Thomann Sues Fender on Behalf of "Everyone"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkey Man
  • Start date Start date
Well, the thread delivers at least. :LOL:

Rig Talk is like a box o' chocolates.

EDIT
Proof I'm really not up to all this:
I can't believe I forgot to thank you guys; it's just not like me.
Thank you all for the kind words! ❤️
 
Monkey Man said:
Well, the thread delivers at least. :LOL:

Rig Talk is like a box o' chocolates.

EDIT
Proof I'm really not up to all this:
I can't believe I forgot to thank you guys; it's just not like me.
Thank you all for the kind words! ❤️
Click to expand...
Time to get back to work Nicky. 👍
 
Waiting on my flight to Japan, this thread delivers…

I guess I’m lucky that I don’t like anything Fender or Gibson make, minus Jackson and Charvel’s.

Perhaps Gibson should force all companies to stop selling and destroy any guitars with adjustable truss rods.
 
Never understood people who defend corpos and this goes also for Thomann.

Remember when Gibson got btfo'd by everyone for the whole play authentic debacle and people were praising Fender? Might wanna take heed and not do the same for Thomann as someone pointed out in here, their interest in this is only making sure Harley Benton can still put out cheap strat clones in the future.

Corpos gonna corpo, always.
 
Apologies for the delay, I've had less time for internet arguments the past few months.
rsm said:
you're going in circles again
Click to expand...
Following your lead on that one.

You've:
1) Repeatedly miss-attributed creation of the initial designs to FMIC, then when called on it capitulated to it being Leo and not FMIC, and then went back to miss-attributing the creation to FMIC.
2) Repeatedly responded to posts asking you to justify the claim "copying is stealing" by repeating "copying is stealing" instead of providing any supporting argument.

I've:
1) Repeatedly called you out when you repeatedly miss-attribute creation to FMIC.
2) Repeatedly pointed out that "it's stealing" is not a sound argument for why it's stealing.

You seem to have stopped miss-attributing creation to FMIC since your last response to me, so hopefully that circle is over.

But now you're resorting to personal attacks instead of providing support for your claim that copying is stealing:
rsm said:
not my problem you can't understand the basics of original design ownership which is separate from legal enforcement.

@Dan Gleesak is this you?
Click to expand...
From which I guess that this discussion is probably over and you don't have any plans to back up your statement. But if you do, I'd be willing to engage and try to understand.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rsm
7704A said:
Apologies for the delay, I've had less time for internet arguments the past few months.

Following your lead on that one.

You've:
1) Repeatedly miss-attributed creation of the initial designs to FMIC, then when called on it capitulated to it being Leo and not FMIC, and then went back to miss-attributing the creation to FMIC.
2) Repeatedly responded to posts asking you to justify the claim "copying is stealing" by repeating "copying is stealing" instead of providing any supporting argument.

I've:
1) Repeatedly called you out when you repeatedly miss-attribute creation to FMIC.
2) Repeatedly pointed out that "it's stealing" is not a sound argument for why it's stealing.

You seem to have stopped miss-attributing creation to FMIC since your last response to me, so hopefully that circle is over.

But now you're resorting to personal attacks instead of providing support for your claim that copying is stealing:

From which I guess that this discussion is probably over and you don't have any plans to back up your statement. But if you do, I'd be willing to engage and try to understand.
Click to expand...


spongebob.gif


obtuse, and wrong. as usual.

As I've stated consistently; several times, here it is summarized, again, for the slow ones among us, who ignore the public information that anyone can search and find for themselves if they know how to use the internet....if you don't believe FMIC owns Leo's original designs go ask them, or search it for yourself. The internet is your friend.

Since this is difficult, for some, to search the internet and/or accepting the results of asking a simple direct question: "who owns the rights to Leo Fender's original designs?" I'll give a hint:


1783682991109.png



There's more to this answer, consistent with my position and posts here, but you can try it yourself. Before I stated my position, I searched the internet...in 2026 I didn't realize this is a unique or rare exception to inform one's opinion. :dunno:

Anyone who has shopped for guitars has seen copies of other companies designs, some with little to no differences; no permission, no attribution, no licensing,...

