111–120 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why would the connector need to change? nothing has come out that's really better for analog signals
xlr?
I wish them (and their PE overlords) a powerful defeat, ideally in a court of law, but if not, in the court of public opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ergonomics. Any solid-body guitar that's designed to be comfortable when played sitting or standing will converge on a strat-ish body shape. You can make a computer mouse in any shape, but the shape of a comfortable mouse is constrained by the shape of an average human palm. The various curves and bevels on the Stratocaster aren't arbitrary aesthetic features, they're affordances to fit the human body. Change them to…
But, for example, are those horns (?) necessary for ergonomics? Do the potentiometers and output jack have to be positioned like that? Does the pickguard has to be the same shape? I do not think so. Les Pauls have different shape and are pretty popular too. > Ola Strandberg set out to design the most ergonomic guitar possible It looks somewhat ... not how you expect the guitar to look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because strats sell. Oddly shaped guitars don't, or at least not for a long time, and would never break into the top 10 best selling guitar shapes.
But I think people who want to buy a strat, would prefer to buy a Fender strat and not a cheaper copy that has the same shape but might sound worse? I personally do not like the price though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're thinking of trademark, but this isn't a trademark claim, it's a copyright infringement claim. The legal question is whether the guitar shape can be copyrighted.
That is the legal question FMIC think they have settled with this legal win, yes. Two legal questions they will now be asked, by Thomann or LsL, are: - if such a copyright could exist, what shape precisely are Fender arguing it would cover? - if such a copyright could exist, would Fender (the company) have title to it? Answering these questions could get them into some difficulty, legally. Neither are obvious and the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the legal question FMIC think they have settled with this legal win, yes. Two legal questions they will now be asked, by Thomann or LsL, are: - if such a copyright could exist, what shape precisely are Fender arguing it would cover? - if such a copyright could exist, would Fender (the company) have title to it? Answering these questions could get them into some difficulty, legally. Neither are obvious and the…
It would be odd to try this as copyrightable in the U.S, where there’s a pretty clear distinction between art added to a guitar, like PRS bird inlays, and the core body shape.
https://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-...
https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno...
You would think this would have been quite an easy win, because regardless of who makes guitars with S-type bodies, the outline of the Stratocaster or Telecaster is surely sufficiently identifiable with Fender as to be something they could at least claim should be their trademark in certain categories (on merchandise etc.)
Fender failed to prove that if people saw a line art outline of the Stratocaster, they would associate it first with "Fender". And indeed an illustrated dictionary at the time used such an outline to just generically illustrate "Electric guitar", apparently.
And in that finding:
Finally, there is no evidence of record that from the
first production of the guitars incorporating these shapes
in the early 1950s until 2003, that applicant or its
predecessors in interest ever treated the outlines of the
body shapes as trademarks. In fact, we may infer from the
evidence of record that applicant and its predecessors
themselves did not view them as trademarks. They never
policed the body shape, only the word marks and headstock
profiles. In addition, they never claimed trademark rights
in the body outlines publicly through, for example, the
catalogues, until 2004. Rather, they only claimed the word
marks and the headstock profiles. In the meantime, many
other guitar manufacturers sold guitars with the identical
body shapes for at least 30 years, either as complete
guitars or in the form of kits.
And this — from a deposition from Warmoth as far as I can determine (they made spare parts) which makes it clear that Fender never entered into an agreement with Warmouth about the body shape, only the neck (because of the headstock shape which they believed was trademarked):
Q. And you have a licensing agreement to
manufacture what from Fender?
A. Replacement necks utilizing the Fender
trademark head shape.
Q. In those discussions utilizing that license,
was there any conversation or written
documentation with reference to body shapes?
A. No.
Q. Would your company be harmed if you’re no
longer able to make body shapes depicted in [126,
928 and 127]?
A. It would have a significant impact on our
sales numbers and value [sic] of employees.
Q. Why are you an opposer in this proceeding?
A. I’ve been making these body shapes for 30
years, unopposed, untrademarked, and have built a
business on making these parts. There’s a lot of
demand for it. While I make other body shapes,
the demand for them is pretty insignificant when
compared to these three shapes.
So even if they do have ownership of some kind of copyright, they've never asserted it before and three decades of their own conduct kind of militates against them being able to enforce it.
And they aren't the only ones, the finding goes on because Fender took action against multiple companies (this is around page 30–40 or so).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things become generic if you stop defending them/enforcing your IP. I think the iPhone at one time defended the design of its “squircle” corners. Eventually settling out of court.
I think you're thinking of trademark, but this isn't a trademark claim, it's a copyright infringement claim. The legal question is whether the guitar shape can be copyrighted.
I used to work for a Thomann competitor "Musicstore" in ~2005. The server was some tower server in a back office with a note reminding everyone not to turn it off. With Thoman being hugged to death right now I would like to think of there being a similar situation (its probably fine, but it made me feel nostalgic).
Yeah sure biggest european music ecommerce store runs on tower server in a back office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be odd to try this as copyrightable in the U.S, where there’s a pretty clear distinction between art added to a guitar, like PRS bird inlays, and the core body shape.
I think so. But also they lost even their case to make a trademark of it: https://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-... https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno... You would think this would have been quite an easy win, because regardless of who makes guitars with S-type bodies, the outline of the Stratocaster or Telecaster is surely sufficiently identifiable with Fender as to be…
Leo knew and acknowledged his body inspirations (Bigsby and Rickenbacker), and considered his true IP to be in sound, pickups, mechanics, tremolo...
I really wish Warmoth or PRS could get some legal fee subsidizing to push back.
Those who don’t know what this is about may appreciate Rick Beato’s (a guitar music vlogger) rant about it https://youtube.com/watch?v=OU7RUpkXsV0
In particular the cultural impact of the S-shape guitar has been enhanced by people playing non-Fender S-shapes.
Think Eddie van Halen on his Frankenstrat which has it's own Wikipedia entry and has been displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. That was probably a Charvel body.
That goes to the heart of the "work of applied art" argument.