their works, and there are many more combinations of words than there are of notes. Zappa quoted other people's music all the time, which I have no problem with. If people want to claim originality then they need to ensure that everything they do is completely unique and never write another song in 4/4 with 1 chord per bar over 4 bar chord sequences. I think rhythm is the core of music, but a melody can be recognisable when you change the rhythm significantly so that's a tough area. 

I generally think of people discovering music, rather than creating it, so I don't think there's really much to call original. We didn't design acoustic properties, we discovered them.




Grand Moff Tim said:


> None of the legal stuff you mentioned is really relevant to the line of thought I'm chasing, but it's still interesting to read. I more meant, _legality aside_, why are people okay with taking some designs but not others? Why do people here cry themselves to sleep when Gibson doesn't want other companies using their designs, but we used to see absolute raging shitfests whenever someone posted a Blackmachine clone?



Are those the same people accepting one but raging on the other? I'm cool with Gibson or BM body shapes being pretty similarly referenced.




Grand Moff Tim said:


> Why do you draw the line at the headstock? If they can design a different headstock, why not a different body? There are _endless_ examples of original body designs out there. Most of them aren't anywhere near as successful as the big boys, but it's obviously possible to build a guitar with a body no other company is making. Why then do people have very little issue with using other people's bodies, but not their headstocks? How much of that is actually form versus function?
> 
> Not trying to be confrontational or anything. I'm posing these questions as much for myself as anything, because new points being brought up always get my gears turning.



You don't directly interact with headstock design in the main use of the instrument. Your body is always in contact with the guitar's body. At some point, variation on the body shape will prohibit playablity in ways that headstock shape is unlikely to.

How different would you personally consider to be different enough?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 19, 2015)

Solodini said:


> If licensing similar shapes was an option, I'd think that was fine.



Oddly enough, I was just saying that in the SSO chatroom yesterday. Much like Toone licenses the Endurneck or there are any number of licensed Floyds out there, I think it'd be great if Gibson (and other companies) chose to license their designs to other companies. Companies would get to make the body styles people want, and Gibson would still get a piece of the pie. Everybody wins.



Solodini said:


> How different would you personally consider to be different enough?



You know, I really couldn't say. Despite how I sound in this thread, I'm actually not bothered too terribly by companies using other companies designs. I've got a Korean strat clone and a Japanese J-Bass clone in the room with me right now . 

This has more been a thought experiment for me, because it's something I hadn't given any real thought before. On the one hand, I don't care if one company "borrows" idea from another company. On the other hand, I don't care if the company being borrowed from calls the first company out on it, legally or otherwise.

This whole ordeal just triggered my DEFEND GIBSON protocol, because honestly, this thread and others like it always just seem like sour grapes to me. I genuinely believe that people here would react completely differently if a luthier was trying to profit off of the designs of one of SSO's pet luthiers/companies, rather than Big Bad Mean Ol' Gibson.

I have enjoyed the discussion, though.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 19, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> This whole ordeal just triggered my DEFEND GIBSON protocol, because honestly, this thread and others like it always just seem like sour grapes to me. I genuinely believe that people here would react completely differently if a luthier was trying to profit off of the designs of one of SSO's pet luthiers/companies, rather than Big Bad Mean Ol' Gibson.
> 
> I have enjoyed the discussion, though.


 
SOME people would react in favour of an independent luthier doing the same. I think, also, if a big, established luthier with market visibility took a design developed by the little guy and took business while the design seemed new and original to whomever puts more of them out, then that'd sour people. But when the design is clearly out there and established as being the "Gibson Les Paul" shape, I don't think anyone feels like anyone is screwing Gibson, as everyone is still aware of, and easily able to try, them before deciding on someone else doing it better.

What about legally, what would you see as different enough, if not personally?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 19, 2015)

Solodini said:


> What about legally, what would you see as different enough, if not personally?



I imagine I'm fine the the legal precedent that's already been set: The ESP Eclipse and the PRS Singlecut are both distinct enough from the Les Paul for me. The Eclipse is actually _too_ distinct, in that they've changed it enough that there are things about it I dislike enough to keep me from getting one instead of a Gibson. Maybe the key lies there somewhere for me? Once the two are no longer really... erm... interchangeable? That might be where I draw the line.

I realize that's still a pretty foggy distinction, but it's the best one you're going to get right now. It's bed time.


----------



## canuck brian (Mar 19, 2015)

3074326 said:


> I'm in charge of a guitar department with probably 60 LPs alone and they're the most consistent guitars we carry. Unless my store gets all of the good Gibsons, I find the hilarious QC complaints on this forum to be simply incorrect. They're consistently the best-built instruments we carry. The issues that you stated your guitar has have never been present in our shop. (Not saying you're lying, just saying that it's rare based on my experiences)
> 
> Many of the issues people complain about could be from the shop itself. We inspect every guitar as we unbox it and make sure everything is the way it's supposed to be, especially with Gibsons, because they won't let us send anything back after we've had it for 60 days (even it has not been unboxed). We send an absurd amount of Epiphones back (stay away from Epi acoustics under $300), but I can't remember sending a Gibson back in recent memory. We humidify the store, many shops don't do this. We have multiple competent employees who can set up the guitars well. We treat the instruments with respect.



My bashing of Gibson comes directly from being in their factory showroom in both Memphis and Nashville last year. Slip fitted non-matching maple tops on mulitple $5000+ guitars, brutal fretwork, terrible finish work, drunk side dots, scratched to hell nuts, sloppy binding work, off center installation of the Flying V string thru plate, pickups installed upside down (is that hard to figure out which way an EMG is supposed to go?). The conditions of the factory were, at best, deplorable. 

If Gibson can't put a decently built guitar in their own showroom, why would I even consider them to be able to produce quality guitars with any level of consistency?

It takes a special level of not giving a shit to screw up holes drilled on a CNC and let the guitar get this far thru production.







What a book....match...umm.... ($5999)









And yes, while this is an Epiphone, I was assured that every guitar in the showroom went thru the same QC as the Gibson guitars.


----------



## Discoqueen (Mar 19, 2015)

The upside down ent is actually the funniest thing I've seen all day!


----------



## tedtan (Mar 19, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Is it okay to use someone's designs if they're a large company, but not if they're a small operation?
> 
> Is it okay to use someone's designs, but only if you make your product to a higher standard of quality than the original?



For me, there are a couple of issues at play here.

First, as I mentioned previously, I take issue with the fact that this is not an original design (there were other manufacturers making single cut guitars at the time).

Second, there is nothing patented here and, from a legal perspective, the only thing Gibson has to go on is the trade dress (e.g., headstock shape and logo). At this point, Gibson is just bullying smaller entities in to playing ball according to their rules because they have the bank account to do so.

Third, when a manufacturer patents or copyright's a product, there is a limited time in which they are allowed to exclusively exploit that patent/copyright before it becomes public domain and free for anyone to use. In the case of the single cut body shape that Gibson first brought to market 63 years ago (and wasn't truly novel even at that time), I'd say that they've more than had a chance to recoup any R&D costs and profit from it, so it should be made available to anyone at this point, even if it were protected by a patent.