There is a clear legal ownership path of Leo's designs that you don't, won't, can't see or accept. That's not my problem or concern; believe what you want. Facts are facts; truth is truth; even if you don't believe them.

So, yes, using Leo's original designs to make unauthorized exact or very close copies is stealing from the owner of those designs; irrespective of the owner's ability to enforce their ownership.

Try making an identical copy of a Ric or EBMM and see what legal ownership rights enforcement looks like for yourself.


circular conversation loop next step is up to you. I'll just keep copying and pasting my above post in response. :thumbsup:
 
You're completely missing the point - yes CBS bought the FMIC intelectual property. The question is if there's any IP in the strat shape at all (in general shapes are not protected - who owns the circle product?). And if there is any IP, did the original FMIC even own it since they copied most of their shapes in part or in whole from others?

US courts have already ruled on all this - the current incarnation of FMIC has jack shit.
 
Rackman said:
You're completely missing the point - yes CBS bought the FMIC intelectual property. The question is if there's any IP in the strat shape at all (in general shapes are not protected - who owns the circle product?). And if there is any IP, did the original FMIC even own it since they copied most of their shapes in part or in whole from others?

US courts have already ruled on all this - the current incarnation of FMIC has jack shit.
Click to expand...

I've said FMIC is going to have a difficult time in court to get their legal rights recognized; it's highly unlikely.

That doesn't change the fact that FMIC owns the design of the Strat, including the body shape, as well as many other original designs created by Leo that he sold to CBS, who sold those design rights to FMIC.

Legal rights are not ownership rights, and I never said they were.


I don't expect the courts to allow Fender to allow FMIC to enforce their legal rights on designs they legally own because those who owned the rights failed to enforce them...unlike Ric, EBMM, and others.
 
rsm said:
View attachment 452722

obtuse, and wrong. as usual.

As I've stated consistently; several times, here it is summarized, again, for the slow ones among us, who ignore the public information that anyone can search and find for themselves if they know how to use the internet....if you don't believe FMIC owns Leo's original designs go ask them, or search it for yourself. The internet is your friend.

Since this is difficult, for some, to search the internet and/or accepting the results of asking a simple direct question: "who owns the rights to Leo Fender's original designs?" I'll give a hint:


View attachment 452721


There's more to this answer, consistent with my position and posts here, but you can try it yourself. Before I stated my position, I searched the internet...in 2026 I didn't realize this is a unique or rare exception to inform one's opinion. :dunno:

Anyone who has shopped for guitars has seen copies of other companies designs, some with little to no differences; no permission, no attribution, no licensing,...

There is a clear legal ownership path of Leo's designs that you don't, won't, can't see or accept. That's not my problem or concern; believe what you want. Facts are facts; truth is truth; even if you don't believe them.

So, yes, using Leo's original designs to make unauthorized exact or very close copies is stealing from the owner of those designs; irrespective of the owner's ability to enforce their ownership.

Try making an identical copy of a Ric or EBMM and see what legal ownership rights enforcement looks like for yourself.


circular conversation loop next step is up to you. I'll just keep copying and pasting my above post in response. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Well said. I don’t understand any other take on this sitch
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsm
I mean thinking it over the main thing here is the utility where form follows function of the strat and nvm the design but the utility itself can't be patented or well it can be but such utility/form follows function based designs can't be protected under patent forever....... In this case especially because form follows function in the design.


In this sense Fender has a stronger case on Mustangs, Jaguars and other offsets because none of those are utility in a form follows function manner... And that would be easier....


But in any case it seems Fender could come out on top either way through a settlement that will get it more or less what it wants but I mean.....


Just because they could..... Does it mean they should. I could see why they would want to and who could blame them though, what company or individual doesn't do things in self interest nowadays or ever :dunno:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TrentBizzle
3rd Power Amps: FULL REVIEW (Long Read)
Replies
11
Views
4K
BradS71
B
Back
Top