Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Music Discussion' started by spudmunkey, Mar 14, 2020.
I’m not a Gibson fan but my dad is. He told me he will never touch their product ever again after all this BS.
I'm going to preface this by saying I absolutely love Heritage guitars. They make some of the best "not-"Gibsons" dollar for dollar. I own an H157 and have owned H150 and H155 models, and yes, I'd take a Heritage over a similar Gibson at least 90% of the time.
That said, I'm not sure what they were expecting. Over the last decade, and few years especially, they became more active on social media and while they've always hinted at being a more "authentic" (ugh, for lack of a better word) choice, but recently it seems their advertising/social media team/person has been laying it on much thicker than normal.
Heritage has straddled the line pretty close over the years, making small changes to get ahead of stuff like this. I guess no more or perhaps it's no longer enough.
Outside that, I think the angle here is Gibson is looking to take a page out of the Fender book, and go for a licensing model. Since they've waited so long, they're going to have to pretty much go nuclear to do it.
Get the popcorn fellas, this thread is going to be a doozy.
But they already had a legal agreement what the hell. But hey, someone at Gibson is getting money for doing this.
True, billable hours are billable hours.
Gibson alleges that Heritage has broken said settlement agreement. That's what this case is about, breach of agreement.
I've been trying to find the actual document, but it seems to be sealed, or at least a digital copy isn't available.
Makes me miss my Heritage, that was the best singlecut I’ve ever played. The Gibson SG I have is the only guitar I will never ever sell but team Heritage here all way. I hope this work out in their favor.
Ah, the missing piece.
I think they're trying to level the playing field in this price range a bit by going after companies that have similar models closer to the 2-2.5k price range. What's weird to me is that both Kiesel and Heritage have abysmal resale value. You can pick up a monster spec from either company for around $1500 if you're looking at the right times. I can't say the same for Gibson, but those are the guitars you see sitting 'new' on the rack forever before they're marked down just to clear inventory. Really curious to see where the used market goes over the next few years and if the newer models they're making hold their value or not
Gibson sucks. So many better options, higher quality and better value.
I love my Gibsons but holy fuck, I thought the whole point of Gibson getting a new owner and everything was to rebuild the company, not go around suing other guitar companies.
They gotta find a way to pay Cantrell somehow! Jk
As if I needed another reason to ignore Gibson's whilst visiting the local Fender/Gibson stores.
J.C. is sure making me ashamed of my Gibson SG. Is he trying to give me a trauma? I think the guy is a supreme tool. I think he should go back to LEVIS wearing his mom jeans.
Another thing that I find funny; why do people care so much? It’s business law, hardly relevant to most guitar players.
I don’t think it’s shows much class or dignity to slag off guitar companies. I can see doing it if you’re in the game, otherwise what’s the point?
Looks like they are using lawsuits to garner attention and business I presume. Probably benefits both parties in a sense. “No such thing as bad publicity”
Here’s what’s funny to me:
There’s Gibson copies by so many makers.
Same as Fender.
Who makes unique shapes? Dean and BC Rich? Almost every other electric guitar shape is a copy of the big 2, no?
Gibson is hated for seeking trademark protection against copies. Slandered even.
Compare to Behringer who makes copies of nearly everything. People are outraged at this, because it’s copying. Ironic isn’t it? Almost hypocritical in a sense as far as I can tell. Behringer sues for slander.
But it’s business law, how is it relevant in Social Media? It’s only relevant in court. I personally don’t understand what’s wrong with protecting yourself or your corporation legally.
This is a discussion forum...
Exactly. I didn't know discussing lawsuits or legal matters here was against the rules?
aint that the truth
Why shouldn't people care?
I can't tell if you're actually defending the multi-national corporation or not.
It also matters that they're going after a well known but small business. Should only people here from Kalamazoo be allowed to be upset?
Why are people trying to gatekeep for companies, I don't understand .
Gibson should've just faded from existence.