# Gibson wins against Dean



## STRHelvete (May 28, 2022)

https://guitar.com/news/industry-ne...ment-and-counterfeiting-gibson-flying-v-case/


----------



## Matt08642 (May 28, 2022)

“The jury found that Armadillo is not liable to Gibson for our long use of those guitars and headstock. The jury issued a judgment in the amount of $4,000, a mere fraction of the $7 million plus originally sought by Gibson.”

All that for $4000 and the right for Gibson to keep making boring instruments


----------



## NoodleFace (May 28, 2022)

Damn can't even buy a Les Paul custom for that


----------



## STRHelvete (May 28, 2022)

I wonder if Dean will change the shapes now


----------



## soul_lip_mike (May 28, 2022)

I read that headline as if Gibson was saying Dean copied their CASE design for the flying V.  Still having my morning coffee...


----------



## c7spheres (May 28, 2022)

The article says; " Importantly, it was ruled that Gibson is owed $4,000 in “counterfeiting statutory damages per counterfeit trademark per type of goods sold, [or] offered for sale.” "

It's $4k per thing they even tried to sell from how I read it. Sounds like they could go bankrupt. The article contradicts itself or maybe it hasn't sunk in to them yet? One of them is wrong.


----------



## Concerto412 (May 28, 2022)

Curious to see how this unfolds. The wording of the ruling certainly reads as if the $4k penalty is _per offence,_ but Armadillo’s response doesn’t reflect that.


----------



## CapinCripes (May 28, 2022)

Kinda tired of Gibson sitting on designs and using them as litigation generators instead of competing.


----------



## mmr007 (May 28, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> The article says; " Importantly, it was ruled that Gibson is owed $4,000 in “counterfeiting statutory damages per counterfeit trademark per type of goods sold, [or] offered for sale.” "
> 
> It's $4k per thing they even tried to sell from how I read it. Sounds like they could go bankrupt. The article contradicts itself or maybe it hasn't sunk in to them yet? One of them is wrong.


I thought I was the only one that read it that way that the $4,000 was per attempt to sell a counterfeit but then at the end of the article Dean guitars is confident it is $4000 sum total


----------



## Musiscience (May 28, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> I thought I was the only one that read it that way that the $4,000 was per attempt to sell a counterfeit but then at the end of the article Dean guitars is confident it is $4000 sum total


Really hope it’s that. In all cases, Gibson will never get a cent of my money ever again.

I never really liked Dean guitars, but this is just bully behaviour from Gibson. If they were to sue, they should have done so in the 70s or 80s.


----------



## STRHelvete (May 28, 2022)

Well...to be fair, Dean's Z and V are pretty much carbon copies. If you took the headstock off you wouldn't be able to tell which was which unless you were very familiar with either or both brands.
I also have a feeling that that "gentlemen's agreement" between the two owners of the company didn't help. That was Dean pretty much admitting they ripped Gibson off. Also their SG is called the "GS". They had advertisements back in the day essentially saying they did Gibson's shapes better, etc. They did everything but call themselves Gibson 2.0


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (May 28, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> I wonder if Dean will change the shapes now


Idunno if I missed anything in the article but I didn't see anything about Dean having to stop making the shapes + headstocks? If that's the case Dean actually made it out fine with this lol.


----------



## BusinessMan (May 28, 2022)

CapinCripes said:


> Kinda tired of Gibson sitting on designs and using them as litigation generators instead of competing.


Why stop the real money printer when it's clearly not their guitars?


----------



## CapinCripes (May 28, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Well...to be fair, Dean's Z and V are pretty much carbon copies. If you took the headstock off you wouldn't be able to tell which was which unless you were very familiar with either or both brands.
> I also have a feeling that that "gentlemen's agreement" between the two owners of the company didn't help. That was Dean pretty much admitting they ripped Gibson off. Also their SG is called the "GS". They had advertisements back in the day essentially saying they did Gibson's shapes better, etc. They did everything but call themselves Gibson 2.0


Y'know I have no problem with products from different companies being approximations of each other as long as no deception is involved. Competition is the driving force of capitalism after all. Honestly quality and price/performance ratio should do the talking. Litigating based on body shape of a guitar because you can't compete on any other level is very anti-consumer and anti-competitive especially when said designs are 20 or so years from being a century old.


----------



## Esp Griffyn (May 28, 2022)

How is this "a win for the music community at large"? 

Do Gibson genuinely believe we are that stupid? That shitty company will never see a penny of my money.


----------



## STRHelvete (May 28, 2022)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Idunno if I missed anything in the article but I didn't see anything about Dean having to stop making the shapes + headstocks? If that's the case Dean actually made it out fine with this lol.


It seems like it. It seems like Gibson just wanted on record that they're AuThEnTic! They get money, they'll probably license the shapes for Dean's use and that'll be that.


----------



## STRHelvete (May 28, 2022)

CapinCripes said:


> Y'know I have no problem with products from different companies being approximations of each other as long as no deception is involved. Competition is the driving force of capitalism after all. Honestly quality and price/performance ratio should do the talking. Litigating based on body shape of a guitar because you can't compete on any other level is very anti-consumer and anti-competitive especially when said designs are 20 or so years from being a century old.


Approximations and THE exact guitar are two different things. The Gibson V and the Dean V are pretty much the same thing besides the headstock and maybe small specs like pickups and stuff. Dean essentially pulled a Vanilla Ice


----------



## John (May 28, 2022)

I wonder what mental gymnastics allowed them to 'win' here whilst they lost over pretty much the same tripe in Europe not too long ago.

Gibson's tactic of taking things to court, ie- in the name of aUtHeNtiCiTy- instead of simply improving themselves gets stupider by each attempt. A pity, since their efforts often make it more difficult to get any actually good guitars from other folks either with or resembling those shapes without having to butcher it by a lot, often for the worse aesthetically, just to avoid their litigation crap.


----------



## mmr007 (May 28, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Approximations and THE exact guitar are two different things. The Gibson V and the Dean V are pretty much the same thing besides the headstock and maybe small specs like pickups and stuff. Dean essentially pulled a Vanilla Ice



This analogy gets the win. Congrats. I don't have a prize to give you but...if I did. It's yours

Now....to all the hate getting spewed towards Gibson in this and many other threads. Please tell us how Orville touched you in inappropriate places when you were a child. Protection of trademarks and quality of product are two different things (side note I seem to be missing the army outside my window shouting Dean guitar build quality is leaps and bounds ahead of Gibson)....but tell me....if I am wrong I will mea culpa right here right now....does Gibson use slave child labor? Did they poison your town's water supply? Do they produce a product that harms animals or children? They made some of the most iconic shapes ever....the Les Paul, the SG, the V, the explorer....all winners in the metal community. Is the ESP explorer a better guitar quality wise than the Gibson. Probably. But what an stupid argument to say to a company "I deserve your product at a cheaper price and better quality and features so another company should be allowed to make it for me."

Is their QC perfect? NO!!!! They don't have airbags that deploy for no reason while you're driving, they don't catch on fire when you set them down on the bed like certain cellphones, they don't cause salmonella. If you're pissed they are overpriced...make more money...or play less authentic. Is a Ferrari overpriced? For my budget, yes. Just in general....also yes. But I'm not pissed that people out there buy a car that can't go 1,000 miles without a $12,000 tune up. Honestly if you applied the anti Gibson reasoning to other products you likely wouldn't buy anything because every company would upset you.

If you REALLY, REALLY want to get triggered. Go research how often corporations take each other to court. Then make your list of products you won't buy.


----------



## c7spheres (May 28, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> I thought I was the only one that read it that way that the $4,000 was per attempt to sell a counterfeit but then at the end of the article Dean guitars is confident it is $4000 sum total


Yeah, I get confused reading it. Hopefully it is only $4k total.


----------



## WarMachine (May 28, 2022)

Gibson can fuck right on off.


----------



## CapinCripes (May 28, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Approximations and THE exact guitar are two different things. The Gibson V and the Dean V are pretty much the same thing besides the headstock and maybe small specs like pickups and stuff. Dean essentially pulled a Vanilla Ice



Is it the same guitar though? Is a Jackson soloist and an esp m-2 the same guitar? Is a charvel so-cal the same guitar as a strat? Are all smartphones iphones because of their outward appearance?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 28, 2022)

Pretty much expected most of the reactions in here. 

I don't see how not letting someone else make money off your designs is stifling creativity or innovation, if anything it forces other manufacturers to not make the same old guitars. Isn't that what everyone complains about? Fuddy duddy old Gibson just making the same old same old? 

If this was almost any other brand folks in here would have the opposite opinion. 

You don't see too many folks bringing up the litigation that FMIC has been involved with.


----------



## WarMachine (May 28, 2022)

This needs a #MeToo, like for real.
#GibsonToo
How long has this been going on? Not the body stealing, im talking the lawsuit. Dean's been doing this for years, so if Gibson has been fighting them legally on it for years, then it's a tit for tat. But if its something that is "just now" a problem, piss on them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 28, 2022)

WarMachine said:


> This needs a #MeToo, like for real.
> #GibsonToo
> How long has this been going on? Not the body stealing, im talking the lawsuit. Dean's been doing this for years, so if Gibson has been fighting them legally on it for years, then it's a tit for tat. But if its something that is "just now" a problem, piss on them.



It's an interesting history.

In early days, 70's to early 80's, Dean Guitars was closer to the smaller one man shops we see more frequently these days. Dean, the person, made one offs for rockstars and Gibson didn't really mind as he was only making a handful of guitars a year.

Then Dean Z. sold the business the first time and they focused on foreign markets, which again Gibson wasn't at the time looking to compete directly there, so sort of let it slide. This must have been from around 85' to almost 95'.

Dean Guitars as most know them didn't exist until Armadillo entered the picture in the late 90's. That's when they first started marketing themselves as continuing the legacy of American guitars of the Gibson mold. They did some ads, got some C&Ds but always seemed to back down.

From the early 00's onwards they were constantly either almost bankrupt or almost sold, just overall in flux, so it wasn't until fairly recently that anything further than a threat of action could really get a life of its own.

That's the highly abridged version and not even accounting for the various eras of Gibson and it's management. 

Now we're here.


----------



## CapinCripes (May 28, 2022)

It's not so much that it's Gibson, it's the age of the designs. I feel that if nothing else design exclusivity in general should sunset at some point similar to ip becoming public domain. I would argue that the extent that the law protects ip holder's at this point stifles both competition and the economy as a whole and is at the determent to the consumer. Should ip holder's have a exclusive right to the fruit of their work? Yes but only for a time. We as a society need to reform how we look at intellectual property as there are more and more examples of ip existing only as a way to tie up the courts and for ip holder's to make money not from the ip itself but through litigation.


----------



## bigcupholder (May 28, 2022)

It's $4k per design, not per guitar sold. Gibson didn't even cover their legal costs with that judgement. The more valuable thing for them is the ruling that their trademarks are not generic and they can protect them more easily in the future (assuming they don't get lazy and decide to not protect them for several decades again).

I don't like Gibson but I have no problem with this. Their designs are theirs. Other companies should have to change the body shapes at least a little.


----------



## STRHelvete (May 28, 2022)

CapinCripes said:


> Is it the same guitar though? Is a Jackson soloist and an esp m-2 the same guitar? Is a charvel so-cal the same guitar as a strat? Are all smartphones iphones because of their outward appearance?


What? The Gibson 58 and the Dean V ARE the same guitar. The shape, pickgaurd design, V tailpiece, etc. Unless you're very familiar with the brands you wouldn't be able to tell them apart unless you saw the headstock


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 28, 2022)

All this "anti consumer", "anti innovation", and "anti competition" rhetoric and no one has really explained why it's better for anyone if Dean, or anyone else really, makes guitars that look like carbon copies of Gibsons. 

I mean, if all you want is a Gibson but cheaper Epiphone has been around since forever. 

Plenty of companies have made tweaks to the designs that look great, and that might not have happened if they could just copy verbatim.



CapinCripes said:


> Is it the same guitar though? Is a Jackson soloist and an esp m-2 the same guitar? Is a charvel so-cal the same guitar as a strat? Are all smartphones iphones because of their outward appearance?



Bad examples. 

Try ordering an M-II with a Concorde headstock, FMIC owns Charvel, and Samsung got slapped because the Galaxy looked too much like the iPhone.


----------



## Hollowway (May 28, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> The article says; " Importantly, it was ruled that Gibson is owed $4,000 in “counterfeiting statutory damages per counterfeit trademark per type of goods sold, [or] offered for sale.” "
> 
> It's $4k per thing they even tried to sell from how I read it. Sounds like they could go bankrupt. The article contradicts itself or maybe it hasn't sunk in to them yet? One of them is wrong.


I read it as " Importantly, it was ruled that Gibson is owed $4,000 in “counterfeiting statutory damages per counterfeit trademark (Flying V) per type of goods (Guitar) sold, [or] offered for sale.” 

So it's just $4000. I doesn't look like it means per every guitar sold. 

Anyway, I think protecting IP is important, but I also thing patent trolls suck. When you see how much innovation in body styles is important, it's a wonder Gibson (and Dean, too) don't do more styles. But, I'm aware that I'm not a traditionalist, and most players are.


----------



## nickgray (May 28, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> if anything it forces other manufacturers to not make the same old guitars



Yeah, but to which extent? Granted, V and Explorer shapes are rather unique, but it still begs the question of why the hell a company should have a monopoly on a design like that, especially since they're both 60 years old. But that's just down to American IP laws and views on IP in general.

But the LP shape is just a solid body classical guitar with a cutaway. Gibson has fuck all to do with it. Same goes for Fender - Strat and Tele are both logical derivatives of that shape. That's the real issue - to which extent companies like Gibson can push with this nonsense. Should Ibanez pay tribute to Fender for their RGs?

In any case, I think it's complete bs solely because we all damn know that the logo on the headstock (and the headstock itself) is the most important part of the guitar. Dean logo with a wacky headstock -> completely different from a Gibson Flying V.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 28, 2022)

nickgray said:


> Yeah, but to which extent? Granted, V and Explorer shapes are rather unique, but it still begs the question of why the hell a company should have a monopoly on a design like that, especially since they're both 60 years old. But that's just down to American IP laws and views on IP in general.
> 
> But the LP shape is just a solid body classical guitar with a cutaway. Gibson has fuck all to do with it. Same goes for Fender - Strat and Tele are both logical derivatives of that shape. That's the real issue - to which extent companies like Gibson can push with this nonsense. Should Ibanez pay tribute to Fender for their RGs?
> 
> In any case, I think it's complete bs solely because we all damn know that the logo on the headstock (and the headstock itself) is the most important part of the guitar. Dean logo with a wacky headstock -> completely different from a Gibson Flying V.



If "old guitar shape A" is nothing special, then why copy it?

It's hard to really distinguish when "x" becomes "y" and no longer infringes, which is why this stuff goes to court where arguments are made and a consensus is reached. Is that consensus absolutely right? Not necessarily, but what else is there to go off of?

Obviously this:



Is not this:



But then you have that:



There's nothing new about this ruling. Back in the 70's Ibanez got slapped for making near 1:1 copies of Gibson and Fender designs, and because of that we got a whole bunch of interesting guitars which might not have happened had Ibanez been allowed to just keep making Les Pauls and Strats and Explorers.

I think American IP law is pretty shitty, and has been significantly co-opted by big corporate interests.

But, other than IP law being dumb and a whole bunch of "what if"s, what's the objective harm of another mainstream manufacturer not being allowed to use the designs of another?


----------



## Emperoff (May 28, 2022)

I don't think people triggered by this cares if Gibson is right or not. The thing is that until very recently Gibson had a track record of putting out shitty but expensive guitars. So instead on focusing on getting their shit together, they started a crusade to for preserve "authenticity", which is utterly ridiculous at this point considering every damn manufacturer in the planet copies somebody else.

Basically, Gibson gets a lot of hate for their business practices and decisions as a company. That means everything they do will be scrutinized way more than other companies.