As for smaller luthiers, the same rules would apply. I don't take issue with them having a limited time in which to exploit their novel designs, but it should be just that: a novel design with a limited time frame in which to exploit it before it becomes public domain. I'm not sure where I would place that time period, but honestly, even as one who is not opposed to business and IP protection, I think somewhere in the 10 to 20 year range should be more than sufficient protection for guitar designs. If a company can't create new and innovative ideas in that amount of time, or at least compete sufficiently in the marketplace based on it's older designs to stay in business, it is that company's own laziness that led to their predicament, not a fault in the IP laws.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 19, 2015)

From a moral standpoint, let me counter by asking this: Does anyone have qualms with Superstrats? They are essentially updated and improved Stratocasters.


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 19, 2015)

bostjan said:


> From a moral standpoint, let me counter by asking this: Does anyone have qualms with Superstrats? They are essentially updated and improved Stratocasters.



I do, but I am probably in the minority. The shape and design is Leo Fender's intellectual property. So if I want a Stratocaster shape, I look to a Fender. The only other brand I would consider is G&L - for obvious reasons. I believe that if you want to make a copy (for better or worse) you should pay a licensing fee. That's obviously my opinion and certainly not what happens legally.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 19, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I believe that if you want to make a copy (for better or worse) you should pay a licensing fee. That's obviously my opinion and certainly not what happens legally.



Are you suggesting that you would prefer IP rights to be perpetual? if not, what kind of time frame would you consider appropriate?


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 19, 2015)

tedtan said:


> Are you suggesting that you would prefer IP rights to be perpetual? if not, what kind of time frame would you consider appropriate?



50 years and one 25 year renewal.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 19, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I do, but I am probably in the minority. The shape and design is Leo Fender's intellectual property. So if I want a Stratocaster shape, I look to a Fender. The only other brand I would consider is G&L - for obvious reasons. I believe that if you want to make a copy (for better or worse) you should pay a licensing fee. That's obviously my opinion and certainly not what happens legally.



So, for example, you would be opposed to anyone purchasing a Charvel Model 3 superstrat?


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 19, 2015)

bostjan said:


> So, for example, you would be opposed to anyone purchasing a Charvel Model 3 superstrat?



Fender owns Charvel. 

Also, you missed the point where I said that I feel companies should license the designs. Obviously that is not the case, but it doesn't make sense companies should profit from another company's blood and tears.


----------



## Randy (Mar 19, 2015)

The pic being used in this thread is shot at a deceptive angle, IMO.

In pics like this:







The difference in the shape of the 'hips' of the Bulldog vs. the LP is much more noticeable.


----------



## canuck brian (Mar 19, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> Fender owns Charvel.
> 
> Also, you missed the point where I said that I feel companies should license the designs. Obviously that is not the case, but it doesn't make sense companies should profit from another company's blood and tears.



Fender definitely didn't own Charvel when the Model 3 came out.

Fender had their opportunity to put their stamp on their own design and didn't bother for the longest time. From a legal standpoint, they screwed up. Too bad for them.

I've got no issues with Gibson going after whoever they want for infringement on their designs. They were smart enough to make sure that people weren't legally allowed to do it. Are they dicks for doing it? Not at all. Would anyone with half a brain mistake a PRS or an Anderson for a Gibson? Hell no.


----------



## Randy (Mar 19, 2015)

Also, regarding Gibson's right to preserve brand purity by shutting down supposed 'look alikes'... does this muddy the waters at all for anybody?


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 19, 2015)

Randy said:


> Also, regarding Gibson's right to preserve brand purity by shutting down supposed 'look alikes'... does this muddy the waters at all for anybody?



In case people don't realize: that's a genuine Epiphone T-310. It's not a partscaster with a Fender body and an Epi neck.

Like I said...it's all about the money.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 19, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> Fender owns Charvel.
> 
> Also, you missed the point where I said that I feel companies should license the designs. Obviously that is not the case, but it doesn't make sense companies should profit from another company's blood and tears.



So, by induction, anyone building an electric guitar should pay a fee to Rickenbacker, for coming up with the idea. Right?

As for Charvel, I don't know if you know the history, but Wayne Charvel worked at Fender, then left the company to start making his own Strat copies. The Model 3 was introduced while the company was owned by Grover Jackson. Charvel was bought out by Kaman in 2002, and Kaman was bought out by Fender in 2007/2008.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 19, 2015)

That whole situation is like one big double-decker taco, wrapped in a grilled-stuffed burrito, surrounded by a crunchwrap supreme. I'm going to need a few packets of Salsa Verde to get through it.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 19, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> That whole situation is like one big double-decker taco, wrapped in a grilled-stuffed burrito, surrounded by a crunchwrap supreme. I'm going to need a few packets of Salsa Verde to get through it.



What about a crunchy, all-beef taco, smothered in nacho cheese, lettuce, tomato and a special southwestern sauce, wrapped it in a soft, flour tortilla with a layer of refried beans in-between, wrapped in a savory corn tortilla with a middle layer of Monterey Jack cheese, in a deep-fried gordita shell, smeared with a special "guacamolito" sauce and baked in a corn husk filled with pico de gallo, then wraped in an authentic Parisian crepe, filled with egg, gruyere, merguez sausage and Portobello mushroom, wraped in a Chicago style deep dish meat lovers pizza, rolled up in a blueberry pancake, dipped in batter and deep-fried until it's golden brown, all served in all commemorative tote bag filled with spicy vegetarian chili? 

It's 15 great tastes all rolled into one!


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 19, 2015)

^ Dinners within dinners within dinners


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 19, 2015)

tedtan said:


> For me, there are a couple of issues at play here.
> 
> First, as I mentioned previously, I take issue with the fact that this is not an original design (there were other manufacturers making single cut guitars at the time).
> 
> ...




Again, in the post you quoted, I wasn't asking from a legal perspective. I thought I was clear about that, but maybe I need to go back and edit it .

_LEGALITY ASIDE,_ from the perspective of an artist or designer, are those things okay? Is everyone okay with the use of other people's designs without their permission under those circumstances, but not others? Where do people draw the line?


----------



## stevexc (Mar 19, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Again, in the post you quoted, I wasn't asking from a legal perspective. I thought I was clear about that, but maybe I need to go back and edit it .
> 
> _LEGALITY ASIDE,_ from the perspective of an artist or designer, are those things okay? Is everyone okay with the use of other people's designs without their permission under those circumstances, but not others? Where do people draw the line?



Personally, I say yes. If Person A can make a product, and Person B can improve upon that product, there's no reason Person B shouldn't be allowed to so long as Person B isn't misrepresenting their product as Person A's.

IMO.


