Dude, he is so fucking stupid and "Blogs" so much fucking bullshit here he doesn't even remember what he wrote or didn't write. You mentioned him writing " Put your money where your mouth is" twice now. In 2 different posts. He never denied it. The clincher ? He never said it, I said it.
He echo'ed you in post 188, so I was going off that.
As I projected before all the experts; The-Kid gave a retard response just like I said he would.
Well others are no more right than I in that sense...... But as said in all likelihood and probability my projection is more likely to occur vs pretty much any other scenario.
So state what you think and hold your peace instead of stirring up the pot since it still remains to be seen anyways. Doesn't that seem like a reasonable approach?
Leo sold his Fender; company including the rights to his original Fender designs which are the property of FMIC.
what would you call copying someone else's original work without their permission / authorization? Flattery?
In bizarro land maybe.
For the sake of argument let's say he did. I'm not picking at that. It's your statement that FMIC created the original design which I take issue with:
To which I'll reiterate, Leo Fender originated the design. FMIC is not Leo, and did not create the design.
Copying. You imply it should be called something different (stealing, per previous posts). Again, why? Nothing was taken.what would you call copying someone else's original work without their permission / authorization? Flattery?
Nevermind all this is just redundant as in all likelihood Fender won't win the case of course.....
Leo's original Fender designs are owned by FMIC. I've attributed these creations to Leo. Leo sold hist rights to them; those rights are owned by FMIC.
Obtuse much?
Leo's original Fender designs are owned by FMIC.
If FMIC who owns Leo's original designs can't legally enforce the ownership of those designs. That doesn't change the fact that many guitar makers oer the years have copied those original designs to varying degrees, and created derivative works based on those designs.
Copying these designs is stealing, irrespective of FMIC's ability to legally enforce their ownership of Leo's original designs, which FMIC owns.
Many copies are nearly identical to Leo's original designs, minus the headstock. Using Leo's original designs without authorization is stealing.
you're going in circles again. not my problem you can't understand the basics of original design ownership which is separate from legal enforcement.
@Dan Gleesak is this you?
Fucknut. 4 days ago you guaranteed Fender would win and everyone who disagreed with you was a Gayatollah loving Woke anti American.
You Fucknut.....Fucknut. 4 days ago you guaranteed Fender would win and everyone who disagreed with you was a Gayatollah loving Woke anti American.
So much for out experting the experts eh ?
Um yeah it is.....Sure it is.
This and it's just common sense, a settlement would most likely be similar to this type of agreement roughly as some sort of starting point
This and it's just common sense, a settlement would most likely be similar to this type of agreement roughly as some sort of starting point
Since this is on "behalf of everyone" it would apply to everyone as well...... Its just common sense especially with all the Chinese copies and crap flooding the markets or just copies and fake crap in general. Also it's sensible and reasonable in general and just follows common sense.
It’s not. And you’re a dumbass.