I'll just leave this here just in case you guys have forgotten:


----------



## manu80 (May 28, 2022)

Don’t understand the decision as tokai/ burny etc are copies even in the headstock shape for Lp’s…even Vintage V100 etc…less now but it’s still subtle
Fgn changed the upper horn bit it looks more lile the same than deans which have different headstock shapes…
Some brand are easily more attackable than others…
-As for charvel/ strat /jackson they’re the same group ,FMI, so nothing wrong here
Just picking your style classic/rock/metal…and you jave the same guitar but different in look-


----------



## mmr007 (May 28, 2022)

I would assume Gibson sent newspaper clippings of what happened in court to burny and tokai so they can react accordingly. 

Im not sure if the play authentic was a crusade but rather a short lived marketing strategy. It seems like they’ve actually put more effort into using artists (Jones Hammett, Mustaine Faulkner etc) to rebuild their image. 

Gibson as a company may have stepped on their own dick now and again but they never stepped on mine so I cant hate them and I certainly can cut them some slack.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 28, 2022)

manu80 said:


> Don’t understand the decision as tokai/ burny etc are copies even in the headstock shape for Lp’s…even Vintage V100 etc…less now but it’s still subtle
> Fgn changed the upper horn bit it looks more lile the same than deans which have different headstock shapes…
> Some brand are easily more attackable than others…
> -As for charvel/ strat /jackson they’re the same group ,FMI, so nothing wrong here
> Just picking your style classic/rock/metal…and you jave the same guitar but different in look-



Those companies (Tokai, Fernandes[Burny], Fujigen, and Vintage) are based outside of the United States, so it's different going after them.


----------



## mmr007 (May 28, 2022)

So safe to assume when you see those in the US they were pp imported but not legally sold like the ESP lawsuit explorers?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 28, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> So safe to assume when you see those in the US they were pp imported but not legally sold like the ESP lawsuit explorers?



They're not "illegal" they just don't go through the normal retail channels, they're via third parties on open marketplaces like Reverb. It's too fragmented and there's little recourse to go after all the small time sellers and since the manufacturer is both not selling direct and based outside the US there's almost nothing they can do there. 

As Gibson has learned, regardless of the argument, international courts will almost always side with the home team.


----------



## soul_lip_mike (May 29, 2022)

Any actual lawyers able to say if it’s “just $4000” or how much this is actually going to cost Dean in the end? It’s funny reading the dean fb group post opinions vs other fb groups.


----------



## Flappydoodle (May 29, 2022)

I don't get the Gibson hate. Especially in this situation. Dean pretty blatantly copied their designs and profited from it. Why should they be able to do that?

Gibson still makes great guitars, including the V.



CapinCripes said:


> Kinda tired of Gibson sitting on designs and using them as litigation generators instead of competing.



How are they sitting on it and not competing? Gibson still make Flying V models. There's a bunch of current models on their website, including cool stuff like Flying V custom, Korina, and one with a trem: https://www.gibson.com/en-US/Guitars/Designer



CapinCripes said:


> Litigating based on body shape of a guitar because you can't compete on any other level



Who says they're not competing? I think Gibson still sells a LOT of guitars. They're insanely popular. They still have massive artists using them. And recently they're invigorating their popularity, social media and appeal to younger people. I really don't get the hate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2022)

The guitar side of the business has always been very profitable, it's how that profit is used that had a tendency to bite them. 

Again, massive hypocrisy as Fender hasn't exactly been good with money, maybe not as bad as Gibson but the failed IPO was pretty telling.


----------



## sylcfh (May 29, 2022)

Terrible design with neck dive. Nothing of value is lost.


----------



## mmr007 (May 29, 2022)




----------



## Masoo2 (May 29, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> All this "anti consumer", "anti innovation", and "anti competition" rhetoric and no one has really explained why it's better for anyone if Dean, or anyone else really, makes guitars that look like carbon copies of Gibsons.


It's entirely selfish for me - I just want to be able to buy all the flavors of Explorers and Vs that my heart desires - specifically what I consider aesthetically improved derivatives like the Hamer Standards, ESP NV, ESP MX-250, and Edwards E-EX-125. Same with the Jackson Rhoads and the ESP SV.

Could not care less about what's better for Gibson, Dean, or any other company - I think all guitar companies should all be able to sell whatever designs they want so as to improve accessibility and competition on the market. If every high end brand had an affordable-yet-quality import equivalent (think Edwards, Fame, NK, etc) I believe the market would be _so_ much better imo for us consumers.


----------



## STRHelvete (May 29, 2022)

It's really weird seeing people hate Gibson so much that it's overriding their logic and common sense


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> It's really weird seeing people hate Gibson so much that it's overriding their logic



It's not weird at all.


----------



## StevenC (May 29, 2022)

soul_lip_mike said:


> Any actual lawyers able to say if it’s “just $4000” or how much this is actually going to cost Dean in the end? It’s funny reading the dean fb group post opinions vs other fb groups.


In not a lawyer, but I read court documents daily for work. To me it reads as $4000 per IP infringed. So if this case is just about their use of the Flying V, then it's $4000; if it's about Vs, Explorers and SGs, it's $12000. Minimum. 

It definitely doesn't mean every individual instrument sold. That would be ridiculous because there's no way Gibson could be losing $4000 for every Dean V sold. There's a small chance it means each variation of the infringed IP offered, but considering the IP is the shape it seems unlikely that a court would care about the spec sheet.

Dean's statement is dripping in PR and contradictory, so we can throw that out straight away.

I think "type of goods" is probably quite broad. It will probably mean $4000 if they've made a V guitar, plus another $4000 if they made an acoustic V, plus another $4000 if they put a V on a shirt etc, and the same again for any other infringed shapes. Again I don't think it differentiates whether the V has a Floyd or TOM or HSS etc.

If it's for the V and Explorer, I could see Dean paying up to 6 figures depending on their merchandising. Pretty sure they make or have made acoustics and basses of those, so that's $24000 straight away. I think they've made ukuleles of each plus hats, shirts and mugs would be $56000.

Of course, type might be as broad as "musical instruments" and "branded merchandise"

I feel very confident that it is not just $4000, because that is a terrible way to word it if that is the case. Lawyers don't word things ambiguously when they're trying to be precise.


----------



## mmr007 (May 29, 2022)

I haven't seen any logic or common sense but I guess something got ridden over. 

You guys remember back in the '90's I think it was that Lexus saw that people loved the Ford Mustang but complained about the cheap interior, solid rear axle and less than stellar build quality so they stepped up and introduced the Lexus Mustang GT because you could totally do that and it is good for the consumer and spurring competition and protection of product design has never meant anything except in Gibson's selfish little litigious world?

I get the whole "well selfishly I wanna see..." Just remember we buy guitars because we love guitars. Gibson (like all guitar companies) sells guitars because they love money....the thing that puts roofs over their heads and food on the table. You wanna see the steady supply of guitars flowing, Gibson wants to see the steady supply of dollars flowing...and we hate them for that? 

And its not like you as the consumer can't still get what you're looking for in a Gibson inspired design that's not a Gibson. Want a single cut....pretty sure there's an ESP/LTD version called the EC. An SG body style? ESP/LTD has you covered there too...albeit in a version suffering from Bell's Palsy.

I know its easy (though not advisable) to click on a Glenn Fricker video lambasting something from Gibson and monkey see monkey doodoo with Gibson hate mongering but I am truly interested....truly...if you hate Gibson...tell us why. What did did Gibson _*do to you? *_Maybe we can start a thread/therapy session for people who have some measure of PTSD from their Gibson experience...whether it was because they spent good money on a paint flaw or they heard funny meme's about Gibsons that formed their world view and subsequently became traumatized by it. I'm here to help. Tell me why you hurt....


----------



## STRHelvete (May 29, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> I haven't seen any logic or common sense but I guess something got ridden over.
> 
> You guys remember back in the '90's I think it was that Lexus saw that people loved the Ford Mustang but complained about the cheap interior, solid rear axle and less than stellar build quality so they stepped up and introduced the Lexus Mustang GT because you could totally do that and it is good for the consumer and spurring competition and protection of product design has never meant anything except in Gibson's selfish little litigious world?
> 
> ...


Come to Daddy. Tell him who hurt you


----------



## Dooky (May 30, 2022)

Well, personally, I couldn't give two hoots about any of this drama and I find it interesting that there are people that passionately hate on Gibson like they stole their girlfriend or something. Say what you will about Gibson, but I owned and played countless different guitars and my Gibson Explorer and Les Paul Custom are easily in my top 5 favourites.


----------



## Dooky (May 31, 2022)

Masoo2 said:


> Could not care less about what's better for Gibson, Dean, or any other company -* I think all guitar companies should all be able to sell whatever designs they want so as to improve accessibility and competition on the marke*t. If every high end brand had an affordable-yet-quality import equivalent (think Edwards, Fame, NK, etc) I believe the market would be _so_ much better imo for us consumers.


If you were the CEO of Gibson would you be happy for other companies to rip off your designs?


----------



## Dayn (May 31, 2022)

So that's just US-only, I think their designs became generic in the EU, at least.

If they have an enforceable design, they can enforce it all they like, but if they fucked around for decades and let it become generic, then tough titties. Part of that is why the judgment was stupidly low.


----------



## Esp Griffyn (May 31, 2022)

We all know how greatly Gibson respects originality. They have their own designs and don't want others to copy them and they would never, ever make a cynical copy of another company's design as that would make them look like raging hypocrites.

Oh wait.


----------



## Edika (May 31, 2022)

I'd like to see Gibson do some of their designs with a bit more modern appointments. Not what Gibson considers modern but actually see the market and produce models accordingly. I haven't been following them for too long to see if they did produced models like that but most of the ones I've seen where in the "almost there" category or completely miss the mark. I think this is why those efforts don't sell, not so much that everyone wants the same old colors appointments.

I'm not against Gibson protecting their IP and designs but most of the aesthetic choices I find appealing on those designs do not come from Gibson. And it's not a matter of confusion between brands. If the other brands stop selling those instruments it does not mean I'd suddenly find Gibsons appealing and buy them. I have two Gibsons that I live how they sound which I bought used and on sale but due to attention to detail I would not have paid full price.


----------



## StevenC (May 31, 2022)

Edika said:


> I'd like to see Gibson do some of their designs with a bit more modern appointments. Not what Gibson considers modern but actually see the market and produce models accordingly. I haven't been following them for too long to see if they did produced models like that but most of the ones I've seen where in the "almost there" category or completely miss the mark. I think this is why those efforts don't sell, not so much that everyone wants the same old colors appointments.
> 
> I'm not against Gibson protecting their IP and designs but most of the aesthetic choices I find appealing on those designs do not come from Gibson. And it's not a matter of confusion between brands. If the other brands stop selling those instruments it does not mean I'd suddenly find Gibsons appealing and buy them. I have two Gibsons that I live how they sound which I bought used and on sale but due to attention to detail I would not have paid full price.


They did the HP series for a while which was cool, now they have the Modern series. These do everything a modern guitar does except for a Hipshot or Floyd, and putting a Hipshot on a Les Paul would require a lot of retooling. It would be cool if they just offered LPs, Vs and Explorers with Floyds and some other colours in their standard production and a 7 every year, but there isn't really much demand for these things from Gibson to justify it. Gibson prices are too high for the majority of the market, so it would be nice to see some more adventurous stuff from Epiphone in this regard.

But the fact remains, most people don't really want a modernised Gibson.


----------



## Edika (May 31, 2022)

StevenC said:


> They did the HP series for a while which was cool, now they have the Modern series. These do everything a modern guitar does except for a Hipshot or Floyd, and putting a Hipshot on a Les Paul would require a lot of retooling. It would be cool if they just offered LPs, Vs and Explorers with Floyds and some other colours in their standard production and a 7 every year, but there isn't really much demand for these things from Gibson to justify it. Gibson prices are too high for the majority of the market, so it would be nice to see some more adventurous stuff from Epiphone in this regard.
> 
> But the fact remains, most people don't really want a modernised Gibson.


That is exactly what I meant, the HP and Modern series is what Gibson considers modern and not what would be considered a modern LP, Explorer, SG or V. For a £2.5K modernised LP my first instct would be an E-II Eclipse and not an LP.

I'm not sure how much a Gibson would cost with the appointments of Dean V trans Black select but the Dean would be an excellent example of what I would call a modernised classic that can work both ways. Gibsons attempt at that was the Gibson Modern Flying V for crying out loud! Or the Explorer Futura in the past. Just make the damn Explorer with a solid color other than black or white, no pickguard, with an Ebony fretboard and locking tuners. Fretboard and headstock binding and a flavor of the month pickups (even though the 500T/496R is awesome). I don't mind TOM bridges honestly. I thing they sound great and are not less comfortable than Hipshot. So that's a misdemeanor in the other monstrosities they've provided as "modern" guitars.


----------



## laxu (May 31, 2022)

The issue with lawsuits like these is that if Gibson wins, they set dangerous precedents for future lawsuits. At what point does something become "not too close to a Gibson design"? Gibson have the benefit of being one of the pioneers of electric guitar so they have a hold on some of the basic shapes an electric guitar could take, same as Fender. Every other manufacturer has to work around these to not infringe on those brands. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut explanation for what is far away enough from these designs.

I totally understand defending trademarks like not allowing others to have the Gibson logo on their guitar. Things like body and headstock shapes are more in the gray area to me but let's not forget that what makes sense to the individual is not necessarily how the law works.

As an example, here's a series of pics of my Heatley Tradition, a Canadian made boutique LP type guitar easily equivalent to Gibson Custom Shop stuff:






Too close to a Les Paul?





What about now?










Still too close to a Gibson?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 31, 2022)

laxu said:


> The issue with lawsuits like these is that if Gibson wins, they set dangerous precedents for future lawsuits. At what point does something become "not too close to a Gibson design"? Gibson have the benefit of being one of the pioneers of electric guitar so they have a hold on some of the basic shapes an electric guitar could take, same as Fender. Every other manufacturer has to work around these to not infringe on those brands. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut explanation for what is far away enough from these designs.
> 
> I totally understand defending trademarks like not allowing others to have the Gibson logo on their guitar. Things like body and headstock shapes are more in the gray area to me but let's not forget that what makes sense to the individual is not necessarily how the law works.
> 
> ...



The Gibson vs. PRS case sort of took this on, and it's basically up to the jury or judge to decide. 

As that particular case shows, where Gibson won at trial, but the decision was reversed on appeal, it's open to a lot of interpretation. 

So there is no set in stone hardline of "go" or "no go" so it would have to be decided by a court and the outcome is less than predictable. 

It would mainly come down to whether Gibson thought they could win so they persue it, and whether the other party thinks they can fight it.


----------



## StevenC (May 31, 2022)

Edika said:


> That is exactly what I meant, the HP and Modern series is what Gibson considers modern and not what would be considered a modern LP, Explorer, SG or V. For a £2.5K modernised LP my first instct would be an E-II Eclipse and not an LP.
> 
> I'm not sure how much a Gibson would cost with the appointments of Dean V trans Black select but the Dean would be an excellent example of what I would call a modernised classic that can work both ways. Gibsons attempt at that was the Gibson Modern Flying V for crying out loud! Or the Explorer Futura in the past. Just make the damn Explorer with a solid color other than black or white, no pickguard, with an Ebony fretboard and locking tuners. Fretboard and headstock binding and a flavor of the month pickups (even though the 500T/496R is awesome). I don't mind TOM bridges honestly. I thing they sound great and are not less comfortable than Hipshot. So that's a misdemeanor in the other monstrosities they've provided as "modern" guitars.


Yeah, I don't really see what's better about an E-II than the Modern to be honest with you, and I'd prefer the Modern. Is it just black hardware as an option, or the more "metal" blackburst colours?