----------



## nyxzz (Mar 19, 2015)

If Gibson didn't make overpriced and under QC'd guitars now I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this. It sucks for someone who wants, say, an explorer 7 string or something like that since Gibson is never going to mass produce those. Gibson is within their rights, it just sucks :/ 

RIP ESP Explorers


----------



## yingmin (Mar 19, 2015)

ArtDecade said:


> I do, but I am probably in the minority. The shape and design is Leo Fender's intellectual property. So if I want a Stratocaster shape, I look to a Fender. The only other brand I would consider is G&L - for obvious reasons. I believe that if you want to make a copy (for better or worse) you should pay a licensing fee. That's obviously my opinion and certainly not what happens legally.



I agree with this. For me, it's not really about IP protection or morality; I would just rather see companies do their own thing. My heroes in terms of guitar design are Ken Parker, Ned Steinberger and Ted McCarty. They were all very innovative, though the latter two less influential than I feel they should be. Gibson under Ted McCarty released the biggest portion of what would become the standard platforms: Les Paul, SG, Explorer, V, Firebird. So to Bostjan's point about the Charvel model 3, yes, I'm opposed to them, since is much prefer to see what Charvel can come up with. That's why I also have a lot of respect for BC Rich: I certainly don't like all the shapes they've come up with, but I definitely appreciate the fact that they've always had original designs. So that's why I'm always disappointed when I see a company sell nothing but slight redesigns of other existing guitars (or, in many cases, flat-out copies).


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 19, 2015)

Randy said:


> The pic being used in this thread is shot at a deceptive angle, IMO.
> 
> In pics like this:
> 
> ...


 
I still think a casual observer could be forgiven for confusing the two, or at least thinking they're from the same manufacturer. It's obvious to _us_, but us folks around here look at guitars like most people look at porn. 

Of course, as I've said, I _do_ think it's different enough that Anderson would win if it went to court, but I can see why Gibson would object.


----------



## ihunda (Mar 19, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> ^ Dinners within dinners within dinners



^Finally I get what that movie inception was all about!


----------



## GunnarJames (Mar 19, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> It goes deeper than that.



Oh I know, I was just making a silly point to their silly argument.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> From a moral standpoint, let me counter by asking this: Does anyone have qualms with Superstrats? They are essentially updated and improved Stratocasters.


 
Nope.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> What about a crunchy, all-beef taco, smothered in nacho cheese, lettuce, tomato and a special southwestern sauce, wrapped it in a soft, flour tortilla with a layer of refried beans in-between, wrapped in a savory corn tortilla with a middle layer of Monterey Jack cheese, in a deep-fried gordita shell, smeared with a special "guacamolito" sauce and baked in a corn husk filled with pico de gallo, then wraped in an authentic Parisian crepe, filled with egg, gruyere, merguez sausage and Portobello mushroom, wraped in a Chicago style deep dish meat lovers pizza, rolled up in a blueberry pancake, dipped in batter and deep-fried until it's golden brown, all served in all commemorative tote bag filled with spicy vegetarian chili?
> 
> It's 15 great tastes all rolled into one!


 
Give that to my face.



yingmin said:


> I agree with this. For me, it's not really about IP protection or morality; I would just rather see companies do their own thing. My heroes in terms of guitar design are Ken Parker, Ned Steinberger and Ted McCarty. They were all very innovative, though the latter two less influential than I feel they should be. Gibson under Ted McCarty released the biggest portion of what would become the standard platforms: Les Paul, SG, Explorer, V, Firebird. So to Bostjan's point about the Charvel model 3, yes, I'm opposed to them, since is much prefer to see what Charvel can come up with. That's why I also have a lot of respect for BC Rich: I certainly don't like all the shapes they've come up with, but I definitely appreciate the fact that they've always had original designs. So that's why I'm always disappointed when I see a company sell nothing but slight redesigns of other existing guitars (or, in many cases, flat-out copies).


 
What about if everyone just put out rectangular guitars or unshaped pieces of wood with all of the necessary guitar attachments? They'd all be pretty similar but without any individual design going into them. Would that be okay?


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 20, 2015)

Solodini said:


> *What about if everyone just put out rectangular guitars or unshaped pieces of wood with all of the necessary guitar attachments? *They'd all be pretty similar but without any individual design going into them. Would that be okay?



They would be sued by Gretsch.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 20, 2015)

I knew someone would say that.


----------



## canuck brian (Mar 20, 2015)

I certainly hope that everyone in here questioning the morality of copying a design heads directly into every Blackmachine copy thread and pose the same questions.

Gibson is also the company that decided to make the Jimi Hendrix signature Stratocaster.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 20, 2015)

But then we come back to the question of whether BM is ripping off Parker.


----------



## Randy (Mar 20, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I still think a casual observer could be forgiven for confusing the two, or at least thinking they're from the same manufacturer. It's obvious to _us_, but us folks around here look at guitars like most people look at porn.



I don't have a dog in this fight. My only interest comes from the fact, long before this was a story, I was familiar with the Anderson Bulldog and I always thought it was kinda ugly (the hips I mentioned, the overall carve is different, even down to the cavity cover and the heel); so, morseso than other brands, it came as a surprise to me when I saw the headline considering I already saw a distinction between the two.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 20, 2015)

canuck brian said:


> I certainly hope that everyone in here questioning the morality of copying a design heads directly into every Blackmachine copy thread and pose the same questions.



I already brought BM up in this thread, but I did it to point out that people used to get so angry when people copied BM but _don't_ give a shit when people copy Gibson. It's a double standard, and the main reason I popped into this thread in the first place. 

I didn't hop into those BM threads because they inevitably became absolute trainwrecks, and I believe the mods even got a little banhammer-y whenever those arguments started, since they were so common and _so_ tiresome. 



canuck brian said:


> Gibson is also the company that decided to make the Jimi Hendrix signature Stratocaster.



And they deserved all the shit they got for it . I'd never claim Gibson is immune to criticism or incapable of doing the same shit I'm criticizing other companies for doing.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 20, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Again, in the post you quoted, I wasn't asking from a legal perspective. I thought I was clear about that, but maybe I need to go back and edit it .
> 
> _LEGALITY ASIDE,_ from the perspective of an artist or designer, are those things okay? Is everyone okay with the use of other people's designs without their permission under those circumstances, but not others? Where do people draw the line?



I got what you were asking, but if we are talking about ownership of a design, that, fundamentally, is intellectual property (IP). And if we are discussing IP, it is pretty much impossible to do so without bringing in the legal perspective because IP is inherently a legal concept, hence the manner in which I framed my response. 

As an example, look to China where the IP laws vary from very lax to non-existent in comparison to those in the western world. Since the laws are different, people view the IP differently from a moral perspective, too (because their experience with it is different). This is why there are so many knock off items coming from China.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 20, 2015)

I guess one point is that if you steal from a perceived honest person, people will rightfully bring condecension down upon you. If you steal from a perceived thief, people are much more likely to shrug it off.

Also, it seems like the debate as to whether or not Anderson is in the right legally is "settled" inasmuch as it could be on this forum.

