Discussion in 'The Sound Hound Lounge' started by JesseKnutson44, Jul 15, 2019.
This company is doomed.
The 2018 and 2019 Gibson Flying V guitars are good value. So good in fact that they are currently the same price possibly even less than the equivalent Tokai Japan models available.
It really makes no sense to me why Gibson are lawyering up when they can simply outbuild the competition with superior products and very competitive prices.
I can't say I have seen any "hate". Concern, interest, and input with personal experiences is what I am seeing.
Think or say whatever we all will, they’re dropping a new installment in this saga once every news cycle, effectively staying front and center in the conversation.
They’re either dimwits who are incidentally backing into the forefront of the current gear zeitgeist or they’re methodically plotting the whole thing out.
Back to playing my strat.
Right, inspectors function as a last defense against releasing unfinished guitars making their way out the door.
These complaints are echoed in every Gibson thread. The job description is to identify existing and potential issues, then nip them in the bud so they're fixed or immaterial to the customer. It's built into the name, Quality Control.
For me it’s like those cheap seats fans in the movie Major League.
It’s almost more fun to see them misstep than to see them succeed. My favorite guitars of all time are Gibsons. Train wrecks are fun, too. Especially at the expense of someone as smug as MA/JC
Getting a company with $hittier quality control to make guitars so a real Gibson looks better?
45 days ago my stance was how excited I was to see where the company was going to go. Then I saw the release of the instruments, and pricing, and I could see the momentum shifting in their favor.
Then when that video dropped, it caused a lot of damage to the brand
and the momentum, and I hated to see that happen.
“Don’t worry about the competition. Let the competition worry about you”
I think it's time for the courts to call a halt to all this trademark guitar shape horsesh!t. I mean look at acoustic guitars. Martin started the dreadnought but they don't own it. And then there's jumbos and parlours etc. There must be thousands of companies using these shapes and there's no lawsuits over them. The courts need to declare a "free for all' on guitar shapes and stop this nonsense.
What I take from this is Gibson essentially saying, “Don’t want your guitar company tied up in a court battle for years like Dean will be? Then join us in a partnership!”. They’re betting on the threat/example to get ahead of the game on some smaller companies... and it might work, in the meantime, even if Gibson eventually loses the Dean thing. I think it would be nuts for any small builder to agree with this in principle, but putting up the money to fight a Gibson in court is a real stretch for most.
Either way, more bad PR for these guys... can’t they just get back to building guitars??? Winter NAMM feels like a decade ago...
Would you support all the IP in the world going 'free for all', or just the selected parts of it you want to be cheaper?
And for those saying 'Gibson now isn't the same company that designed the guitars', they are the legal owner of that IP (should the courts choose to view it as such.) It's part of the value the current investors purchased when they purchased the name.
If you had bought Maserati, would you feel OK with everyone in the world now copying Maserati designs because 'it's not the same company that designed the cars'?
And if that were actually the way things worked, no company's tradition, history or catalog of designs and intellectual property could ever be sold-as soon as they were, it would be a 'free for all' for anyone to copy the designs you just bought, and nobody in their right mind would pay for something like that.
You may not agree with the 'local' effect of specific laws, but you have to consider the broader applications; the trademark laws being discussed apply to a range of products 10,000 X broader than just guitars.
"Collaborative partnership"? Is that what they're calling a protection racket these days?
"Nice little guitar company you have here. It would be a shame if someone were to sue it..."
I guess you missed the part of my post about Martin and the dreadnought. Martin's tradition and history has done just fine.
Why are we all referring to the CEO as JC?
Do we know him personally?
That’s what he goes by, they’re his initials.
You've hit the nail right on the head. If they proceed with the Dean suit, they're going to lose and it will become meaningless except some boutique builders are going to be stuck in a contrived contract.
This is a good watch
The Gibson CEO saga, in some limited sense, reminds me of my high school days when, one year, we were thrilled to find that our new home room teacher was going to be this young hip cat with a beard and cool threads. Looked like Cat Stevens in fact.
Turns out that, within a short timeframe, he was just the same as the old guy he replaced. To his credit, that old guy didn’t pretend to be hip and, for what it’s worth, at the very least, he could deliver a respectable beating.