The Futura is not a modern take on an Explorer, it's literally the opposite. If you mean the Epiphone Prophecy Futura, I agree that was a weird decision. The Modern Flying V was a limited edition Custom Shop design exercise homage to the 57 shapes.

I agree with you about making Vs and Explorers in different colours, but those guitars don't sell to begin with. And they don't sell for anyone. Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand the problem.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 31, 2022)

Esp Griffyn said:


> We all know how greatly Gibson respects originality. They have their own designs and don't want others to copy them and they would never, ever make a cynical copy of another company's design as that would make them look like raging hypocrites.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> View attachment 108427



Interesting story behind those. 

In the early 00's the Hendrix camp approached Gibson to work on a some guitars. The original idea was what would later be the Hendrix V, the first one, but Janie Hendrix was absolutely dead set on making a Strat and eventually became so wrapped up in the idea that she outright refused to go forward with the other guitar ideas unless Gibson appeased her. 

So after a bunch of back and fourth they finally agreed to what you see above. 

They tested terribly in focus groups and Janie moved on so they killed them before release. 

But let's not forget the good old Epiphone S310.


----------



## STRHelvete (May 31, 2022)

Btw...the people in the Dean groups are reacting pretty much how you would expect a Dean fan to react. I swear, those people live up to every goddamn stereotype


----------



## StevenC (May 31, 2022)

Esp Griffyn said:


> We all know how greatly Gibson respects originality. They have their own designs and don't want others to copy them and they would never, ever make a cynical copy of another company's design as that would make them look like raging hypocrites.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> View attachment 108427


What's hypocritical here? For starters, the Stratocaster shape is not protected, only the Fender headstocks are. Second, this isn't the Stratocaster shape. Gibson have spent their whole existence protecting their designs. Ask ESP, ask Jackson, ask Hamer, ask Dean, ask Ibanez. Fender haven't. Ask Schecter, ask Charvel, ask ESP; they were only ever told to stop using the headstock.


----------



## soul_lip_mike (May 31, 2022)

StevenC said:


> What's hypocritical here? For starters, the Stratocaster shape is not protected, only the Fender headstocks are. Second, this isn't the Stratocaster shape. Gibson have spent their whole existence protecting their designs. Ask ESP, ask Jackson, ask Hamer, ask Dean, ask Ibanez. Fender haven't. Ask Schecter, ask Charvel, ask ESP; they were only ever told to stop using the headstock.



Facts don't matter only Gibson hate. Reeeeeee


----------



## Isolationist (May 31, 2022)

I don't really care about Gibson, because I know there are a lot of manufacturers out there that can make good guitars at more affordable prices.

However, if I really like one manufacturer's take on a carved piece of wood with another piece of wood attached to it, and Gibson thinks it's too much like their own carved piece of wood with another piece of wood attached to it, then what am I supposed to do? What if I'm not the biggest fan of Gibson's carved piece of wood because I don't have $4000 to shell out on it, when a different manufacturer offers something similar at a much lower price point? 

I don't care about the CEO of Gibson, nor do I care about their feelings, and I definitely don't care about "heritage" or "playing authentic"; we're guitarists and we play guitars, and no amount of their weird marketing is going to make me want to buy a Gibson Les Paul, or a Gibson SG, or a Gibson "We Promise The Headstock Won't Snap Off In Transit" Studio. I'm more concerned about how if lawsuits like this continue to happen over minor discrepancies (even though Dean's offense was more than minor, it is basically a carbon-copy with an ugly headstock), then does every brand have to ask Daddy Gibson if it's okay to carve a piece of wood this way, lest they want to be dragged through court? Am I personally okay with allowing Gibson to tap into their reserves to prevent other companies from turning a profit on carved pieces of wood? No. 

The timing of this lawsuit was weird, because it was never a secret that Dean was producing Gibson knock-offs. It just feels odd. It feels sour. 

And just because it makes logical sense that the lawsuit was ruled in favor of Gibson *doesn't mean that I necessarily have to like the outcome*. Sure, I'll golf clap for Gibson in this instance, but every time they bring forth a lawsuit for something similar is another reason why I'm just not going to care for them as a brand. If I really want a LP-style guitar with all the cool features I want, in the color I want, with the woods I want, etc., I'll just build it myself and, just for fun, I'll even use their headstock shape. If they really wanted to sell me something, they would include all the features I wanted, paint it my favorite color, and hold the inlays.

I don't need Gibson to sell me anything; it's just a carved piece of wood.


----------



## StevenC (May 31, 2022)

Isolationist said:


> I don't really care about Gibson, because I know there are a lot of manufacturers out there that can make good guitars at more affordable prices.
> 
> However, if I really like one manufacturer's take on a carved piece of wood with another piece of wood attached to it, and Gibson thinks it's too much like their own carved piece of wood with another piece of wood attached to it, then what am I supposed to do? What if I'm not the biggest fan of Gibson's carved piece of wood because I don't have $4000 to shell out on it, when a different manufacturer offers something similar at a much lower price point?
> 
> ...


I mean, between this case and every other Gibson lawsuit it seems very clear that what is protected is the specific shapes Gibson designed. Not the concept of a V or singlecut, and specifically in relation to what Gibson designed.

As to why now, Gibson have been suing people for decades at this point. From Ibanez to ESP and Jackson to PRS to Hamer to Dean. The point isn't those specific companies, the point is to reaffirm that it is their IP not a generic IP and they just sue whoever is the biggest offender at the time.


----------



## c7spheres (May 31, 2022)

- Let eveyone have their patents, but only allow them one of any similar style and also make it to where it must be within a hundred thousandth of an inch or else it's not a copy. Any little variance is no longer an infringement. Even with logos. That'll get things rolling for all of us and there will be so many fakes that people will be forced to buy authentic if they really don't wanna take a chance cause 80% of what's out there is crap. That'll force people back to the brands and the good fakes will also take foot which is good for us too. Even if I build an exact copy made of 'mahogany' it's not a copy if it's one of the dozens of different types. It could go on forever. I could care less about a companys hertiage products etc. That history is great but all that matters is if they provide a service or product you want at a price you're good with when you need it. I'd rather everything just be small builders anyways. - If someone makes an exact copy and the output jack is disconnected and they sell it as a piece of non-funbtional art then it is not an infringement, logo and all, just don't use the brand name in advertising it. Dean should get into the art business. jk.,rant over.


----------



## Isolationist (May 31, 2022)

StevenC said:


> I mean, between this case and every other Gibson lawsuit it seems very clear that what is protected is the specific shapes Gibson designed. Not the concept of a V or singlecut, and specifically in relation to what Gibson designed.
> 
> As to why now, Gibson have been suing people for decades at this point. From Ibanez to ESP and Jackson to PRS to Hamer to Dean. The point isn't those specific companies, the point is to reaffirm that it is their IP not a generic IP and they just sue whoever is the biggest offender at the time.



Which is a fair point, and I understand that legal action is one of the only avenues that a company can take to protect their IPs. It's not like Gibson CEO is going to call up the CEO of Dean, or Paul Reed Smith, and ask them to "pretty please stop making that guitar".


----------



## StevenC (May 31, 2022)

John said:


> I wonder what mental gymnastics allowed them to 'win' here whilst they lost over pretty much the same tripe in Europe not too long ago.
> 
> Gibson's tactic of taking things to court, ie- in the name of aUtHeNtiCiTy- instead of simply improving themselves gets stupider by each attempt. A pity, since their efforts often make it more difficult to get any actually good guitars from other folks either with or resembling those shapes without having to butcher it by a lot, often for the worse aesthetically, just to avoid their litigation crap.


The difference here is entirely where they were litigating. Gibson has historically not defended their IP outside of the USA, and historically defending your IP is pretty much the basis for whether you get to keep your IP. It's why, for example, Nintendo sends C&Ds to every fan game that gets too big and why Disney pays all the money in the world to extend IP laws again and again.

As quoted in the article, Gibson lost in Europe because they were going against Warwick/Framus who argued that they had a good reputation and their instruments wouldn't hurt Gibson's reputation. To that standard, Dean has a much worse reputation than Warwick/Framus.

Also in Europe there are much different standards for IP, and the argument is that Gibson shapes are not original but obvious. A V is not something Gibson came up with, so making a V out of a guitar is not protectable. The Les Paul is the same shape as an acoustic with a cutaway etc. Gibson haven't every defended their shapes in Europe.

So yeah, not mental gymnastics just different courts with different laws.

Idk, Gibson make some really good guitars. I like my Gibson at least as much as my much more valuable PRS. But at the end of the day the argument is whether you can command a higher price based on your reputation and history. Gibson argues that they should, and everyone else is making money from Gibson's work.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 31, 2022)

Everyone wants to know where "the line" is, but it's not that simple. There isn't some formula or chart or grand arbiter of this stuff. Lawsuits like this help to set examples, but by no means is it definitive.


----------



## Edika (May 31, 2022)

StevenC said:


> Yeah, I don't really see what's better about an E-II than the Modern to be honest with you, and I'd prefer the Modern. Is it just black hardware as an option, or the more "metal" blackburst colours?
> 
> The Futura is not a modern take on an Explorer, it's literally the opposite. If you mean the Epiphone Prophecy Futura, I agree that was a weird decision. The Modern Flying V was a limited edition Custom Shop design exercise homage to the 57 shapes.
> 
> I agree with you about making Vs and Explorers in different colours, but those guitars don't sell to begin with. And they don't sell for anyone. Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand the problem.


My problem with Gibsons, the ones I own and the ones I've seen up close, it's mainly attention to detail. Plus I've been interested on several models and even when new and checking photos on websites selling them, I see a lot of fretboards edges that seem to be done by blind people. My Les Paul edges between frets seem to not be too straight. My Explorer is better but it's a lot older too and used but in general seems a bit rough around the edges. A friends Les Paul Custom again looks great from a couple of meters away but up close you notice imperfections here and there. From far away they look great but up close they don't stand up to competition.

The E-II Eclipse just seems a lot more modern and sleek looking. From color choices to hardware to general specs. I'm not necessarily claim it will be better quality but it will have an ebony fretboard and have better attention to detail. Plus jumbo frets etc etc.

I actually meant the Futura which I was not aware it was a throwback of the Explorer. Whatever it is they should have taken the designs and burned them instead of producing that monstrosity. The Extura was a strange design choice but does not look that bad. They should have gone full Explorer but it's acceptable. Having mentioned that, the Epiphone Prophecy line is a great example of what Gibson should be thinking of doing, if they wanted to produce modern Gibson line.


----------



## ArtDecade (May 31, 2022)

Gibson is allowed to defend their property in court. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. It is business.


----------



## bostjan (May 31, 2022)

I don't like Gibson all that much, but there are a few things to note in this case:

1. It had once been ruled in another Gibson case (I honestly don't remember which one, because there are so damned many) that the shape of the body is covered under patent protection, but not trademark protection. The key point there is that patents expire and trademarks don't. So, the takeaway of that ruling was that no one could get more than 20 years of protection over a body shape.
2. The same case ruled that headstock shape IS covered under trademark protection, so you could never copy anyone's headstock shape and expect to get away with it.
3. Dean obviously copied the body shape and not the headstock shape. Therefore, this case seems to overturn that case law, which should be a huge win for Gibson and Fender, and now they can sue virtually anyone.

I tend to agree that the body shape is a thing of function, and thus, patent law applies. Since you can't trademark something functional, like the shape of a baseball bat or the shape of a glove or the shape of a drill bit, I don't think patent law should apply to the shape of a guitar body. Since the headstock also serves a function, but the shape of the headstock is arguably a sense of style and not of function, the older case law seems to make some sense, but, then what about headless guitars? The function of reducing the weight of the guitar is clear, but this sort of torpedoes the whole idea about headstock trademark design. But of course, you can have a product that has no trademark and you cannot try to trademark nothing, so I guess it all sort of works out.

IDK. I don't feel strongly about this case, as I'm a bit torn on certain points, but I tend to lean more away from the ruling as it is written.


----------



## CapinCripes (May 31, 2022)

bostjan said:


> I tend to agree that the body shape is a thing of function, and thus, patent law applies.


Which is what I was saying. Original designer gets the fruits of his labor for a sensible amount of time, the market opens up to generics and for any one company to get ahead they need to either focus on innovation, quality, or price/performance which is a win for the consumer, the economy and for the state of the industry.


----------



## tedtan (May 31, 2022)

The thing is that the applicable IP protection in this case is the US design patent, which is currently valid for 15 years and not renewable. 

The Les Paul was released in 1952 (70 years ago), the Flying V and Explorer were released in 1958 (64 years ago), and the SG was released in 1962 (60 years ago). All had blueprints (and prototypes) prior to their release dates that would have been used for the design patent application.

So ultimately the question is: should these design patents still be applicable this far down the line?


----------



## Dayn (May 31, 2022)

tedtan said:


> The thing is that the applicable IP protection in this case is the US design patent, which is currently valid for 15 years and not renewable.
> 
> The Les Paul was released in 1952 (70 years ago), the Flying V and Explorer were released in 1958 (64 years ago), and the SG was released in 1962 (60 years ago). All had blueprints (and prototypes) prior to their release dates that would have been used for the design patent application.
> 
> So ultimately the question is: should these design patents still be applicable this far down the line?


It appears that they won this case against Dean on the basis that the shapes were a trade mark of Gibson. So the question is, if they patent a look, how can they claim that their exclusive use during the patent's life gives rise to a trade mark? The whole point is that the patent is a limited monopoly, and that an invention is not a trade mark.

If it was a trade mark, and they protected their trade mark and didn't let it become generic, then sure. I doubt this case would be appealed, but one case doesn't necessarily settle the matter, especially as this is US-only and as far as I understand, the shapes are treated as generic in the EU. The only reason Dean got off with basically a slap on the wrist is because of Gibson's failure to take action to protect their trade mark.

Basically, Gibson messed up their intellectual property protection a long time ago and is trying to close the door after the horse has bolted. It might scare some horses, but it's not going to get them all back.


----------



## tedtan (May 31, 2022)

Dayn said:


> It appears that they won this case against Dean on the basis that the shapes were a trade mark of Gibson. So the question is, if they patent a look, how can they claim that their exclusive use during the patent's life gives rise to a trade mark? The whole point is that the patent is a limited monopoly, and that an invention is not a trade mark.
> 
> If it was a trade mark, and they protected their trade mark and didn't let it become generic, then sure. I doubt this case would be appealed, but one case doesn't necessarily settle the matter, especially as this is US-only and as far as I understand, the shapes are treated as generic in the EU. The only reason Dean got off with basically a slap on the wrist is because of Gibson's failure to take action to protect their trade mark.
> 
> Basically, Gibson messed up their intellectual property protection a long time ago and is trying to close the door after the horse has bolted. It might scare some horses, but it's not going to get them all back.


This.

Like bostjan stated, prior rulings have held that a headstock shape can be a trademark, but not a body shape; a body shape is a design patent. So this case muddies the waters and, if I were in Dean’s position, I would appeal.


----------



## sylcfh (Jun 1, 2022)

That jury was pretty dumb. The Dean Gran Sport is the only time Gibson didn't make the ugliest version of one of their designs. It's so ugly that I don't even think it qualifies as a guitar.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Jun 3, 2022)

Isolationist said:


> What if I'm not the biggest fan of Gibson's carved piece of wood because I don't have $4000 to shell out on it, when a different manufacturer offers something similar at a much lower price point?
> 
> I don't care about the CEO of Gibson, nor do I care about their feelings, and I definitely don't care about "heritage" or "playing authentic"; we're guitarists and we play guitars, and no amount of their weird marketing is going to make me want to buy a Gibson Les Paul, or a Gibson SG, or a Gibson "We Promise The Headstock Won't Snap Off In Transit" Studio. I'm more concerned about how if lawsuits like this continue to happen over minor discrepancies (even though Dean's offense was more than minor, it is basically a carbon-copy with an ugly headstock), then does every brand have to ask Daddy Gibson if it's okay to carve a piece of wood this way, lest they want to be dragged through court? Am I personally okay with allowing Gibson to tap into their reserves to prevent other companies from turning a profit on carved pieces of wood? No.