As to whether or not the Bulldog is ugly, that's up for debate, but it's an entirely different topic. Personally, I wouldn't drop that much cash on a singlecut like this, it's just not my style. I wouldn't ridicule the design, nor anyone else's taste who likes it, though. I've played a few Andersons (ages ago) and I really liked the way they were built. I wouldn't mind a Pro Am in my collection.

The other topic is whether Anderson "should have" come up with a design like this. That's a related topic. If I was designing a guitar body shape, I, personally, would at least try for something more original. On the other hand, I do not think that I would be able to fully seperate myself from what I already know. To be frank, I don't see what Anderson did as "wrong." I don't think I have to justify that, but rather explain why I do not agree with people who are saying it is "wrong," since it'd be generally acceptable to assume innocence until otherwise proven by evidence and logic.

Think of it this way, does Gibson lose anything? If the answer is "no," then this is really not affecting anyone, and if there is no malice behind the act, then there is no reason to be upset.

Gibson, on the other hand, does something reprehensible by threatening another company with a lawsuit such as this - one in which they have no legal argument, but they know they can get their way through throwing their weight around. That behaviour is defined as bullying and as harassment. The fact that they repeat this strategy time and time again with various guitar manufacturers means that this is not just an incident but a pattern of behaviour. Gibson is in the wrong from a legal and moral standpoint, period.


----------



## spawnofthesith (Mar 20, 2015)

I don't see the issue here. If I couldn't see the headstock or bolt on I would assume that was an lp.


Gibson is awesome. I love my '13 les Paul. Despite derpy aesthetic and pricing decisions this year and last year, and those douches Henry j and Anderton running shit.


----------



## yingmin (Mar 20, 2015)

bostjan said:


> The other topic is whether Anderson "should have" come up with a design like this. That's a related topic. If I was designing a guitar body shape, I, personally, would at least try for something more original. On the other hand, I do not think that I would be able to fully seperate myself from what I already know. To be frank, I don't see what Anderson did as "wrong."



Again, though, what I take issue with is not that Anderson made a guitar with a similar body shape as a Les Paul: what I take issue with is that they replicated a Les Paul wholesale, with just enough aesthetic changes to be legally distinct. They also released other Bulldog models that correspond to other historic Les Pauls, like the Special and Junior. There's plenty of room to be creative within the realm of singlecut guitars, in the same way that a Jackson Dinky is clearly distinct from a Strat and a Rhoads V from a Gibson, but Anderson is copying every aspect of what makes a Les Paul a Les Paul. The Bulldog is clearly a deliberate Les Paul copy, not a new single cut guitar from Tom Anderson.



Solodini said:


> What about if everyone just put out rectangular guitars or unshaped pieces of wood with all of the necessary guitar attachments? They'd all be pretty similar but without any individual design going into them. Would that be okay?



That would be a worst-case scenario, because then NOBODY is being creative.


----------



## Defi (Mar 22, 2015)

Is this overpriced and poor QC .... with gibson just the cool thing to say? Do people just take it at face value immediately? Personally I've played a handful of new gibsons over the past few years and found them A) to be priced the same or more reasonably than any other factory guitar from america or japan and B) to have craftsmanship that is indiscernible from their peers as well.

I get it if it doesn't have a 15mm thin neck, floyd, 27 frets, 7 strings, 28" scale, and a hair scrunchie around the nut it isn't going to be the bees knees, but for those few people that want a Gibson, they'll be pleased to know that Gibson makes good Gibsons.

I will say though that the Les Paul I own is a Burny...


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 22, 2015)

Defi said:


> Is this overpriced and poor QC .... with gibson just the cool thing to say? Do people just take it at face value immediately? Personally I've played a handful of new gibsons over the past few years and found them A) to be priced the same or more reasonably than any other factory guitar from america or japan and B) to have craftsmanship that is indiscernible from their peers as well.
> 
> I get it if it doesn't have a 15mm thin neck, floyd, 27 frets, 7 strings, 28" scale, and a hair scrunchie around the nut it isn't going to be the bees knees, but for those few people that want a Gibson, they'll be pleased to know that Gibson makes good Gibsons.
> 
> I will say though that the Les Paul I own is a Burny...



I used to come into threads like these to say the same thing. It's going to fall on deaf ears I'm afraid. 

Gibson has been rocking it out in both the quality and bang-for-buck department for a good solid five years now. Are they the best quality wise? Nope, but very competitive at their given price points compared to other American made instruments. The only company that's probably doing better, in the US, as far as quality at the price of most non-special/limited/signature Gibsons is Fender, with PRS coming in just behind with the S2s. 

It's like the whole "Gibson headstocks break if you look at them wrong" thing. Has it happened to everyone? No, but everyone seems to have a cousin's friend's nephew whose Gibson headstock broke. Do you see a ton of older Gibsons with neck repairs? Heck yeah, but lets see what everyone's MIK/MII Schecters and Ibanez are going to look like in 20 or 30 years.


----------



## ihunda (Mar 22, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I used to come into threads like these to say the same thing. It's going to fall on deaf ears I'm afraid.
> 
> Gibson has been rocking it out in both the quality and bang-for-buck department for a good solid five years now. Are they the best quality wise? Nope, but very competitive at their given price points compared to other American made instruments. The only company that's probably doing better, in the US, as far as quality at the price of most non-special/limited/signature Gibsons is Fender, with PRS coming in just behind with the S2s.
> 
> It's like the whole "Gibson headstocks break if you look at them wrong" thing. Has it happened to everyone? No, but everyone seems to have a cousin's friend's nephew whose Gibson headstock broke. Do you see a ton of older Gibsons with neck repairs? Heck yeah, but lets see what everyone's MIK/MII Schecters and Ibanez are going to look like in 20 or 30 years.



Couldn't agree more, the Gibson bashing is strong. I am not a fan of their high end guitars because I think bang for the buck isn't there but clearly their lower end and mid offerings are no better or worse than the competition at the same price range.

Now something I learned about IP the hard way is that if you don't fight for it, you eventually lose it. For example if Gibson let anybody build LP clones for 10 years but then attack one large manufacturer out of the blue, like, say Fender. It would be a completely plausible and effective defence for Fender to say but "Gibson let everybody clone their design for 10 years", it's public domain.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 22, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Think of it this way, does Gibson lose anything? If the answer is "no," then this is really not affecting anyone, and if there is no malice behind the act, then there is no reason to be upset.
> 
> Gibson, on the other hand, does something reprehensible by threatening another company with a lawsuit such as this - one in which they have no legal argument, but they know they can get their way through throwing their weight around. That behaviour is defined as bullying and as harassment. The fact that they repeat this strategy time and time again with various guitar manufacturers means that this is not just an incident but a pattern of behaviour. Gibson is in the wrong from a legal and moral standpoint, period.



I don't know if this is everyone's experience, but pretty much all the Tom Anderson players and owners I know from back in FL days are more in the "Old School" category. They play Suhrs and Andersons as their "Modern" guitars and play their Fenders and Gibsons too. 