With this sort of logic you could say the same for any sort of creative work. Even music - it's just chords patterns. Or art - it's just paint on canvas. Your post just seems more like generic Gibson hate.

And yes, basically, every company should be aware of this. It's a cost of doing business. And defending your designs is something that designers have to do. As someone said earlier, copyrights and trademarks aren't the same as a patent. You have to actually make efforts to defend your work otherwise other can just copy it.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 3, 2022)

As I see it, the trouble with these numerous lawsuits is two-fold:

1. Too many lawsuits makes your brand look vindictive.
2. Too many legal outcomes establishes precedents that, at some point in time, begin to contradict one another (for example in this most recent case).

Gibson absolutely has every right to protest their property, in general. The US legal system, though, is too biased toward the plaintiff, when it comes to civil suits. For example, if you sue someone over bullshit claims, they still have to file a defense, show up in court, defend themselves, potentially get the law misinterpreted against them, file appeals, etc., and the best outcome for the defendant is that they waste a ton of time and money for nothing, unless they file a counter-suit.

If I had a billion dollars and I was friends with Johnny Cochran's clone, I could sue everyone I wanted and make their lives all miserable.

But that isn't Gibson's fault. Gibson has certainly been the target of stupid litigation themselves on occasion. It's a fault in the legal system that rewards people for being rich, basically.

And, IDK, in this case, even if Dean has the legal justification based off of case law or whatever, it sure looks like they did a low effort copy of a Gibson guitar. They lost the suit. It hurts them worse than it hurts Gibson, I'm sure. It also bolsters Gibson in the sense that other guitar manufacturers have to be careful moving forward or else get sued. They should be careful anyway.

The biggest potential loser in this, though, isn't so much Dean as it is places like Agile. Here, we know Agile as the brand that makes super affordable import guitars with nifty options, but, probably, most of the world who is aware of them is aware of them for their copies of Gibsons with slightly different headstocks, made overseas and sold in the US market with a paper-thin profit margin. If Gibson now has an open license to sue anyone who makes a guitar that looks like their guitar, whether they sue or not, Agile has to be considering nervously backing away from that part of the market, which happens to be a big support for them. I'm pointing out Agile, but there are tons of other companies that are in the same situation. And if Fender decides to apply this case to their legal actions in the future, they could probably go after hundreds of companies making strats and teles.

Going deeper, there are honestly an infinite number of guitar shapes, but only a finite number of "classes" of shapes that appear essentially distinct from one another, and actually probably a fairly small number of maybe a couple dozen classes of shapes with any practical use. So, we're likely just about out of unique shapes that function anyway.

Even if I think I'm being clever and making a "new" shape that is essentially a Parker Fly with a lightning bolt upper horn, A) it's going to be uncomfortable to play and B) a jury might see it as a copy anyway. Shit, for that matter, an ES-175 is just a Renaissance acoustic guitar shape with a bigger body and a cutaway; a Les Paul is a solid body and thus shrunken version of that - so, at what point did the innovation in the shape occur? 1500 CE?

But that's just why patent law doesn't apply in the case. This was an argument over trademark, and that's where things get dicey. The trademark is a distinctive identification that tells the buyer that a good is an authentic brand. Making a Gibson copy and slapping the Gibson logo on it, we all know, is illegal. That's due to trademark. Dean wasn't making Gibson copies and passing them off as Gibson products, and neither was 1970's Ibanez.

From a legal standpoint alone, again, Dean should have won. The SCotUS ruled in _Lexmark v Static Components_ in 2014, that idea cannot be trademarked. Period. It doesn't matter if your idea could save the world, you patent it, you don't try to trademark it. A trademark is a brand recognition thing only. So, in _Lexmark_, a competitor copied, probably verbatim, a lockout program, in order to circumvent Lexmark printers from using competitor's toner cartridges, and, regardless of that fact, Lexmark had no claim, because they tried to trademark the program instead of copyrighting it properly. The copyright wasn't pursued, because it would have expired, but that was no legal excuse, so they lost. I think that if Dean had the money to appeal this decision, the appellate court would find in their favour based on that case law (as well as several other applicable cases).


----------



## xzacx (Jun 3, 2022)

But I want something that's basically exactly like a Gibson. Even though I hate Gibson. And I want to pick the price.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

xzacx said:


> But I want something that's basically exactly like a Gibson. Even though I hate Gibson. And I want to pick the price.


Welcome to Epiphone


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 3, 2022)

Most of the haters still want a Gibson, but they want to pick the price because saving is hard.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

ArtDecade said:


> Most of the haters still want a Gibson, but they want to pick the price because saving is hard.


THIS. I get so tired of people shitting on things they can't afford when that's the main reason. You want it and can't afford it? Tough shit. Save until you can.


----------



## zw470 (Jun 3, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> THIS. I get so tired of people shitting on things they can't afford when that's the main reason. You want it and can't afford it? Tough shit. Save until you can.



Or some of us just want to be able to walk into a guitar store and buy a new ESP MX-250 right off the shelf. I couldn't buy a Gibson version of that even if I wanted to.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 3, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> THIS. I get so tired of people shitting on things they can't afford when that's the main reason. You want it and can't afford it? Tough shit. Save until you can.


I agree. However, some of us are primarily offended by the lack of QC, and then the price exacerbates that. Back around '04, I worked at a Gibson dealer. Someone special ordered a Jimmy Page Les Paul. $6300. In 2004 dollars. It had to be returned, because, right out of the box from the factory, there was a fret right out of the damned slot. That's a problem I never even saw on the cheapest Magnum/Harmony/Crestwood junk. Only an anecdote, you say - yes, but I worked there for 3 years and we sent back probably 2 dozen guitars because of QC issues, usually also worse than anything we saw on cheap no-name brand guitars. Just a couple of bad years of QC, you say - I doubt it. The company seems to have had as many years down as up. Not acceptable to charge $6300 for a guitar that plays worse than a $120 guitar. 

To those people who want a Gibson but can't afford one, my advice is to just buy something else. Epiphone has had better QC than Gibson for over a decade now. Heritage is another - made in the USA - better QC... I'd grab one before Gibson sues them, though. If you want the Gibson name, and can't afford it, then maybe reassess your priorities.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> Or some of us just want to be able to walk into a guitar store and buy a new ESP MX-250 right off the shelf. I couldn't buy a Gibson version of that even if I wanted to.


Then don't. 
I think Gibsons are overpriced, but if I wanted one I'd buy one. For some people, a particular Gibson model is their holy grail so they see the value in it. They don't want anything other than that specific model of that specific brand.
Yes, a guitar that expensive should be on point with QC, that's without question.
But whining because a guitar costs too much is just stupid. You either buy it or you don't. Save money and eventually you can afford it. Don't want to do that? Buy a cheaper version. It's not like crying about it is going to make Gibson or any other company show up at your doorstep with a free guitar.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 3, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> Or some of us just want to be able to walk into a guitar store and buy a new ESP MX-250 right off the shelf. I couldn't buy a Gibson version of that even if I wanted to.


Call me a little acoustic but what does that mean? You can't buy a Gibson version of an ESP copy of a Gibson guitar? Even if you wanted to?


----------



## zw470 (Jun 3, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Then don't.
> I think Gibsons are overpriced, but if I wanted one I'd buy one. For some people, a particular Gibson model is their holy grail so they see the value in it. They don't want anything other than that specific model of that specific brand.
> Yes, a guitar that expensive should be on point with QC, that's without question.
> But whining because a guitar costs too much is just stupid. You either buy it or you don't. Save money and eventually you can afford it. Don't want to do that? Buy a cheaper version. It's not like crying about it is going to make Gibson or any other company show up at your doorstep with a free guitar.



You're so busy simping for Gibson completely ignored almost everything in my post (which was less than 40 words). I didn't mention a single thing about cost.

I want to walk into a guitar store and buy one of these, brand new, but it's literally impossible thanks to Gibson.






mmr007 said:


> Call me a little acoustic but what does that mean? You can't buy a Gibson version of an ESP copy of a Gibson guitar? Even if you wanted to?



Show me a current production Gibson that's set-up like an MX-250. I don't just want an Explorer, I _specifically _want an MX-250.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> You're so busy simping for Gibson completely ignored almost everything in my post (which was less than 40 words). I didn't mention a single thing about cost.
> 
> I want to walk into a guitar store and buy one of these, brand new, but it's literally impossible thanks to Gibson.
> 
> ...


I answered. Don't wanna buy one? Don't.

I'm not even going to bother to explain why that ESP can't be sold in the states and why that's totally justified..
I then went on to elaborate in regards to the other post made.
Speaking of which, if you don't want a Gibson then I wouldn't have been referring to you in the post about people not affording them.
There, explained.


----------



## zw470 (Jun 3, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Well for one your post was incoherent..but secondly I answered. Don't wanna buy one? Don't.
> I then went on to elaborate in regards to the other post made.
> Speaking of which, if you don't want a Gibson then I wouldn't have been referring to you in the post about people not affording them.
> There, explained.



In other words you're too stupid to address the actual point I made and just want to shit on other people who can't afford a Gibson


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 3, 2022)

ok I get what you are saying now but on the flip side does a company have to have lax protection of its product design to make sure consumers who aren't theirs anyway can get whatever they want somewhere else? For example should Gibson be allowed to make their version of the ESP Kirk Hammett M2 but do it with HxS and pickguard because ESP doesn't offer it in any version other than HxH and I really want HxS but that body style and fret markers?

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to buy Gibson because of price, QC, design offerings but we shouldn't hate them because they don't offer their guitars in every flavor to satisfy every consumer and simultaneously won't let competitors fill that gap but steal enough of their design to be considered infringing on their own design.....or just buy Epiphone. I've owned a Gibson Explorer and an Epiphone and it's just as good.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 3, 2022)

I'll let people fight their own battles but debate is fun...name calling isn't


----------



## zw470 (Jun 3, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> ok I get what you are saying now but on the flip side does a company have to have lax protection of its product design to make sure consumers who aren't theirs anyway can get whatever they want somewhere else? For example should Gibson be allowed to make their version of the ESP Kirk Hammett M2 but do it with HxS and pickguard because ESP doesn't offer it in any version other than HxH and I really want HxS but that body style and fret markers?
> 
> There is nothing wrong with not wanting to buy Gibson because of price, QC, design offerings but we shouldn't hate them because they don't offer their guitars in every flavor to satisfy every consumer and simultaneously won't let competitors fill that gap but steal enough of their design to be considered infringing on their own design.....or just buy Epiphone. I've owned a Gibson Explorer and an Epiphone and it's just as good.



I might actually be interested if Gibson was gonna offer a KH-4 copy because that's one of my all-time favorite guitars 

And I don't hate Gibson because they won't make a guitar I want, I hate them because they won't let other companies make a guitar I want, even when those companies would be more than happy to.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> In other words you're too stupid to address the actual point I made and just want to shit on other people who can't afford a Gibson


Reread my post. It'll help you.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

Do we really need to have an explanation as to why Gibson won't just let other companies undercut them with their own shapes? Is this seriously puzzling to people?
Besides, Gibson already did it


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 3, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> I might actually be interested if Gibson was gonna offer a KH-4 copy because that's one of my all-time favorite guitars
> 
> And I don't hate Gibson because they won't make a guitar I want, I hate them because they won't let other companies make a guitar I want, even when those companies would be more than happy to.


Agreed you didn't specifically state you hated Gibson...my comment was more in general towards the Gibson haters who hate for the reasons you stated....which is not a reason for hate but rather frustration. I myself have been frustrated for years that I want an LTD version of the Hanneman that has dot inlays instead of what we were forced to have even post Jeff's death and I could never get what I wanted....that's life.

Anyway we all need to remember that this lawsuit means little for Dean....their biggest problem is Rita Haney is still on hold on line 4


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> Agreed you didn't specifically state you hated Gibson...my comment was more in general towards the Gibson haters who hate for the reasons you stated....which is not a reason for hate but rather frustration. I myself have been frustrated for years that I want an LTD version of the Hanneman that has dot inlays instead of what we were forced to have even post Jeff's death and I could never get what I wanted....that's life.
> 
> Anyway we all need to remember that this lawsuit means little for Dean....their biggest problem is Rita Haney is still on hold on line 4


That bitch ain't getting shit. She's started her own company and they ditched their Dime models. Which, btw, I'm happy about. I can only hope that now those insufferable Dime fanbois will go elsewhere and stop mucking up everything involving Dean.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 3, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> And I don't hate Gibson because they won't make a guitar I want, I hate them because they won't let other companies make a guitar I want, even when those companies would be more than happy to.



.... ffs


----------



## bostjan (Jun 3, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> I might actually be interested if Gibson was gonna offer a KH-4 copy because that's one of my all-time favorite guitars
> 
> And I don't hate Gibson because they won't make a guitar I want, I hate them because they won't let other companies make a guitar I want, even when those companies would be more than happy to.


Just pull an Elon Musk and buy Gibson, if money is no issue.

Or, if money is an issue, pull a fly-by-night-luthier: mockup the guitar, list it as a run, take a bunch of deposits, build yourself a guitar, and then vanish as though you never existed. On second thought, don't do that...


----------



## BigViolin (Jun 3, 2022)

Anyone gotta spare 10K? Looking at a sweet first year Dean Z with original double cream Dimarzios.

Soooo litigious!

If I had silly guitar money I'd be hunting 70s Deans and old Hamers.


----------



## xzacx (Jun 3, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Welcome to Epiphone


I was just being sarcastic, that's how people in this thread sound to me. I like Gibson myself. I just think it's funny the hate Gibson gets, but then people want Gibson-shaped and sounding things and think they're entitled to it for the price of their choosing.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 3, 2022)

Incoming clarification https://guitar.com/features/intervi...s-is-not-the-end-gibson-vs-dean-jury-verdict/


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 3, 2022)

Glad they're counter suing. If the precedent sticks what's to stop someone the from just getting an AI program to come up with milions of shapes so they're the only one's allowed to make any new shaped guitars also basically?, because at that point everything you can think of will be to close to their shape and they'll sue.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 3, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Incoming clarification https://guitar.com/features/intervi...s-is-not-the-end-gibson-vs-dean-jury-verdict/



There's nothing to really clarify right now. Like the article says, this isn't over. There is going to be a lot of back and forth to sus out what the verdict really means, long term, for both parties. 

This ain't Judge Judy. There are _days_ worth of meetings and motions and all sorts of legal and clerical tomfoolery still left to do.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 3, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> Glad they're counter suing. If the precedent sticks what's to stop someone the from just getting an AI program to come up with milions of shapes so they're the only one's allowed to make any new shaped guitars also basically?, because at that point everything you can think of will be to close to their shape and they'll sue.



What's to stop them? The patent office and the cost of that silly experiment.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 3, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> Glad they're counter suing. If the precedent sticks what's to stop someone the from just getting an AI program to come up with milions of shapes so they're the only one's allowed to make any new shaped guitars also basically?, because at that point everything you can think of will be to close to their shape and they'll sue.



Because that's not at all how any of this works.


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 3, 2022)

ArtDecade said:


> What's to stop them? The patent office and the cost of that silly experiment.





MaxOfMetal said:


> Because that's not at all how any of this works.



How would a company actually do that then? It's not possible cause patent office might see as unfair or something?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 4, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> How would a company actually do that then? It's not possible cause patent office might see as unfair or something?



Outside of things like billions of dollars and centuries of time to process "millions" of patents?


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 4, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Outside of things like billions of dollars and centuries of time to process "millions" of patents?