Anderson already caters to the upper end Fender crowd pretty well, and with the Bulldog they get some folks that probably would have bought a Gibson or a PRS. 

Are they making Gibson go bankrupt? Not at all. But that's not the issue. 

I don't see how Gibson is doing anything wrong by protecting their hard earned IP. Isn't that why we want IP protected? Years and years ago Gibson did the hard, risky part and brought forward the LP, with the help (via Gibson payroll) of some great, genius people. 

They're not sending in the Gestapo and breaking guitars in the Anderson shop. I didn't see folks calling PRS' actions reprehensible when they sent a cease and desist to Rondo/Agile over the Hawker. Few bring up how Fender will sue the pants of anyone with an even vaguely similar headstock. I honestly believe if this was almost any other company suing a lot more folks would be on the other side of this. 



ihunda said:


> Now something I learned about IP the hard way is that if you don't fight for it, you eventually lose it. For example if Gibson let anybody build LP clones for 10 years but then attack one large manufacturer out of the blue, like, say Fender. It would be a completely plausible and effective defence for Fender to say but "Gibson let everybody clone their design for 10 years", it's public domain.



 

From the sounds of things, it's not Gibson that folks should be mad at, but the often goofy laws that govern IP in this country.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 22, 2015)

I uploaded a few pictures of my experience with their QC in this thread. It's not a made up thing, but I agree people tend to overstate it. Even with the errors in my guitars, they play better than most guitars I've played.


----------



## AxeHappy (Mar 22, 2015)

I taught guitar for about a decade. I saw a lot of guitars and more than my share of Epihone and Gibson. 

I think saying the QC issue are gone and Gibson's are brilliant is a bit ridiculous. They were routinely some of the worst guitars students came in with. *shrugs*


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 22, 2015)

AxeHappy said:


> I taught guitar for about a decade. I saw a lot of guitars and more than my share of Epihone and Gibson.
> 
> I think saying the QC issue are gone and Gibson's are brilliant is a bit ridiculous. They were routinely some of the worst guitars students came in with. *shrugs*



I don't think anyone has said that Gibson is beyond reproach in the quality department. 

Also, don't take this the wrong way, but if you've been around the block that long and say Gibson is some of the worst, I can't take you seriously. Talk about hyperbole. 

I've been setting up and repairing guitars for nearly two decades. Are you telling me out of the sea of cheap garbage out there Gibson, one of the largest and best selling guitar companies there has ever been have been noticeably worse? 

I've had nearly everything on my bench over the years and even the best put out junk, and truthfully the gap between them all is rather slim within the same price range.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 23, 2015)

yingmin said:


> Again, though, what I take issue with is not that Anderson made a guitar with a similar body shape as a Les Paul: what I take issue with is that they replicated a Les Paul wholesale, with just enough aesthetic changes to be legally distinct. They also released other Bulldog models that correspond to other historic Les Pauls, like the Special and Junior. There's plenty of room to be creative within the realm of singlecut guitars, in the same way that a Jackson Dinky is clearly distinct from a Strat and a Rhoads V from a Gibson, but Anderson is copying every aspect of what makes a Les Paul a Les Paul. The Bulldog is clearly a deliberate Les Paul copy, not a new single cut guitar from Tom Anderson.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a worst-case scenario, because then NOBODY is being creative.


 
So what would be suitably creative within singlecut territory, in your opinion? If another company is not trying tweaks to its product to possibly make it suit a customer's needs, shouldn't it be okay for another company to fill that gap? Should a customer necessarily pay more to buy the existing instrument and then have it modded, rather than buy the existing instrument which is as they want?

On these grounds, I'm all for a licensing/royalties system for all artforms/creativity.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 23, 2015)

I think the only company that has _really_ attempted to make a "new" single-cut guitar (read: not a twist on an LP shape) in the past decade has been Breedlove. It as, by all accounts, a commercial failure. That really only backs up the point that most people who have the money to buy an expensive guitar will choose to spend their money on something familiar. 

I have to admit though, despite their non-traditional look, they played phenomenally and sounded amazing.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

The Fender Telecaster (actually Broadcaster/Esquire) were single cut solidbody electrics that existed prior to the LP.

@Max: I don't doubt that Gibson's QC has improved over the past five years. Especially after yesterday, playing a couple LP's from 2013 and 2014. Everything seemed okay (although the finish and inlays were not quite what I would expect on a $2k+ guitar), and the fretwork was actually pretty good. However, if your company has QC issues for a number of years, some people will not be quick to forget about them. When you sum up all of the photographic and anecdotal evidence provided on threads like this, you have to at least wonder what on Earth is going on.

Now, as for the other comments, such as:



Defi said:


> I get it if it doesn't have a 15mm thin neck, floyd, 27 frets, 7 strings, 28" scale, and a hair scrunchie around the nut it isn't going to be the bees knees, but for those few people that want a Gibson, they'll be pleased to know that Gibson makes good Gibsons.



I won't deny that this colours my opinion. If I really wanted a Gibson, because I liked the design, I'd buy one. With my personal preferences, I'd be likely to buy a Rondo, despite the stories about QC, because of the cool designs. But, then again, I'd be paying <$1k, whereas, for a Gibson, I'd be paying >$2k.

On the other hand, all the talk about how innovative the Gibson Les Paul is (was), may nearly as well be talk about how innovative the internal combustion engine is (was). It's been around long enough that most of the players who were playing something else before it existed and flocked to it for its innovation are no longer playing. The same cannot be said for, say the Ibanez UV, or even for the Floyd Rose (although we may be approaching that moment).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2015)

bostjan said:


> The Fender Telecaster (actually Broadcaster/Esquire) were single cut solidbody electrics that existed prior to the LP.



Look up Paul Bigsby's work.


----------



## stevexc (Mar 23, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Look up Paul Bigsby's work.



These the guys?






Definitely cool, and from 1948 if I'm reading correctly for anyone keeping score.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Look up Paul Bigsby's work.



Right, I didn't say that the Tele was the first singlecut, my point was that the LP was not the only singlecut solidbody design.

EDIT: That 1946 Merle Travis Bigsby looks quite similar to a LP body shape.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2015)

It still proves the point, but let's not forget that Paul Bigsby, who had the idea first, later sold his company/designs to Gibson (technically Ted McCarty, but there's some gray area as he was technically still a Gibson employee/designer).


----------



## yingmin (Mar 23, 2015)

Solodini said:


> So what would be suitably creative within singlecut territory, in your opinion?


 I think a few posts after yours answer that question rather well:



bostjan said:


> The Fender Telecaster (actually Broadcaster/Esquire) were single cut solidbody electrics that existed prior to the LP.





bostjan said:


> That 1946 Merle Travis Bigsby looks quite similar to a LP body shape.


Both of those precursors to the Les Paul are quite distinct from each other, and the Les Paul is quite distinct from those. The body shape of the Bigsby guitar is similar to a Les Paul, but is otherwise an almost entirely different guitar. Hell, you don't even have to look away from Gibson to see significant differentiation: a Nighthawk/Blueshawk is distinct from a Les Paul. 



SeditiousDissent said:


> I think the only company that has _really_ attempted to make a "new" single-cut guitar (read: not a twist on an LP shape) in the past decade has been Breedlove. It as, by all accounts, a commercial failure. That really only backs up the point that most people who have the money to buy an expensive guitar will choose to spend their money on something familiar.



I think the more salient point may be that Breedlove is traditionally an acoustic instrument company, and not every company can successfully pull off the crossover. Taylor's solid body guitars, which were somewhat more traditional looking than Breedlove's, were hardly runaway successes, either. Conversely, few of the companies who primarily make electric guitars (Fender, Ibanez, Dean et al) have done anything terribly important in the acoustic realm. They may sell a lot of guitars in the $500 and under price brackets, but not many people would even consider a $2000+ Fender or Ibanez acoustic. PRS is having some luck in that area, but time will tell whether they rise to the level of companies like Gibson, Martin, or even Taylor or Breedlove in acoustic guitars.



Solodini said:


> On these grounds, I'm all for a licensing/royalties system for all artforms/creativity.


I want to reiterate that I'm not talking about the economics, the legal issues or any of that. I am strictly promoting the value of creativity and originality. Sure, if a builder makes a guitar that's nearly identical to another guitar, I'd prefer that the originator gets paid for it, but I'd be much more in favor of that builder at least attempting something new. Basically, if your statement to the world as a builder is "hey guys, here's a guitar that's just different enough from a Strat/Tele/Les Paul/whatever that I probably won't get sued", then I say thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know if this is everyone's experience, but pretty much all the Tom Anderson players and owners I know from back in FL days are more in the "Old School" category. They play Suhrs and Andersons as their "Modern" guitars and play their Fenders and Gibsons too.
> 
> Anderson already caters to the upper end Fender crowd pretty well, and with the Bulldog they get some folks that probably would have bought a Gibson or a PRS.
> 
> ...



I'm a little late with the comment, but I still say that if the same grounds were used in the PRS suit, and Gibson lost that suit, then going after Anderson is bullying. There are legal reasons why Gibson lost against PRS, and those reasons still apply in the case with Anderson.

Ok, I actually do have a couple patents out there. Neither have yet expired. If someone ripped off the idea in one of my patents, I'd go after them in court. Say I allow one of the patents to expire, then someone else rips off my idea - would I sue them then? No. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a reasonable person would not do this in my situation, because it'd be a hassle and a loss of time and money. Now, what if I was rich - really rich, and I hired some fancy attorney who made people think I would at least be able to make their defence very costly? That's bullying.

Gibson holds a trademark on the Les Paul. As the law defines that trademark, it offers them protection against counterfeits. The bulldog is not a counterfeit. There is no legal case here. I firmly believe that statement is pretty solid; however, if Gibson was suing me, I'd be pretty nervous regardless of the law, because they already have a reputation as a bully.

It seems to me like some people will simply defend Gibson's actions no matter what. The same goes for other brands.

Intellectual property is protected by law, but there are limits. I can't legally claim something is my IP unless I came up with it or bought the rights from someone who did. I'm pretty sure that hiring a guy who personally owns IP does not entitle me to that IP for the rest of eternity. These laws do get abused from time to time.

My points are:
*1. Gibson holds a trademark on the LP silhouette.
2. Gibson already sued PRS on the grounds that the Singlecut looked like the LP, yet they lost, due to the fact that the trademark does not cover visible similarities body shapes or control layouts (which are not even in the silhouette as trademarked).
3. Anderson's Bulldog looks similar to the LP, but it has a distinct branding so as not to mislead shoppers.
4. The legal interpretations of situation one does not interpret to grounds for a suit in situation three, especially due to precedent two.
5. Furthermore, Gibson has had several similar lawsuits threatened already.*

From a moral standpoint:
*Gibson should cut it out with the frivolous lawsuits.*

If there is a debate over whether or not Anderson should come up with something more original, well, I'd be all for it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2015)

bostjan said:


> I'm a little late with the comment, but I still say that if the same grounds were used in the PRS suit, and Gibson lost that suit, then going after Anderson is bullying. There are legal reasons why Gibson lost against PRS, and those reasons still apply in the case with Anderson.
> 
> Ok, I actually do have a couple patents out there. Neither have yet expired. If someone ripped off the idea in one of my patents, I'd go after them in court. Say I allow one of the patents to expire, then someone else rips off my idea - would I sue them then? No. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a reasonable person would not do this in my situation, because it'd be a hassle and a loss of time and money. Now, what if I was rich - really rich, and I hired some fancy attorney who made people think I would at least be able to make their defence very costly? That's bullying.
> 
> ...



Gibson didn't out right lose. They actually won, only to have the decision appealed a year later by another court. 

Also, just because it was ruled that PRS didn't infringe, doesn't mean that they can never defend thier IP from others. If they don't fight it then they can no longer bring it up, the outcome has no bearing.

While they might not of had the best luck with court rulings, thier thier cease and desist orders have been very successful. Do those have any legal bearing?


----------



## spawnofthesith (Mar 23, 2015)

I'm also just gonna throw it out there that the body of the Tom Anderson is waaay closer to an LP than the prs


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 23, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Also, just because it was ruled that PRS didn't infringe, doesn't mean that they can never defend thier IP from others. If they don't fight it then they can no longer bring it up, the outcome has no bearing.



This is very true. They have the right to file suit against any company that they feel is stepping on the toes of the LP. The only thing going against Gibson in this and any subsequent suit is legal precedent. And there's the rub. 

Because the initial Gibson v PRS decision was reversed through appeal, it essentially screwed any chance of Gibson successfully suing for infringement. This seems to hold especially true within the boutique guitar market, as per the opinion of the court. It seems that Gibson v PRS did more to damage Gibson's IP rights than maintain them.

Again, though, if someone were to copy their headstock, inlay, or logo, then they (Gibson) has every right to grind them into the dust, according to the law.

*Edit:* I saw this on the USPTO site regarding C&D letters. I found it very interesting. Cease and Desist Letter


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Gibson didn't out right lose. They actually won, only to have the decision appealed a year later by another court.
> 
> Also, just because it was ruled that PRS didn't infringe, doesn't mean that they can never defend thier IP from others. If they don't fight it then they can no longer bring it up, the outcome has no bearing.



The decision of the appeals court, though was to overturn the original decision.

I think where we are not on the same page must be in identifying Gibson's IP. What IP do they own at this time? The trademark on the LP is over the silhouette of the shape, not the shape itself or any functionality nor application.

If Pepsi owned a trademark on their logo, but had no IP ownership over the flavour, and I made my own cola that tasted like Pepsi, and used a different logo, say, a green square with a yellow triangle in it with the words "Bostjan Cola" in orange lettering, how would they successfully sue me? The answer that they probably would hire or retain an expensive lawyer and send me a cease and desist notice, then proceed from there if I was not intimidated enough to stop.