 An AI could handle that in seconds too. jk.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 4, 2022)

My understanding it takes at least 2 years to get a design patent and that does not seem economically feasible to file hundreds of design patents in the hope that 20 years later Dean will have to pay you $4000


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 4, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> My understanding it takes at least 2 years to get a design patent and that does not seem economically feasible to file hundreds of design patents in the hope that 20 years later Dean will have to pay you $4000


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 4, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> My understanding it takes at least 2 years to get a design patent and that does not seem economically feasible to file hundreds of design patents in the hope that 20 years later Dean will have to pay you $4000


 But that's why AI can do it in seconds. It's all a sham anyways. 
- These artists like Cantrell, Mustaine and Hetfiled going Gibson is disappointing to see. You can't tell me they actually like those guitars better than being able to literally have arsenals of anything they want. I disown them as my idols, hehe. jk. I never knew them to begin with.


----------



## Hoss632 (Jun 4, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> I wonder if Dean will change the shapes now


At the moment no


----------



## Flappydoodle (Jun 4, 2022)

PromptCritical5 said:


> I want to walk into a guitar store and buy one of these, brand new, but it's literally impossible thanks to Gibson.



Well no. The point is that ESP shouldn't have made that guitar in the first place, since it's a blatant Explorer copy.

You'd think musicians (creative people) would see the problem with copying (ripping off) others' creative designs.



c7spheres said:


> Glad they're counter suing. If the precedent sticks what's to stop someone the from just getting an AI program to come up with milions of shapes so they're the only one's allowed to make any new shaped guitars also basically?, because at that point everything you can think of will be to close to their shape and they'll sue.



That's not how any of it works. For a patent, the design has to be original, non-obvious and inventive. For copyright or trademark, you have to actually be USING that design. So you can't just draw up 100,000 different shapes and own them all (patent troll style).

You know what the simple precedent should be for all of this? Come up with your own original designs. Plenty of single-cuts, Vs and Xs out there which are original designs and not just rip-offs of Gibson designs. If you're going to blatantly copy the V, X or LP shape then you deserve to be sued. In what world should you not be sued for that?


----------



## soul_lip_mike (Jun 4, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> But that's why AI can do it in seconds. It's all a sham anyways.
> - These artists like Cantrell, Mustaine and Hetfiled going Gibson is disappointing to see. You can't tell me they actually like those guitars better than being able to literally have arsenals of anything they want. I disown them as my idols, hehe. jk. I never knew them to begin with.



Mustaine seems to jump brands fairly often, given his personality probably tough to deal with as an endorsee.

Hetfield and Hammett are still under ESP but it seems like they can do whatever TF they want since given how huge they are. Not to mention James and Kirk played Gibsons for a long time before they hooked up with ESP.

I’m really anxious to see what Gibson produces for Kirk.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 4, 2022)

I like how it's always some convoluted Space Illuminati theory about why an artist that can play whatever they want will sometimes, often even, choose a Gibson, and not that they just make guitars worth playing.


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 4, 2022)

Flappydoodle said:


> That's not how any of it works. For a patent, the design has to be original, non-obvious and inventive. For copyright or trademark, you have to actually be USING that design. So you can't just draw up 100,000 different shapes and own them all (patent troll style).
> 
> You know what the simple precedent should be for all of this? Come up with your own original designs. Plenty of single-cuts, Vs and Xs out there which are original designs and not just rip-offs of Gibson designs. If you're going to blatantly copy the V, X or LP shape then you deserve to be sued. In what world should you not be sued for that?


 
I agree but Gibson should be an exception. They just waited to long, imo.




soul_lip_mike said:


> Mustaine seems to jump brands fairly often, given his personality probably tough to deal with as an endorsee.
> 
> Hetfield and Hammett are still under ESP but it seems like they can do whatever TF they want since given how huge they are. Not to mention James and Kirk played Gibsons for a long time before they hooked up with ESP.
> 
> I’m really anxious to see what Gibson produces for Kirk.


 I was kidding but it's just weird to me that people worth 10's or hundreds of millions of dollars would actually do it. Even if you're gonna play Gibson because it's your favorite the logos just detract from gutiars usually imo. I hate almost all labels and logos so that's my problem. All these companys need new fonts that are in like 10pt and on the back of the heastock.

- There's guys out there like Abasi and Ola doing their thing which is very inspiring. Making what they want to see out there.


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 4, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I like how it's always some convoluted Space Illuminati theory about why an artist that can play whatever they want will sometimes, often even, choose a Gibson, and not that they just make guitars worth playing.


It's just funny how they all start doing it at the same time because Gibson wants people. If their guitars were always worth playing to them they'd have been playing them as their main axes all this time I'd think. Suddenly Gibson's the best to all them? yeah right.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 4, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> It's just funny how they all start doing it at the same time because Gibson wants people. If their guitars were always worth playing to them they'd have been playing them as their main axes all this time I'd think. Suddenly Gibson's the best to all them? yeah right.



The only one you named that hasn't been playing Gibson guitars consistently for decades is Mustaine, and that's mostly because he's had endorsements to plug, he had used them in the past as well. 

Even when Cantrell and Hammet have/had active endorsements from other manufacturers they still had racks full of Gibsons on tour and in the studio. Same with the guys from Mastodon.


----------



## StevenC (Jun 4, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> Glad they're counter suing. If the precedent sticks what's to stop someone the from just getting an AI program to come up with milions of shapes so they're the only one's allowed to make any new shaped guitars also basically?, because at that point everything you can think of will be to close to their shape and they'll sue.


Recently a court in America ruled that computer generated art doesn't have IP rights attached to it. The software does, but the music doesn't. Same as how that one monkey doesn't own the copyright for the picture it took. It is the convention that only things humans create can have intellectual property rights attached to them.


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 4, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> The only one you named that hasn't been playing Gibson guitars consistently for decades is Mustaine, and that's mostly because he's had endorsements to plug, he had used them in the past as well.
> 
> Even when Cantrell and Hammet have/had active endorsements from other manufacturers they still had racks full of Gibsons on tour and in the studio. Same with the guys from Mastodon.


 - I hear ya, but I'm talking their main guitars. Hammet and Hetfields main guitars have been ESP for decades since originally Gibson. Hetfield uses his Anderson a lot too. Mustaine with Jackson and Dean etc. These guys might still use Gibson but it ain't their favortie main guitars I'd think by any means. Cantrell used G&L all these years etc.


What I'm saying is I don't trust their integrity as artist endorsers. Their word is not sincere, imo.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 4, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> - I hear ya, but I'm talking their main guitars. Hammet and Hetfields main guitars have been ESP for decades since originally Gibson. Hetfield uses his Anderson a lot too. Mustaine with Jackson and Dean etc. These guys might still use Gibson but it ain't their favortie main guitars I'd think by any means. Cantrell used G&L all these years etc.
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is I don't trust their integrity as artist endorsers. Their word is not sincere, imo.



The fact they've kept using their Gibsons when they weren't getting paid to and had access to whatever they wanted speaks volumes in itself.


----------



## RevelGTR (Jun 4, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> - I hear ya, but I'm talking their main guitars. Hammet and Hetfields main guitars have been ESP for decades since originally Gibson. Hetfield uses his Anderson a lot too. Mustaine with Jackson and Dean etc. These guys might still use Gibson but it ain't their favortie main guitars I'd think by any means. Cantrell used G&L all these years etc.
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is I don't trust their integrity as artist endorsers. Their word is not sincere, imo.


Not to be a jerk, but I think you have it almost completely backwards.

In the case of Hetfield, Hammet and Cantrell they have a consistent history of using Gibsons publicly and constantly record with them. The reason you’re seeing all these projects with big names from Gibson is that they finally have their shit somewhat together in terms of artist relations and management to get this stuff done.

It’s the same with Bill Kelliher. I saw Mastodon a few weeks ago and he played more Gibsons than ESP’s. In all of those cases I think they love the consistency, availability, endorsement benefits etc. that come from a company like ESP, but at the end of the day their heros played Gibson’s, they probably spent their teenage years dreaming of Gibson etc and those guitars probably have a special place in their heart.

And I say this as someone who doesn’t own a single Gibson and isn’t in the market for one, but aesthetic and QC issues aside a well setup modern Gibson USA guitar plays and sounds pretty dang awesome. Plus, no offense, but a Les Paul is just 10x cooler than an Eclipse at the end of the day, even if the Eclipse is an objectively better built guitar


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 4, 2022)

Gibson has a lot of baggage, and plenty of it is well earned, but in the last 10 years it's really made headway in building much more consistently great guitars, having a more diverse product mix, high quality imports, and even being a better company to work for.


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 4, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> The fact they've kept using their Gibsons when they weren't getting paid to and had access to whatever they wanted speaks volumes in itself.





RevelGTR said:


> Not to be a jerk, but I think you have it almost completely backwards.
> 
> In the case of Hetfield, Hammet and Cantrell they have a consistent history of using Gibsons publicly and constantly record with them. The reason you’re seeing all these projects with big names from Gibson is that they finally have their shit somewhat together in terms of artist relations and management to get this stuff done.
> 
> ...





MaxOfMetal said:


> Gibson has a lot of baggage, and plenty of it is well earned, but in the last 10 years it's really made headway in building much more consistently great guitars, having a more diverse product mix, high quality imports, and even being a better company to work for.




I suppose you guys are right, but I standy by my dislike of them messing with Boogie. I suppose in time I'll come around.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 5, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> I suppose you guys are right, but I standy by my dislike of them messing with Boogie. I suppose in time I'll come around.


Baby let it go. And if you EVER trusted an artist endorsement, I've got a bridge to sell you. I don't oay attention to endorsements, I just pay attention to if the guitar has what I want. This is 2022, endorsements keep the bills oaid for musicians so they'll say anything for a big enough check


----------



## narad (Jun 5, 2022)

StevenC said:


> In not a lawyer, but I read court documents daily for work. To me it reads as $4000 per IP infringed. So if this case is just about their use of the Flying V, then it's $4000; if it's about Vs, Explorers and SGs, it's $12000. Minimum.



It might be cheaper for Dean in the long run if it's per instrument. $4k for 3 different instrument types is $12k, but $4k per instrument sold might only be $0-8k.


----------



## soul_lip_mike (Jun 5, 2022)

As long as my dean southern cross still arrives.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 5, 2022)

soul_lip_mike said:


> As long as my dean southern cross still arrives.



I think that's the other Dean lawsuit.


----------



## Hollowway (Jun 5, 2022)

@MaxOfMetal or anyone else that knows: I was just watching the ESP booth walkthrough on YouTube, and it got me wondering how ESP is still making so many LP and SG shaped guitars. Was there ever a lawsuit against ESP by Gibson?


----------



## soul_lip_mike (Jun 5, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think that's the other Dean lawsuit.


Yea it's weird the razorback and stealth shapes I'd see Dime's estate having a leg to stand on but the ML I'd hope not. I have a USA stealth on order too which I've been told numerous times is still coming but that particular one I'm less optimistic about. The Southern Crosses are still flowing in to Chondro it seems so I think that one is safe.


----------



## Edika (Jun 5, 2022)

I'm quite surprised that the Gibson Explorer doesn't sell more and seem to be one of the shapes moving in and out of production depending on the year. I know that for most guitarists that when speaking about Gibsons the image of a Les Paul comes to mind and there aren't many players that promote the Explorer shape. If that shape is not tied to expectations if classic specs they could have had some fun with it.
But I suppose sale numbers don't lie. I'm kind of kicking myself for not grabbing a B2 as it seemed like a solid instrument but they managed to put the most washed out coloured rosewood on an all black guitar (I know I know silly reason). I'm also quite disappointed in myself that I was quite against getting a Gibson that I didn't get a Golden Axe or a Thunderhorse, I mean those must have sold well and where just so we'll executed in terms of specs and aesthetics!
I was really interested in the Lzzy Hale black model but all NGD posts I saw online, the fretboard edges seemed to have been done by a blind person!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollowway said:


> @MaxOfMetal or anyone else that knows: I was just watching the ESP booth walkthrough on YouTube, and it got me wondering how ESP is still making so many LP and SG shaped guitars. Was there ever a lawsuit against ESP by Gibson?


I'm actually curious about this myself. I've always seen claims that Gibson sent ESP a C&D over the Eclipse which is why they never released a 4-knob version, but from what I can tell ESP just never made one for the US market in the first place. Every time they did a "4-knob" eclipse, one of the volume knobs was always replaced by a dummy switch. It's funny too because this was before Gibson told them to fuck off with the EXP and V.


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Jun 5, 2022)

I know way late may have been said already but Gibson had audacity to talk about innovation while making essentially no improvements to designs since forever. I'm a pro Gibson guy but cmon lol


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 5, 2022)

Are you suggesting inventing the flying V and Explorer shapes as well as the humbucker pickup were not innovative?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollowway said:


> @MaxOfMetal or anyone else that knows: I was just watching the ESP booth walkthrough on YouTube, and it got me wondering how ESP is still making so many LP and SG shaped guitars. Was there ever a lawsuit against ESP by Gibson?





HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I'm actually curious about this myself. I've always seen claims that Gibson sent ESP a C&D over the Eclipse which is why they never released a 4-knob version, but from what I can tell ESP just never made one for the US market in the first place. Every time they did a "4-knob" eclipse, one of the volume knobs was always replaced by a dummy switch. It's funny too because this was before Gibson told them to fuck off with the EXP and V.



ESP was one of the last holdouts of the "lawsuit era", you were able to order near 1:1 Gibson (and Fender) copies clear into the late 80's. 

In the early 90's Gibson began coming after them (C&Ds, strongly worded letters, etc. just about everything short of an actual lawsuit) for the V and EX models. At the time the more LP like Eclipse I was available as part of the "Export" range, stuff not explicitly sold outside of Japan, but could be ordered. 

The Eclipse I, along with the original V and EX models were no longer offered as regular catalog models nor imports afterwards. 




Dineley said:


> I know way late may have been said already but Gibson had audacity to talk about innovation while making essentially no improvements to designs since forever. I'm a pro Gibson guy but cmon lol



That's absolutely false. 

There hasn't been a more genuinely innovative guitar company in the last century than Gibson.


----------



## gunch (Jun 5, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> ESP was one of the last holdouts of the "lawsuit era", you were able to order near 1:1 Gibson (and Fender) copies clear into the late 80's.
> 
> In the early 90's Gibson began coming after them (C&Ds, strongly worded letters, etc. just about everything short of an actual lawsuit) for the V and EX models. At the time the more LP like Eclipse I was available as part of the "Export" range, stuff not explicitly sold outside of Japan, but could be ordered.
> 
> ...


Its the wacky stuff thats always derided and forgotten. They already got rid of the brass nuts, probably due to whining


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollowway said:


> @MaxOfMetal or anyone else that knows: I was just watching the ESP booth walkthrough on YouTube, and it got me wondering how ESP is still making so many LP and SG shaped guitars. Was there ever a lawsuit against ESP by Gibson?


 I think Gibson will have to eventually sue almost everyone. Everyone makes these shapes. It'd be kinda weird if they actually started doing that. Like every company right?


----------



## Hollowway (Jun 5, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> ESP was one of the last holdouts of the "lawsuit era", you were able to order near 1:1 Gibson (and Fender) copies clear into the late 80's.
> 
> In the early 90's Gibson began coming after them (C&Ds, strongly worded letters, etc. just about everything short of an actual lawsuit) for the V and EX models. At the time the more LP like Eclipse I was available as part of the "Export" range, stuff not explicitly sold outside of Japan, but could be ordered.
> 
> ...


But I can order an Eclipse in the US right now. Is the current model different enough to keep Gibson happy?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollowway said:


> But I can order an Eclipse in the US right now. Is the current model different enough to keep Gibson happy?



Apparently. 

I think ESP knows that it's pretty much an expensive coin toss to press their luck, so they don't push the issue.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 5, 2022)

c7spheres said:


> I think Gibson will have to eventually sue almost everyone. Everyone makes these shapes. It'd be kinda weird if they actually started doing that. Like every company right?



Gibson doesn't really care about small, import rebrands so long as they don't try to be 1:1 copies. 

It's better to set precedent against the larger, more egregious cases. 

Gibson very seldom actually sues anybody. They send a C&D and see what happens.


----------



## c7spheres (Jun 5, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Gibson doesn't really care about small, import rebrands so long as they don't try to be 1:1 copies.
> 
> It's better to set precedent against the larger, more egregious cases.
> 
> Gibson very seldom actually sues anybody. They send a C&D and see what happens.


 This makes more sense.


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Jun 5, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> ESP was one of the last holdouts of the "lawsuit era", you were able to order near 1:1 Gibson (and Fender) copies clear into the late 80's.
> 
> In the early 90's Gibson began coming after them (C&Ds, strongly worded letters, etc. just about everything short of an actual lawsuit) for the V and EX models. At the time the more LP like Eclipse I was available as part of the "Export" range, stuff not explicitly sold outside of Japan, but could be ordered.
> 
> ...




Okay I trust you on this just doesn't always seem like it I guess I'm not quite as attuned to the finer points but thanks for correcting always nice to get some learning


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 5, 2022)

Kind of a side note that I think is cool....today my son (who lives in Nashville) was taking part in a charity motorcycle ride that made one of its stops at the Gibson Garage. Gibson CEO JC was there. My son knows nothing about guitars except that I like them and particularly Gibsons and Epiphones (and Hannemans) and the CEO was nice enough to chat with my son about my guitars (which my son has on his phone) and took a selfie with him and sent it to me as a surprise. I was not expecting that. I thought that was really cool.

Anyway, gonna go watch today's Trogley and then play my Faulkner flying V and stew about how much I hate this awful awful soulless company.


----------



## Edika (Jun 6, 2022)

Since Max mentioned it, what was the benefits if the brass nut, aside from longevity, in sound? Anyone has and played one side by side to one with a regular nut? Seemed like a good idea and the fact you could raise or lower the nut seemed super cool for different string gauges.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 6, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Gibson very seldom actually sues anybody.


Do we need to make a list of litigants Gibson has sued? "Seldom" compared to what? I think you'd have a very difficult time finding a guitar manufacturer who has sued more, so, I think that statement is incorrect.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Do we need to make a list of litigants Gibson has sued? "Seldom" compared to what? I think you'd have a very difficult time finding a guitar manufacturer who has sued more, so, I think that statement is incorrect.



They have seldom sued vs. the threat of legal action.

Folks tend to blur that distinction.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Jun 6, 2022)

Hollowway said:


> But I can order an Eclipse in the US right now. Is the current model different enough to keep Gibson happy?



I agree with you. An ESP USA Eclipse (with the full thickness body, triply-ply binding etc) is remarkably similar to a LP Custom. I'm surprised they "get away with it".



Edika said:


> Since Max mentioned it, what was the benefits if the brass nut, aside from longevity, in sound? Anyone has and played one side by side to one with a regular nut? Seemed like a good idea and the fact you could raise or lower the nut seemed super cool for different string gauges.



My Warwick bass has a brass nut. And you can adjust the height with little Allen keys. It works fantastically well for changing action, setting the amount of fret buzz you want, and dealing with intonation around the first 5 frets.

And consider, ever Floyd Rose-equipped guitar has a metal nut. I'm not convinced it's a huge factor. 

But Gibson is in a tough position. People shit on them (e.g. this thread) for relying on 60+ year old designs without innovating. Yet when they do add new features, everybody complains about them changing the formula.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 6, 2022)

In summation, Gibson is a sweet innocent baby who did nothing wrong. Everyone stop being mean to them.


----------



## MFB (Jun 6, 2022)

I think people are over-estimating how similar the EC and the LP really are - bodywise, there's more contouring on the EC and the cutout is different along with the three knob layouts vs. four. Fretboard, the flag inlays are an obvious difference compared to the traditional Gibson trapezoids/blocks, and headstock is obviously not the open-book style that Gibson/Epiphone uses.

There's definitely enough there to separate them from each other, but something like the '58 Flying V when Dean copped that is much harder to differentiate if you're just changing the headstock and saying, "no, we designed this."


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> In summation, Gibson is a sweet innocent baby who did nothing wrong. Everyone stop being mean to them.



Eh, I think it's more fair to say that while Gibson is by no means perfect, much of the impressions about them, guitars and company, are either mistaken or far outdated.

I'm old enough to remember when the guitars were genuinely terrible, as far as product mix and QC/QA, in the 90's and early 00's, but it's been decades where both have been much, much better and it seems to get better year over year for the most part.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Jun 6, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> In summation, Gibson is a sweet innocent baby who did nothing wrong. Everyone stop being mean to them.


You must have hallucinated something because nobody has said that, or even close.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 6, 2022)

Flappydoodle said:


> You must have hallucinated something because nobody has said that, or even close.


SWEET....INNOCENT...BABY, FLAPPY.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 6, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> They have seldom sued vs. the threat of legal action.
> 
> Folks tend to blur that distinction.


Gibson has sued:
Ibanez 1977
PRS 2000
Tokai 2004
Activision 2008
WalMart 2008
Target 2008
Gamestop 2008
Amazon 2008
Toys R Us 2008
KMart 2008
Luna Guitars 2019
Dean 2019
Collings 2020
Also:
Godlyke, Guitar Cellar, Musictoys... Not sure what year those were filed, but they were filed, not just a C&D letter. Although, they probably all started with a C&D letter, too. Anyway, I'm sure I'm missing a lot of these. I'm not putting much effort into this, since these are the ones that I recalled off the top of my head, and I just looked them up to verify the date that the court paperwork was filed. They've lost a majority of these cases.

Who got a Cease and Desist? Heritage Guitars? Gibson will likely sue them anyway, after this.

If you have some facts to counter this, I'm all ears, but I think the statement that "Gibson very seldom actually sues anybody" is just wrong. The above examples were all lawsuits filed, not just C&D letters. It still counts even if they lose the lawsuit or drop it after it starts.

Gibson is probably not the most litigious company in the world, but, there is no doubt that they are the most litigious guitar manufacturer of note. If they seldom sue anybody, then I'm not sure where you set the bar. 16 high profile lawsuits. I'm pretty sure there are plenty more that 30 seconds of googling wasn't enough to dig up.

Max, I know we tend to disagree about everything to do with Gibson, and pretty much disagree on nothing else.


----------



## StevenC (Jun 6, 2022)

I played a Muphy Lab 3 pickup LPC the other day and it was the best guitar I've ever touched probably. Making a gofundme.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Gibson has sued:
> Ibanez 1977
> PRS 2000
> Tokai 2004
> ...



I guess I was mostly talking about the guitar space, not other merchandise. 

As far as the list, many of those were wrapped up in the PaperJamz lawsuit, pretty much all the retailers listed. Luna is also Dean, wholly owned by them well before 2019.

Fender took on ESP, Schecter, Tokai, and over a dozen more when they tried to trademark the Strat and Tele, but you rarely hear it come up, mostly because they lost, when we start talking legal action against other brands, Gibson is the usual go to. 

As for Heritage, they're actually suing Gibson if you can believe it.


----------



## narad (Jun 6, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> ESP was one of the last holdouts of the "lawsuit era", you were able to order near 1:1 Gibson (and Fender) copies clear into the late 80's.
> 
> In the early 90's Gibson began coming after them (C&Ds, strongly worded letters, etc. just about everything short of an actual lawsuit) for the V and EX models. At the time the more LP like Eclipse I was available as part of the "Export" range, stuff not explicitly sold outside of Japan, but could be ordered.
> 
> ...



Still, I don't quite understand the move to stop producing these guitars, like the EX, that were at least slightly different from Gibson spec, while still producing...












NAVIGATOR | ESP GUITARS


ESPの手工技術と解釈でリプロダクトされたトラディッショナルシリーズ。




espguitars.co.jp


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2022)

narad said:


> Still, I don't quite understand the move to stop producing these guitars, like the EX, that were at least slightly different from Gibson spec, while still producing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They can make whatever they want, it's just where and how they market it that can get them in trouble. Gibson and Fender aren't touching them in Japan, so they make what they make and sell it where they sell it.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 6, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess I was mostly talking about the guitar space, not other merchandise.
> 
> As far as the list, many of those were wrapped up in the PaperJamz lawsuit, pretty much all the retailers listed. Luna is also Dean, wholly owned by them well before 2019.
> 
> ...


Fender sued Gibson, too.  The Firebird was claimed to be too similar to the Jazzmaster. I thought it was a weird lawsuit, but Gibson does get sued a lot. 

Heritage is suing over the C&D Letter they received. I can't find court documents, but Gibson either sued or threatened to sue them in the very early 90's (1990 or 1991), and they settled somehow out-of-court. Allegedly, part of the settlement was that Heritage could continue to make copies of Gibson guitars under some certain stipulations that Heritage claims they obeyed. Gibson sent the Cease and Desist, so Heritage claims it's legal foul play.

If Heritage's side of the story is accurate, it ought to be a pretty simple case of "we have this in writing, and they are trying to reneg." and then the judge deciding whether or not Gibson is legally allowed to reneg (there's no clear reason why not, I suppose, unless Heritage gave Gibson something of value in order to secure the agreement).


----------



## narad (Jun 6, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> They can make whatever they want, it's just where and how they market it that can get them in trouble. Gibson and Fender aren't touching them in Japan, so they make what they make and sell it where they sell it.



Yea, but I can't order an ESP MX here, but I can order these.


----------



## soul_lip_mike (Jun 6, 2022)

Man I want an ESP MX so bad.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 6, 2022)

All of these people hating Gibson but begging to play their designs...


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 6, 2022)

Rita's Dime guitars be like


----------



## narad (Jun 6, 2022)

ArtDecade said:


> All of these people hating Gibson but begging to play their designs...



Well, not me, I have a historic LP. But have you seen the prices on explorer reissues? Sorry, I'd rather buy a jacked up used MX for $7k than an exorbitant Gibson for $10-15k. I tried to get behind the ~$2k-$3k explorers they used to do in standard production but the QC was awful.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2022)

narad said:


> Well, not me, I have a historic LP. But have you seen the prices on explorer reissues? Sorry, I'd rather buy a jacked up used MX for $7k than an exorbitant Gibson for $10-15k. I tried to get behind the ~$2k-$3k explorers they used to do in standard production but the QC was awful.



Has any of the Banker stuff made it to Japan? I thought those were just as good, if not better than the more expensive reissues.


----------



## Dayn (Jun 6, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Gibson has sued:
> Ibanez 1977
> PRS 2000
> Tokai 2004
> ...


I gotta say that doesn't seem like much at all. Ibanez in 1977 seems pretty famous. Then a massive gap, once in 2000, once again four years later in 2004, then a raft of actions in 2008 that seem quite similar (pretty sure for the same thing - why else would they sue general retailers?). Over a decade later, we have few other things for which we're now discussing the results.

For a massive company with a global presence, it's not a big list even if it is limited to proceedings in the US. I've had much smaller clients with more distinguishable actions over the years (albeit much smaller matters). I don't have a good impression of Gibson at all, but if that's the extent of it, criticising for amount of actions they've taken isn't useful.

The quality of action is another story. That's my main concern: they 'won' against Dean, but it was a technical success more than anything given the damages were reduced significantly due to their failure to protect their IP over the decades.


----------



## narad (Jun 6, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Has any of the Banker stuff made it to Japan? I thought those were just as good, if not better than the more expensive reissues.



I haven't seen any but I did think those looked interesting.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2022)

Dayn said:


> I gotta say that doesn't seem like much at all. Ibanez in 1977 seems pretty famous. Then a massive gap, once in 2000, once again four years later in 2004, then a raft of actions in 2008 that seem quite similar (pretty sure for the same thing - why else would they sue general retailers?). Over a decade later, we have few other things for which we're now discussing the results.
> 
> For a massive company with a global presence, it's not a big list even if it is limited to proceedings in the US. I've had much smaller clients with more distinguishable actions over the years (albeit much smaller matters). I don't have a good impression of Gibson at all, but if that's the extent of it, criticising for amount of actions they've taken isn't useful.
> 
> The quality of action is another story. That's my main concern: they 'won' against Dean, but it was a technical success more than anything given the damages were reduced significantly due to their failure to protect their IP over the decades.



Yeah, that's sort of what I was originally getting at before the ol' "ackchyually". 

For a company that's been at it for over a century and was so foundational to the creation and proliferation of the electric guitar the fact they've maybe had one big, public lawsuit every generation or so isn't that monumental.

Especially when it's portrayed as suing everyone everywhere all the time, in almost a spiteful or vindictive way, vs. just playing the game like most their contemporaries. Fender has been around almost half the time and has just as much, possibly more, litigation under it's belt. 

I think ESP is a great example of how this can all shake out and not be as much of a problem. They make tons of Gibson inspired guitars, but they're different enough, while still being fairly obvious in their lineage. They sell plenty and Gibson, while they've made it clear there is a line, isn't stopping them. There's room to exist within the lines.


----------



## ClownShoes (Jun 7, 2022)

soul_lip_mike said:


> Yea it's weird the razorback and stealth shapes I'd see Dime's estate having a leg to stand on but the ML I'd hope not. I have a USA stealth on order too which I've been told numerous times is still coming but that particular one I'm less optimistic about. The Southern Crosses are still flowing in to Chondro it seems so I think that one is safe.


The estate does own the stealth and razorback shapes. They are in the process of getting the Dime-3 shape.






Getcha Pull, Inc. Trademarks & Logos







uspto.report





Dean Zelinsky will be building the new range of guitars.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 7, 2022)

vertigo08 said:


> The estate does own the stealth and razorback shapes. They are in the process of getting the Dime-3 shape.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like it's still somewhat in limbo, as it's just an application that's been accepted, but a trademark has yet to be granted. 

It's interesting that they only late last year, when things with Dean were going south, that they applied for trademarks on the shapes. 

Still no ML, which is the meat of what Dime played.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, that's sort of what I was originally getting at before the ol' "ackchyually".



I mean, you were the one who literally used the word "actually," not me. I see it as a little disingenuous to contradict someone else's statement without proof, then, when a third party offers some form of evidence, to resort to this sort of argument.

My challenge still stands to name one other well-known guitar builder more litigious than Gibson. If you can't, then I firmly hold that it's impossible to honestly make the statement that they "very seldom sue anybody."

If I went into a thread about David Berkowitz and said "Actually, he very seldom killed anybody," you would think I was crazy (not that you don't already think that). Before you write this off as hyperbole, Berkowitz killed six people. Gibson sued at least 16 companies. If you search David Berkowitz on google, you get 10 million hits, "David Berkowitz killing" - 695k hits. "Gibson guitar" = 26 million; "Gibson guitar lawsuit" = 2 million. That suggests that the portion of chatter about Gibson that has to do with lawsuits is similar to the the portion of chatter about Berkowitz that has to do with killings. I'm all ears if you have any other measurable reason to disbelieve the association between Gibson and lawsuits, though.



Dayn said:


> I gotta say that doesn't seem like much at all.



Yet again, those are only the ones off the top of my head. Can you name any other company who has sues 16 other companies that you can name off the top of your head?!

I have to say, this whole, almost cult-like belief that Gibson doesn't sue, is just weird. It's demonstrable that they do sue, and it's common belief that they do it "a lot." If you want to set the bar of "not much at all" at a number higher than 16, that's up to you, but I don't think you are going to make a very convincing argument that way. I can tell you that I've ever sued exactly zero people or corporations in my lifetime.


----------



## tedtan (Jun 7, 2022)

The ML existed well before Dimebag (sometime in the late 70s), so I don’t see his estate getting any rights to it. Maybe the others, but but the ML.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 7, 2022)

bostjan said:


> I mean, you were the one who literally used the word "actually," not me. I see it as a little disingenuous to contradict someone else's statement without proof, then, when a third party offers some form of evidence, to resort to this sort of argument.
> 
> My challenge still stands to name one other well-known guitar builder more litigious than Gibson. If you can't, then I firmly hold that it's impossible to honestly make the statement that they "very seldom sue anybody."