This isn't really that different. The Bulldog is like an LP, for sure. Is it "too much" like an LP? Maybe, but the law doesn't work that way. As the law is written, Anderson did nothing wrong.

The Les Paul was patented in 1959, the patent expired in 1976. Gibson went after several manufacturers since 1976, citing trademark infringement. They were successful in the suits, as long as the headstock was also copied. The case with PRS is considered "lost" as the final decision was reached (even though it was in a higher court), which favoured PRS. Gibson has also lost their trademark protection in some countries, as the name is considered common use now.



spawnofthesith said:


> I'm also just gonna throw it out there that the body of the Tom Anderson is waaay closer to an LP than the prs



That's what I thought might make a difference, at first, but read the court decision in the PRS case, and it doesn't seem to be the issue.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 23, 2015)

They own the silhouette? You do realize that pretty much ever person they send a C&D to have a remarkably similar silhouette, particularly in the body. Not sure what you think silhouette means, but it basically means the shape regardless of surface features. Ie: being able to recognize at a distance the differences.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> They own the silhouette? You do realize that pretty much ever person they send a C&D to have a remarkably similar silhouette, particularly in the body. Not sure what you think silhouette means, but it basically means the shape regardless of surface features. Ie: being able to recognize at a distance the differences.



If they have a trademark on the silhouette, it basically means no one else can use that silhouette. The trademark is not on the body shape.

So, if I made a guitar, and inlaid it with a silhouette of a Les Paul, then I'd be in real trouble.

As an analogy, if I trademarked the silhouette of a guy with a big nose wearing a hat jumping and punching the air, I can't sue Nintendo over Mario, unless they try to use Mario's silhouette as a logo.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2015)

spawnofthesith said:


> I'm also just gonna throw it out there that the body of the Tom Anderson is waaay closer to an LP than the prs



Which is kinda what I'm getting at. 

I think the case against Tom Anderson here is stronger than the one against PRS was. 

I totally get that the precedent has been set against Gibson.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 23, 2015)

bostjan said:


> If they have a trademark on the silhouette, it basically means no one else can use that silhouette. The trademark is not on the body shape.
> 
> So, if I made a guitar, and inlaid it with a silhouette of a Les Paul, then I'd be in real trouble.
> 
> As an analogy, if I trademarked the silhouette of a guy with a big nose wearing a hat jumping and punching the air, I can't sue Nintendo over Mario, unless they try to use Mario's silhouette as a logo.



I have nothing to base this on other than what I've come to understand it, but that sounds wrong. Silhouette doesn't just mean a black shape, but the recognizeable shape from afar. 

Outside of legal town, silhouette is used as recognition in video games. Two notable examples being left 4 dead and team fortress. Without having to give more than a passing glance, one can recognize the special infected or in the case of team fortress, different classes. The same way somebody can notice the difference at a quick glance between the silhouette of a gibson vs epiphone les paul, or an esp LP clone vs the silhouette of a Gibson LP. 

Again, I could be wrong and am much too tired to look up legal definitions of what silhouette means, but if you can point me towards where it says it just means a 2d graphic (i assume thats what you're saying. Again, I'm tired so I may be mistaken.) of the shape, I'll admit defeat.


----------



## bhakan (Mar 23, 2015)

bostjan said:


> If they have a trademark on the silhouette, it basically means no one else can use that silhouette. The trademark is not on the body shape.
> 
> So, if I made a guitar, and inlaid it with a silhouette of a Les Paul, then I'd be in real trouble.
> 
> As an analogy, if I trademarked the silhouette of a guy with a big nose wearing a hat jumping and punching the air, I can't sue Nintendo over Mario, unless they try to use Mario's silhouette as a logo.


I think a more apt analogy would be if Nintendo trademarked Mario's silhouette, you could make a character with a red shirt and hat, a mustache and overalls as long as his shape is different, but you could not make a character with a big nose and a hat jumping and punching the air even he was blue and had a beard, because he has the same silhouette.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 24, 2015)

yingmin said:


> I think a few posts after yours answer that question rather well:
> 
> 
> Both of those precursors to the Les Paul are quite distinct from each other, and the Les Paul is quite distinct from those. The body shape of the Bigsby guitar is similar to a Les Paul, but is otherwise an almost entirely different guitar. Hell, you don't even have to look away from Gibson to see significant differentiation: a Nighthawk/Blueshawk is distinct from a Les Paul.


 
I don't think they're that distinct at all. I think there are a lot of designs which are only one step in between two of them.





yingmin said:


> I want to reiterate that I'm not talking about the economics, the legal issues or any of that. I am strictly promoting the value of creativity and originality. Sure, if a builder makes a guitar that's nearly identical to another guitar, I'd prefer that the originator gets paid for it, but I'd be much more in favor of that builder at least attempting something new. Basically, if your statement to the world as a builder is "hey guys, here's a guitar that's just different enough from a Strat/Tele/Les Paul/whatever that I probably won't get sued", then I say thanks, but no thanks.


 
Not all development needs to be a complete change, though. There are plenty of creators who have done really cool things with incremental development, rather than revolution. It seems wasteful to discount development because some areas are the same, in a world of limited materials and cost-effective construction methods.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 24, 2015)

Nope, a silhouette is just a silhouette. There is no "legal" defiition of what it is, it just is what it is, meaning you can define it in a regular old dictionary. If it was a legal term, then maybe it'd be a different discussion or maybe not.

Take a look at the legal proceedings in the PRS case. The upper court makes it clear that the trademark on the silhouette only covers a silhouette of a Les Paul as it is shown in the trademark papers. I haven't seen the papers themselves, but perhaps that is irrelevant to this caveat of the discussion.

Another analogy would be if Alfred Hitchcock had trademarked his famous silhouette (I'm sure he had), then no one can use that silhouette. If another fat man with a similar profile were to use his face, it would not infringe, but if he used his silhouette, then there could be cause for a legal battle.

I think it's pretty cut and dried. Just look at the actual court papers from the PRS case.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 24, 2015)

Just gonna go ahead and cut/paste some things pointing to the contrary of the definition of silhouette, as it is used outside of the typical "black on white portraits."



> Because silhouettes give a very clear image they are often used in any field where the speedy identification of an object is necessary. Silhouettes have a many practical applications. They are used for traffic signs. They are used to identify towns or countries with silhouettes of famous monuments or maps. They are used to identify natural objects such as trees, insects and dinosaurs. They are used in forensic science.


and



> Military Usage
> 
> Main articles: Aircraft recognition and Jane's Fighting Ships
> Silhouettes of ships, planes, tanks, and other military vehicles are used by soldiers and sailors for learning to identify different craft.


I left in links to a couple articles which make specific mention of "silhouette" being used as a method of identifying things from afar using nothing more than the general shape of something. 