To be fair, Gibson has been doing this for over a century and to have a dozen lawsuits in that time doesn't make them overly litigious. If anything, you would expect they were suing every other weekend the way people act. Are they the most litigious? Probably, but that has more to do with getting their first and being around the longest.


----------



## StevenC (Jun 7, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Yet again, those are only the ones off the top of my head. Can you name any other company who has sues 16 other companies that you can name off the top of your head?!


Yeah, loads. Basically every company whose main business is an iconic IP. Nintendo, Disney, etc are all suing over the same thing as Gibson, to protect their properties from becoming genericised.

And again, separating out all of the 2008 cases is a bit disingenuous considering it was all the same matter over the same patent.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2022)

ArtDecade said:


> To be fair, Gibson has been doing this for over a century and to have a dozen lawsuits in that time doesn't make them overly litigious. If anything, you would expect they were suing every other weekend the way people act. Are they the most litigious? Probably, but that has more to do with getting their first and being around the longest.


Is it a binary choice between Gibson files a lawsuit at least every week and Gibson files virtually no lawsuits ever?

Or is it possible that Gibson files more lawsuits than necessary or prudent, exemplified by at least a dozen suits they filed and either lost or won and then were overturned upon appeal?

The statement that Max responded to by claiming that Gibson very rarely ever sues anybody was something I felt was clearly rhetorical. Paraphrasing: "Everybody makes these shapes, what are they going to do, sue everyone?" Not a declaration of fact that Gibson indeed sues everyone.

I guess the internet is too polarized for anyone to make rhetorical sentences or to challenge hyperbole without being accused of stating the opposite hyperbole.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2022)

StevenC said:


> Yeah, loads. Basically every company whose main business is an iconic IP. Nintendo, Disney, etc are all suing over the same thing as Gibson, to protect their properties from becoming genericised.
> 
> And again, separating out all of the 2008 cases is a bit disingenuous considering it was all the same matter over the same patent.


Was the disputed claim over the amount of lawsuits or was it about the amount of people sued by Gibson?

Ok, name 16 entities Nintendo sued off the top of your head.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 7, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Is it a binary choice between Gibson files a lawsuit at least every week and Gibson files virtually no lawsuits ever?



I was just noting that a dozen or so lawsuits in a 125 years amounts to one a decade. It is a ratio issue. Gibson is old and they have more to defend than a company started last month.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 7, 2022)

bostjan said:


> I mean, you were the one who literally used the word "actually," not me. I see it as a little disingenuous to contradict someone else's statement without proof, then, when a third party offers some form of evidence, to resort to this sort of argument.
> 
> My challenge still stands to name one other well-known guitar builder more litigious than Gibson. If you can't, then I firmly hold that it's impossible to honestly make the statement that they "very seldom sue anybody."
> 
> ...



This is literally what I said:

"Gibson very seldom actually sues anybody."

How that turned into "Gibson never sues anybody" or "they sue the least" or whatever you're trying to prove, I don't know.

The post I originally replied to was speculating that Gibson would eventually sue everyone, which is pretty silly don't you think? Wouldn't they be pretty far behind at this point?

I've clarified that I was speaking in the context of guitar manufacturers, since that's what we (the folks having a conversation before you posted) were specifically talking about.

What I said, quoted above, is as far as I'm concerned, true as for a company of their age, product mix, and just how many companies actively rip off their IP, they are not extremely litigious. The fact that you could only name a small handful of competitors they've sued over the course of a lifetime, I don't see the issue.

This is all I'm saying about this.

Hail Gibson!


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2022)

Alright. I can tell that people are taking this very personally for whatever reason. If anyone wants to continue to argue, PM me. Either way, honestly, you guys are pretty cool and have my respect regardless of what you might think of me. I still disagree, but, at this point, there's no point in publicly explaining why or why not.

Peace.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 7, 2022)

My 3 cents (thats right an extra cent for free) is it doesnt matter. The point is not how many gibson lawsuits there have been or C&Ds. There could be one a decade or 10 a day. What seems to be the central premise of the typical Gibson hater is that Gibson wont innovate and based on their bankruptcy history sues others who “do Gibson better than Gibson” and are just trying to satisfy a QC and price point to consumers that Gibson wont address. They seem (based on their argument) to be saying “Gibson has shown they dont want me as a customer due to their price but through aggressive litigation they wont let anyone else have me” and so it seems that they perceive as Gibsons motivation for lawsuit more than lawsuit quantity as the source of anger.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 7, 2022)

SWEET....INNOCENT...BABY


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jun 7, 2022)

My stance on it is that I'm not a huge gibson fan, though I do like their designs. The only reason I wish they'd let up with the c&d's is that I'd love to have a properly shaped 7 string explorer with slightly different specs. They've kinda pigeonholed themselves into a certain market and people pitch fits when they try to make a non mahogany, non-short scale. So they're not allowed to innovate/drastically change their specs, and other companies who people would accept weird scale lengths/features can't do them. 

In the end it's not a big deal to me. I have a few decent enough guitars that are more in line with my preferences that are close enough in shape, and it saves me from spending another $1k+ on something I really don't actually need so whatever. 

I guess I just don't fault Gibson for protecting their designs, I just wish they did more with them... The fact that they don't is the consumers fault because they throw fits every time they try. Oh well, no skin off my arse.


----------



## jl-austin (Jun 8, 2022)

bostjan said:


> If you have some facts to counter this, I'm all ears, but I think the statement that "Gibson very seldom actually sues anybody" is just wrong. The above examples were all lawsuits filed, not just C&D letters. It still counts even if they lose the lawsuit or drop it after it starts.



Wow! That's more lawsuits than new models released! And I mean NEW, not a refinished guitar from the 50's!


----------



## ClownShoes (Jun 11, 2022)

tedtan said:


> The ML existed well before Dimebag (sometime in the late 70s), so I don’t see his estate getting any rights to it. Maybe the others, but but the ML.





MaxOfMetal said:


> Still no ML, which is the meat of what Dime played.


The Dime-3 shape is different to the ML. It's how Washburn got away with making Dimebag's signature models from 1995-2004.

Scroll to page 16



https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dimebag_lawsuit_dean_guitars.pdf


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 11, 2022)

ClownShoes said:


> The Dime-3 shape is different to the ML. It's how Washburn got away with making Dimebag's signature models from 1995-2004.
> 
> Scroll to page 16
> 
> ...


Please lord, let Rita take the Dime fans far far away from Dean and let them all fall off a damn cliff somewhere. (g)A(y)MEN


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 11, 2022)

ClownShoes said:


> The Dime-3 shape is different to the ML. It's how Washburn got away with making Dimebag's signature models from 1995-2004.
> 
> Scroll to page 16
> 
> ...



Interestingly enough, this came up in the Gibson v. Dean suit, where as the "Dime3" was identified as "functionally identical" to the ML. Gibson didn't seem to care since they were going after the headstock, not body shape, but I wonder if that trademark would hold up under scrutiny. I can't find any info about Dean trying to sue Washburn over the shape, so it might just have slipped by unopposed till now.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Jun 11, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> In summation, Gibson is a sweet innocent baby who did nothing wrong. Everyone stop being mean to them.


You could write eulogies and obituaries for money.


----------



## sylcfh (Jun 15, 2022)

I like the fact that most Gibsons double as a headless guitar after some time.


----------



## Mitri (Jun 15, 2022)

Honestly, I think Gibson makes art that is capable of being loved or hated.


----------



## Mitri (Jun 15, 2022)

Defining the words "au" and "thent" led me to the understanding that the word "authentic" technically or correctly implies an understanding of which "then" is in reference. A matter of context.

To play authentically is to be mindful of which "now" is "now" your now. This statement further unfolds to question if your "now" is now? How now is your "now"? 

Do you "now"?


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 15, 2022)

Mitri said:


> Defining the words "au" and "thent" led me to the understanding that the word "authentic" technically or correctly implies an understanding of which "then" is in reference. A matter of context.
> 
> To play authentically is to be mindful of which "now" is "now" your now. This statement further unfolds to question if your "now" is now? How now is your "now"?
> 
> Do you "now"?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2022)

Mitri said:


> Defining the words "au" and "thent" led me to the understanding that the word "authentic" technically or correctly implies an understanding of which "then" is in reference. A matter of context.
> 
> To play authentically is to be mindful of which "now" is "now" your now. This statement further unfolds to question if your "now" is now? How now is your "now"?
> 
> Do you "now"?


----------



## Mitri (Jun 15, 2022)

ArtDecade said:


>



Hey, thanks for asking! I see your point. My comment might make sense from a different angle of perception but I'm not sure where you're looking from so I can't just fork over an explanation but I'll try.

I've seen comments about marketing campaigns being juxtaposed against legal proceedings as if fair comparison or allegory exist. 

If people failed to understand the essence or nature of a two word slogan I somehow doubt whether legal framework or related courtroom proceedings are being understood. 

It's all context or an absence thereof.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 15, 2022)




----------



## Mitri (Jun 15, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 109192


"Antisocial influencer" implies that you function solely, specifically, and exclusively to manifest reasons for the site to remove and/or revoke memberships. 

Any comment?


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 15, 2022)




----------



## mmr007 (Jun 15, 2022)

Mitri said:


> "Antisocial influencer" implies that you function solely, specifically, and exclusively to manifest reasons for the site to remove and/or revoke memberships.
> 
> Any comment?


Ss.org regular was taken so….oh and I function solely specifically and exclusively to eat McDonalds french fries. I’s an obsessive dedication. This site’s desire to revoke my membership is a byproduct of who I am personally and nothing to do with my avatar’s quotable.


----------



## John (Jun 16, 2022)

sylcfh said:


> I like the fact that Gibsons double as a headless guitar after some time.



I'm surprised Gibson hasn't started suing all of the hyped up headless brands in the market, as well, considering how *they* are the OG of headless guitars.


----------



## narad (Jun 16, 2022)

Mitri said:


> Defining the words "au" and "thent" led me to the understanding that the word "authentic" technically or correctly implies an understanding of which "then" is in reference. A matter of context.
> 
> To play authentically is to be mindful of which "now" is "now" your now. This statement further unfolds to question if your "now" is now? How now is your "now"?
> 
> Do you "now"?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 16, 2022)

This thread is going places.


----------



## tedtan (Jun 16, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> This thread is going places.


Is it, now now (now)?


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 16, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> This thread is going places.


Straight to Hell.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 16, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Straight to Hell.


Naw, this thread is an innocent little baby!


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 16, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Naw, this thread is an innocent little baby!


Just like Gibson


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Jun 16, 2022)

Mitri said:


> Defining the words "au" and "thent" led me to the understanding that the word "authentic" technically or correctly implies an understanding of which "then" is in reference. A matter of context.
> 
> To play authentically is to be mindful of which "now" is "now" your now. This statement further unfolds to question if your "now" is now? How now is your "now"?
> 
> Do you "now"?



I'm always down for some antics but I'm afraid that is not remotely the etymology of "authentic." 

I think your get up and go must've got up and thent.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Jun 16, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> I'm always down for some antics but I'm afraid that is not remotely the etymology of "authentic."
> 
> I think your get up and go must've got up and thent.


What in the Sweet Emotion is goin on round here?


----------



## tedtan (Jun 17, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> thent.


Does that derive from thall in any way, shape or form?


----------



## Dayn (Jun 17, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Does that derive from thall in any way, shape or form?


All is thall, I believe, if the etymology I've learned from this thread is authentic.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 17, 2022)




----------



## /wrists (Jun 17, 2022)

honestly it's such a bitch move to lawsuit over guitar shape nowadays


----------



## ClownShoes (Jun 17, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Please lord, let Rita take the Dime fans far far away from Dean and let them all fall off a damn cliff somewhere. (g)A(y)MEN


Grow up.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 17, 2022)

ClownShoes said:


> Grow up.


Shhh...we're having a discussion. Go wait in the car.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 17, 2022)

evade said:


> honestly it's such a bitch move to lawsuit over guitar shape nowadays


Yeah..how dare a company protect the very things that keep them in business...


----------



## Matt08642 (Jun 17, 2022)

Somewhat off topic, but I think I my problem with Gibson is they remind me of the lame, out of touch middle aged/senior guy who doesn't really have a grasp on what's cool. For example, it would be a very Gibson move to call a guitar the "GT" model and have a flame decal on it, or something car themed, or if they had a "Death metal" series (name already out of touch) and just blacked out the hardware but kept everything bog standard with 496R and 496T pickups, maybe some random red accent.

The ad copy for these would also be incredibly lame and out of touch like "DRIVERS, START YOUR ENGINES!! The GT series is built for SPEED - Featuring Gibson's slim taper 60s neck and medium frets, you'll be OFF TO THE RACES in no time with this TRACK STAR!"

Maybe this is just confirmation bias from only noticing the boring/lame stuff Gibson does and already not really liking their instruments though, I dunno.

I'm also fully aware Fender (Literally have the Hot Rod amps and cringe guitars with weird brand partnership stuff) and other brands do this kind of dorky shit, but it just seems _extra _dorky coming from Gibson.


----------



## /wrists (Jun 17, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Yeah..how dare a company protect the very things that keep them in business...


when they lawsuit a company out of the blue for this kind of stuff, it's only going to hurt them - the headstock looks completely different on dean

It's not a 1:1 in the first place

even if people can understand it, it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth

Imagine if Apple sued every single computer company out there for removing the CD rom slot from their computers because they did it first or sued every phone company for making an phone that looks remotely similar



> amount of $4,000, a mere fraction of the $7 million plus originally sought by Gibson.



$4000 

I think most people agreed that this lawsuit was a meme


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 17, 2022)

Matt08642 said:


> Somewhat off topic, but I think I my problem with Gibson is they remind me of the lame, out of touch middle aged/senior guy who doesn't really have a grasp on what's cool. For example, it would be a very Gibson move to call a guitar the "GT" model and have a flame decal on it, or something car themed, or if they had a "Death metal" series (name already out of touch) and just blacked out the hardware but kept everything bog standard with 496R and 496T pickups, maybe some random red accent.
> 
> The ad copy for these would also be incredibly lame and out of touch like "DRIVERS, START YOUR ENGINES!! The GT series is built for SPEED - Featuring Gibson's slim taper 60s neck and medium frets, you'll be OFF TO THE RACES in no time with this TRACK STAR!"
> 
> ...



You're pretty much describing all the "metal" guitar ad copy from just about everyone.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 17, 2022)

Oh dear if we’re going to get into cringy guitar ad copy theres already a whole thread that shows other companies are worse.


----------



## Matt08642 (Jun 17, 2022)

evade said:


> Imagine if Apple sued every single computer company out there for removing the CD rom slot from their computers because they did it first or sued every phone company for making an phone that looks remotely similar



Apple sued the shit out of Samsung for the rounded corners on their phones back in the day - Basically a body shape lawsuit lol


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 17, 2022)

evade said:


> when they lawsuit a company out of the blue for this kind of stuff, it's only going to hurt them - the headstock looks completely different on dean
> 
> It's not a 1:1 in the first place
> 
> ...



I've elaborated on the history between the two companies already, but suffice it to say, this was hardly out of the blue. 

Companies sue each other all the time and it rarely has an impact, long term, as far as sales. No one who was going to buy a Les Paul isn't now because of this. 

The lawsuit was initiated to set precedent, which it has.


----------



## soul_lip_mike (Jun 17, 2022)

Matt08642 said:


> Somewhat off topic, but I think I my problem with Gibson is they remind me of the lame, out of touch middle aged/senior guy who doesn't really have a grasp on what's cool. For example, it would be a very Gibson move to call a guitar the "GT" model and have a flame decal on it, or something car themed, or if they had a "Death metal" series (name already out of touch) and just blacked out the hardware but kept everything bog standard with 496R and 496T pickups, maybe some random red accent.
> 
> The ad copy for these would also be incredibly lame and out of touch like "DRIVERS, START YOUR ENGINES!! The GT series is built for SPEED - Featuring Gibson's slim taper 60s neck and medium frets, you'll be OFF TO THE RACES in no time with this TRACK STAR!"
> 
> ...


Their new ceo guy seems pretty in touch and very hands on.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 17, 2022)

The moral of of the story is… no one says you cant dislike Gibson if they dont make a product you dont like. No one says you cant hate Gibson…but if you do …the problem is you. Not Gibson. Gibson has done nothing to be hatable but you let them get in your head. 
Im too lazy to do it myself but look up how many lawyers there are in the US and then look at how many of those are on retainer for Gibson then we’ll talk about Gibson being a litigious zealot
Then we’ll talk about your next homework assignment. Look at what other companies have done to us personally or the environment compared to Gibson. Third and final assignment is look up the word perspective. Then we can have a meaningful conversation.


----------



## /wrists (Jun 17, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> The moral of of the story is… no one says you cant dislike Gibson if they dont make a product you dont like. No one says you cant hate Gibson…but if you do …the problem is you. Not Gibson. Gibson has done nothing to be hatable but you let them get in your head.
> Im too lazy to do it myself but look up how many lawyers there are in the US and then look at how many of those are on retainer for Gibson then we’ll talk about Gibson being a litigious zealot
> Then we’ll talk about your next homework assignment. Look at what other companies have done to us personally or the environment compared to Gibson. Third and final assignment is look up the word perspective. Then we can have a meaningful conversation.


Honestly, for me it isn't about disliking Gibson for making a product I don't like. For me and probably a lot of other people, by observing this thread, is really the act of suing another company for something trivial such as body shape. It doesn't need to be 100 lawsuits later. Not that I was ever a Gibson fan, but this lawsuit will always be in the back of my head when I look at Gibsons. I won't think about Gibson as a guitar company that pioneered guitar shapes, but as a guitar company that sued Dean, which happened to be the first guitar I ever owned. Let's say I'm biased in this case because in context, but find a consumer who isn't biased one way or another when it comes to picking a guitar company or any company. Gibson's just giving people a reason to be more biased. I can't see anyone saying, "Holy shit Gibson rocked Dean's socks off with that lawsuit! I'm going to get a Les Paul now!" But I can definitely see people saying, "Holy shit Gibson sued Dean for $4k? Over a guitar shape? lol"

In addition to the lawsuit, Gibson and Dean inherently cater to different audiences anyway.



> Apple sued the shit out of Samsung for the rounded corners on their phones back in the day - Basically a body shape lawsuit lol



And as current iPhone user, I'll admit that was nonsense. There is nothing like Samsung phones that would even resemble an iPhone's form factor, in the past or currently. For Apple, those lawsuits didn't affect them because they've already dominated the mobile market, AND they're also getting sued by customer and other companies. They're in a relatively different position than Gibson, but I made the comparison because it was STILL ridiculous even then. Speaking of Apple, seems like they weren't ashamed of the fact that some of their greatest successes didn't originate from themselves.









Steve Jobs: “Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal”


Out of ideas? Steal, then cover your tracks




writingcooperative.com







> Companies sue each other all the time and it rarely has an impact, long term, as far as sales. No one who was going to buy a Les Paul isn't now because of this.
> 
> The lawsuit was initiated to set precedent, which it has.



It probably won't leave an impact, but it's a discussion where people are going to remember Gibson as a company who decided that instead of continuing innovating, they decide they'll sue. $4000 isn't relevant precedent. I'm fairly certain if a company can make more than $4000 off the profits of an idea they "stole" they'll gladly continue to do so.

Regardless of what you might think other people will think about this, I personally feel that Gibson could've let it go. By your logic and mine both, no one is going to not buy a Les Paul, so Gibson wasn't losing any sales to Dean in that respect.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 17, 2022)

Gibson Hurt My Feel Feels: Details at 11


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 17, 2022)

I wants the deets now.!!! 11 is past my bedtime.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Jun 17, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Does that derive from thall in any way, shape or form?



th'all = thou all *cracks bud light on pilgrim belt buckle*
thent = when something hasn't djented yet but it is going to at a specific time in the future


----------



## xzacx (Jun 17, 2022)

evade said:


> Honestly, for me it isn't about disliking Gibson for making a product I don't like. For me and probably a lot of other people, by observing this thread, is really the act of suing another company for something trivial such as body shape.


How do you consider a body shape trivial? The shape of the Les Paul body is one, if not the most, recognizable elements of Gibson.


----------



## /wrists (Jun 17, 2022)

xzacx said:


> How do you consider a body shape trivial? The shape of the Les Paul body is one, if not the most, recognizable elements of Gibson.


They took a sub section of the guitar and sued them? They didn't account for the headstock, the inlays, the material used, the electronics, and everything else which all account for the ENTIRE guitar which arguably outweighs and probably impacts a purchasing decision so much more than described sub section.

Honestly, the only thing this lawsuit wanted to make me do was buy a Dean flying V. Kind of how people want a concorde headstock on ESP guitars.

Next thing you know, we'll have automobile makers suing each other because they have a similar integrated chip. IntEllecTuAl ProPerTy.

As a guitarist, you probably would be able to distinguish the two and know that they are NOTHING alike.





edit: the gibson headstock looks like a deformed chode


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 17, 2022)




----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 17, 2022)

evade said:


> They took a sub section of the guitar and sued them? They didn't account for the headstock, the inlays, the material used, the electronics, and everything else which all account for the ENTIRE guitar which arguably outweighs and probably impacts a purchasing decision so much more than described sub section.
> 
> Honestly, the only thing this lawsuit wanted to make me do was buy a Dean flying V. Kind of how people want a concorde headstock on ESP guitars.
> 
> ...


Read the thread, this has already been explained


----------



## /wrists (Jun 18, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> Read the thread, this has already been explained


what exactly has been explained


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 18, 2022)

evade said:


> what exactly has been explained


You would know if you read the thread


----------



## sylcfh (Jun 18, 2022)

John said:


> I'm surprised Gibson hasn't started suing all of the hyped up headless brands in the market, as well, considering how *they* are the OG of headless guitars.





There's a reason they purchased Steinberger first.


----------



## soul_lip_mike (Jun 18, 2022)

Sucks this discussion has basically come down to "no u" replies from Gibson haters who can't be objective.


----------



## Matt08642 (Jun 18, 2022)

soul_lip_mike said:


> Sucks this discussion has basically come down to "no u" replies from Gibson haters who can't be objective.



The problem with listing objective reasons to dislike any guitar company are that things such as dogshit fit and finish for $5000 guitars is going to be marked as an anecdotal experience, so without going into the inner workings of the corporate structure of the company itself, there’s very few objective reasons to dislike any guitar manufacturer (I’m talking about inner workings like how Peavey allegedly treats/treated employees like shit or how a company might be severely underpaying south east Asian or Chinese builders through a subsidiary like I’m sure all companies do)

If we’re looking up this in the microcosm of this lawsuit, I dislike Gibson from a purely subjective standpoint for doing what I consider nothing with the designs that they’re concerned about protecting, unless you go Epiphone. I look at the Gibson website right now and it seems like they only sell their V and Explorer designs as nearly vintage spec instruments that don’t interest me whatsoever. Same reason I disliked Apple back when they were suing Samsung, the reason I liked Samsung phones back then wasn’t because they looked like an iPhone and I was getting away with not buying authentic, it was because they had a shitload of features that Apple wasn’t even close to considering.

All this being said, I think the Jackson King V is the best V design of all time and probably the only one I would buy anyway.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 18, 2022)

Matt08642 said:


> All this being said, I think the Jackson King V is the best V design of all time and probably the only one I would buy anyway.


Next, on Totally Wrong Opinions


----------



## tedtan (Jun 18, 2022)

Matt08642 said:


> All this being said, I think the Jackson King V is the best V design of all time and probably the only one I would buy anyway.





STRHelvete said:


> Next, on Totally Wrong Opinions



Exactly!

Everyone knows that the best V, and the only V worth existing, is the Jackson Randy Rhoads.


----------



## mmr007 (Jun 18, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Everyone knows that the best V, and the only V worth existing, is the Jackson Randy Rhoads.




If memory serves we already had a whole thread that morphed into what V is the best and we all concluded it was the Gibson/Epiphone Faulkner V. No..no don't look it up. My memory is good


----------



## Matt08642 (Jun 18, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Everyone knows that the best V, and the only V worth existing, is the Jackson Randy Rhoads.



Hot take: The ESP offset v is the best offset due to the mega cutaway near the upper frets


----------



## WarMachine (Jun 18, 2022)

OK, that's it.

Dean, you need to start copping the NJ Beast, Ironbird and Jr.V body styles NOW
And a wider Draco while you're at it mufuckas!


----------



## /wrists (Jun 18, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Everyone knows that the best V, and the only V worth existing, is the Jackson Randy Rhoads.


nah nah nah, all flying V's are the same


----------



## soul_lip_mike (Jun 18, 2022)

Sorry this is the best V (I’m biased since it’s mine)


----------



## tedtan (Jun 18, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> If memory serves we already had a whole thread that morphed into what V is the best and we all concluded it was the Gibson/Epiphone Faulkner V. No..no don't look it up. My memory is good





evade said:


> nah nah nah, all flying V's are the same


Hethens, the lot of you! Burn at the stake!




Matt08642 said:


> Hot take: The ESP offset v is the best offset due to the mega cutaway near the upper frets
> 
> View attachment 109337


I’ll acccept the Concorde and the Rhoads as well as variations on either.


----------



## TheBolivianSniper (Jun 19, 2022)

Matt08642 said:


> Hot take: The ESP offset v is the best offset due to the mega cutaway near the upper frets
> 
> View attachment 109337



the SV is the greatest V design and no one can convince me otherwise


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 19, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Everyone knows that the best V, and the only V worth existing, is the Jackson Randy Rhoads.


All short horn Vs are garbage. They're amputee Vs and are dumb. Symmetry is how the game is played and won


----------



## Bodes (Jun 19, 2022)

I wish I had the cash and played enough to justify buying the LTD Arrow 1000 in cherry red. Mow that is all sorts of yum!


----------



## tedtan (Jun 19, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> All short horn Vs are garbage. They're amputee Vs and are dumb. Symmetry is how the game is played and won


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are objectively incorrect.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jun 19, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are objectively incorrect.


Shut up, Meg


----------



## StevenC (Jun 21, 2022)

You're all wrong, this is the best V:


----------



## Wildebeest (Jun 21, 2022)

Bro that's a flying M


----------



## bostjan (Jun 21, 2022)

StevenC said:


> You're all wrong, this is the best V:


That looks awkward as hell to play. Not because of the shape or the weight, but a hard-tail Kahler?!


----------



## tedtan (Jun 21, 2022)

Wildebeest said:


> Bro that's a flying M


M or W.


----------



## MFB (Jun 21, 2022)

tedtan said:


> M or W.



You rang?


----------



## Emperoff (Jun 23, 2022)

Everybody knows the best V is the Jackson Double Rhoads. If you didn't, now you do!


----------



## Sslfetish (Jun 23, 2022)

Well since this is a Dean thread....


----------



## bostjan (Jun 23, 2022)

Sslfetish said:


> Well since this is a Dean thread....
> View attachment 109615
> View attachment 109616


That looks a little similar to the black doubleneck Jackson V that @StevenC posted not long ago. But Tune-O-Matic instead of the weird Kahler-looking hardtail and an extra knob, I'm guessing for the 12 string neck.


----------



## Sslfetish (Jun 23, 2022)

Yup its a Dean tho. It's a mustaine, apparantly unauthorized by him, which by all accounts started the endorsement fallout. Maybe not the black one perse but definitely the others with cover art. He didn't get paid for these supposedly. If I'm not mistaken the double necks were made originally by Jackson for 'in my darkest hour'. 


bostjan said:


> That looks a little similar to the black doubleneck Jackson V that @StevenC posted not long ago. But Tune-O-Matic instead of the weird Kahler-looking hardtail and an extra knob, I'm guessing for the 12 string neck.


----------



## StevenC (Jun 23, 2022)

bostjan said:


> That looks a little similar to the black doubleneck Jackson V that @StevenC posted not long ago. But Tune-O-Matic instead of the weird Kahler-looking hardtail and an extra knob, I'm guessing for the 12 string neck.


Yep, both Mustaine guitar. He had an ESP double neck, a Y2KV double neck, and another King V double neck with a maple top. All except the first black KV had TOMs. 

I think he had at least 3 Dean double necks. A red yellow fade and a graphic.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jul 8, 2022)

Welp, Dean definitely ain't phased. 
Just announced Greg Tribbett's an artist. Doubled down and gave him a V.


----------



## STRHelvete (Jul 8, 2022)

And the new John Donais signature


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jul 8, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> And the new John Donais signature
> View attachment 110299


I wonder what happened with Legator? Both were Legator artists that left and joined Dean at the same time


----------



## STRHelvete (Jul 8, 2022)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I wonder what happened with Legator? Both were Legator artists that left and joined Dean at the same time


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Jul 8, 2022)

not a Dean guy generally but their headstock is pretty imposing, their Japanese signature for Miyako from Love Bites combines the best Gibson V design (67, of course) with the Dean headstock & a hotrodded spec, easily one of the coolest guitars ever. If it were possible to buy one domestically in the UK I'd have already done so


----------



## Emperoff (Jul 8, 2022)

Captain Shoggoth said:


> not a Dean guy generally but their headstock is pretty imposing, their Japanese signature for Miyako from Love Bites combines the best Gibson V design (67, of course) with the kickass Dean headstock & a hotrodded spec, easily one of the coolest guitars ever. If it were possible to buy one domestically in the UK I'd have already done so
> 
> View attachment 110300



That was way cooler than I expected (before scrolling down the picture).


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jul 8, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


>




Oh I know, I was just curious if anything happened at Legator because those were like the only 2 sig artists they had left I think. 



Captain Shoggoth said:


> not a Dean guy generally but their headstock is pretty imposing, their Japanese signature for Miyako from Love Bites combines the best Gibson V design (67, of course) with the Dean headstock & a hotrodded spec, easily one of the coolest guitars ever. If it were possible to buy one domestically in the UK I'd have already done so
> 
> View attachment 110300



One of the coolest-spec'd traditional Vs ever made, and it's a limited edition model for the Japanese market only.

I'd also be all over the Greg V if it wasn't for those goddamn logos.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Jul 8, 2022)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Oh I know, I was just curious if anything happened at Legator because those were like the only 2 sig artists they had left I think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Greg V?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jul 8, 2022)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Welp, Dean definitely ain't phased.
> Just announced Greg Tribbett's an artist. Doubled down and gave him a V.





Captain Shoggoth said:


> Greg V?


----------



## STRHelvete (Jul 11, 2022)

I just saw this and figured someone would want to see this


----------



## ClownShoes (Sep 4, 2022)

Someone forgot to update the thread.









Dean must stop producing V, Z and Gran Sport electric guitars after latest ruling in Gibson trademark infringement lawsuit


Gibson describes the court's verdict as a victory for fans, artists and dealers, and “for all of the iconic American brands that have invested in meaningful innovation”




www.guitarworld.com





By order of a court injunction, Dean will no longer be able to manufacture, advertise, and/or sell guitars that infringe on Gibson’s ES, SG, Flying V and Explorer trademarks, and its Hummingbird wordmark.

As a result, Dean must cease production and marketing of its Luna Athena 501, Gran Sport, V and Z models, and any guitars using or advertised with the word “Hummingbird”.


----------



## ClownShoes (Sep 4, 2022)

Vs and Zs gone from the website.

This is going to hurt them, badly.


----------



## ClownShoes (Sep 4, 2022)

STRHelvete said:


> View attachment 110595
> 
> I just saw this and figured someone would want to see this


Incoming lawsuit from FMIC


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 4, 2022)

What remains to be seen is whether they will have the guts to sell them in europe. I went to check Thomann and there's a lonely entry level V left, that's it.


----------