It's a bit silly to claim that somebody who owns the rights to a "silhouette" only owns the rights to a graphical representation of the shape. Silhouettes are used to identify items from afar. If the only difference in a guitar is the switch placement, and it's a flat top instead of a carve top, then the silhouette of the instrument is unchanged. From 200 feet away, say in the audience at a festival, even in broad daylight it becomes pretty damn difficult to distinguish what's what without a clearly different silhouette, which is all you really have to go on when you can't make out logos and the like.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 24, 2015)

This is the *exact* image "silhouette" to which people are referring. It is listed as serial # 86454469 with the USPTO. There are also trademarks for silhouettes of the Explorer, SG, V, Firebird and headstock.







Les Paul Shape Trademark

*Edit for emphasis


----------



## tedtan (Mar 24, 2015)

Chokey Chicken said:


> It's a bit silly to claim that somebody who owns the rights to a "silhouette" only owns the rights to a graphical representation of the shape. Silhouettes are used to identify items from afar.



Keep in mind that trademarks only protect a company from counterfeits (in order to protect its customers from inadvertently buying a knock off). The judge who ruled in the Gibson v. PRS case stated very clearly that confusion in a smoky bar (e.g., at a distance) doesn't matter in these cases because there is no confusion between the two at the point of sale (where the trademark law applies), particularly among the savvy buyers who can afford them.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 24, 2015)

@Chokey: Did you read the court's ruling in the PRS case?

@Seditious: That trademark claim seems to me to be contrary to the court's ruling. [!] If you overlay the image from the trademark claim on a photo of a PRS SC, it fits very well, being just a tiny bit slimmer on the bottom. Although I also did so with a Bulldog, and it was slightly more similar, again, slightly slimmer and flatter at the bottom and having a slightly deeper cutaway. Either way, though, whichever logic applies to PRS also applies to Anderson, and vice-versa, so long as the claim is that the silhouettes of the two guitars are similar.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Mar 24, 2015)

bostjan said:


> @Seditious: That trademark claim seems to me to be contrary to the court's ruling. [!] If you overlay the image from the trademark claim on a photo of a PRS SC, it fits very well, being just a tiny bit slimmer on the bottom. Although I also did so with a Bulldog, and it was slightly more similar, again, slightly slimmer and flatter at the bottom and having a slightly deeper cutaway. Either way, though, whichever logic applies to PRS also applies to Anderson, and vice-versa, so long as the claim is that the silhouettes of the two guitars are similar.



I agree wholeheartedly that they are remarkably similar. It would seem that the entire case boiled down to whether or not the shape and features were covered by trademark law. In the end, it was the opinion of the court that they were not. Here's what the Judge had to say in the opening of her opinion.



> KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This is an interlocutory appeal of an injunction granted in a trademark case. *The parties agree that the mark purports to include at least the two-dimensional guitar shape set out in the trademark-registration papers*. *However, they disagree as to whether the mark extends to cover three-dimensional objects where two dimensions of those objects have the same general shape (but not the same exact proportions) as the drawing in the registration papers, and as to whether the mark includes additional product features shown in a photograph accompanying the registration papers. 1. (see footnote)* Whatever the scope of the mark, the parties also dispute whether the mark is valid and whether it has been infringed.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 1. We emphasize that *this dispute is only over whether the product shape and features are covered by trademark law*. All trade-dress claims have been voluntarily dismissed by the parties.


----------



## Andromalia (Mar 24, 2015)

Small shape differences aside, the finish and overall color scheme of the guitar shown on this topic adds another layer of confusion as this exact finish is one of the most popular by Gibson on their Les Pauls. A Denim burst might have given a very different impression.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 24, 2015)

One could make the argument that PRS or any other company are the ones making the "counterfeits," based on shape and shape alone and therefore the crime was committed before a buyer comes into the picture.

Contrary to what my recent ramblings might say about my opinion, I think at this point there are so many "legal" (re: post-lawsuit) LP copies that share an ultra close silhouette it's sort of silly for Gibson to even have legal claim anymore at all. The market is so saturated with look alikes that it's utterly insane for Gibson to keep on getting people to make the horn look slightly different.


----------



## yingmin (Mar 25, 2015)

Solodini said:


> I don't think they're that distinct at all. I think there are a lot of designs which are only one step in between two of them.


One more time, I am not talking strictly about the 2-D shape of the body. If you trace the body of the Bigsby and a Les Paul onto butcher paper, sure, they look pretty similar. Apart from that, they have almost nothing in common. The Les a Paul and Tele are even more dissimilar. I'm not suggesting that every new guitar be a complete reimagining of what a guitar can be. I'm only saying that taking a pre-existing guitar and doing nothing but changing the proportions slightly is not even trying to be creative. It would be theoretically possible to make a guitar with the exact same silhouette as a Les Paul that is still wholly its own guitar. 





Solodini said:


> Not all development needs to be a complete change, though. There are plenty of creators who have done really cool things with incremental development, rather than revolution. It seems wasteful to discount development because some areas are the same, in a world of limited materials and cost-effective construction methods.


Funny you should say that, because there's been a lot of innovation specifically dealing with alternative materials: Steinberger's all-graphite L series; phenolic resin and Richlite fretboards; the baked-on compound shell on Parkers; Graphtech's graphite and Tusq nuts, and so on. 

Aside from that, can you give me some examples of what you consider incremental advancement?


----------



## Solodini (Mar 26, 2015)

yingmin said:


> One more time, I am not talking strictly about the 2-D shape of the body. If you trace the body of the Bigsby and a Les Paul onto butcher paper, sure, they look pretty similar. Apart from that, they have almost nothing in common. The Les a Paul and Tele are even more dissimilar. I'm not suggesting that every new guitar be a complete reimagining of what a guitar can be. I'm only saying that taking a pre-existing guitar and doing nothing but changing the proportions slightly is not even trying to be creative. It would be theoretically possible to make a guitar with the exact same silhouette as a Les Paul that is still wholly its own guitar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Neck shapes, bridges, fingerboard profiles, electrical/electronic options, feel of neck joins, different chambering options. Even a development of one of those I think justifies it. Make an adjustment to chambering, want Les Paul players to appreciate it, package it in a way they'll be able to accept and see what they think. No point buying a bunch of LPs to take the top off, chamber it, reconstruct it and sell it on.

If Fender won't build a guitar with a compound fingerboard and an evertune but you want the comfort of a strat then why not have someone else build something similar?


----------



## jonsick (Mar 26, 2015)

To be honest, I just googled the bulldog. I honestly thought the first three images that popped up were Gibson. The only thing that tells you it isn't is the headstock.

Sorry, though I hate the way Gibson is being run these days, I'm afraid they're in the right here! They just are.

I have two older Gibsons that I will never ever part with. They are just that good! I can't quite say the same for most of their current lines and I think charging £1500 for the new "redesigned" Explorer is just monstrous. But really, they have a point right here.

FWIW, the two Andersons I've played were excellent guitars. I think Tom Anderson is right to just write it off, put it behind him and get on with what he is in business to do. Not lose it to some legal battle that really he doesn't stand a hope in hell of winning by his own admission.


----------

