Thomann Sues Fender on Behalf of "Everyone"

[rsm]

You do see how having that opinion runs counter to your own interests and that reality would give you fewer and worse options as a consumer, right?

consumer freedom at the cost of invention / creation? No thanks. Stealing for the common good is still theft; even if the victim is compensated - which hasn't happened for Fender.

maybe a future next inventor / creator who can't adequately protect their design from theft won't bother making it in the first place?


edit: want to use Fender's original created / invented designs? License them. Consumers win; Fender wins; copiers win.

 

[mnemonic]

I feel it’s disingenuous to say FMIC designed the Stratocaster. Leo fender designed it 72 years ago, sold the company 61 years ago and died 35 years ago. All FMIC knows is buy IP and sue people.

as a side note I think the funniest outcome of all of this would be fender losing the rights to the strat headstock on account of it not being original

 

[boltzthrower]

Idgaf about a corporation that has gone through multiple big money buyouts. If you want to defend Fender here, you also need to defend the Western capitalist system that is enmeshed with racism and oligarchy and get on your knees to lick the boots of its pay-to-play legal system. Bon appetit.

 

[rsm]

I feel it’s disingenuous to say FMIC designed the Stratocaster. Leo fender designed it 72 years ago, sold the company 61 years ago and died 35 years ago. All FMIC knows is buy IP and sue people.

as a side note I think the funniest outcome of all of this would be fender losing the rights to the strat headstock on account of it not being original

If you buy Leo Fender's company, the ownership of the designs, unless explicitly excluded, go to the buyer. Even Leo copying his own original Fender company designs outside of Fender is a copy since he no longer owns the design he created when he sold the company.

 

[rsm]

Idgaf about a corporation that has gone through multiple big money buyouts. If you want to defend Fender here, you also need to defend the Western capitalist system that is enmeshed with racism and oligarchy and get on your knees to lick the boots of its pay-to-play legal system. Bon appetit.

your comment proves you do GAF.

I Capitalism. Especially "Western capitalism". This is about creating and inventing though; so try to stay on topic.

 

[rsm]

I feel it’s disingenuous to say FMIC designed the Stratocaster. Leo fender designed it 72 years ago, sold the company 61 years ago and died 35 years ago. All FMIC knows is buy IP and sue people.

as a side note I think the funniest outcome of all of this would be fender losing the rights to the strat headstock on account of it not being original

the headstock's not in question; but if Fender were to lose the headstock right so would everyone else.

 

[rsm]

I think @TheGreatGreen captured the sentiment driving this.

Everyone who benefits from copying (stealing) Fender's original designs / creations are more important than acknowledging (and paying for) Fender's original creations and designs.

Same approach that let's us justify anything we want at least legally.

If you create a Strat (telel, Offset, etc.) copy or derivative, you're using Fender's creation/design as a starting point without compensation or permission. That's theft.

You do see how having that opinion runs counter to your own interests and that reality would give you fewer and worse options as a consumer, right?

 

[Findthetone1]

Idgaf about a corporation that has gone through multiple big money buyouts. If you want to defend Fender here, you also need to defend the Western capitalist system that is enmeshed with racism and oligarchy and get on your knees to lick the boots of its pay-to-play legal system. Bon appetit.

You sound triggered. Need a hug?

 

[TheGreatGreen]

I think @TheGreatGreen captured the sentiment driving this.

Everyone who benefits from copying (stealing) Fender's original designs / creations are more important than acknowledging (and paying for) Fender's original creations and designs.

Same approach that let's us justify anything we want at least legally.

If you create a Strat (telel, Offset, etc.) copy or derivative, you're using Fender's creation/design as a starting point without compensation or permission. That's theft.

I would rather let the free market decide.

Also here's a question I genuinely want to hear your answer for. What if the first company to make an electric guitar fretboard decided that "the fretboard" was theirs and nobody else was allowed to make one? Would you support them keeping their own design which would mean not letting anyone else make guitars, ever?

 

[mnemonic]

If you buy Leo Fender's company, the ownership of the designs, unless explicitly excluded, go to the buyer. Even Leo copying his own original Fender company designs outside of Fender is a copy since he no longer owns the design he created when he sold the company.

Lmao imagine the guy who designed it being sued for copying his own design. What a functional system.

 

[Rackman]

IDK; if you created a new product and dozens of others copied your product making money on it and paid you nothing for it; and the courts said "too bad, deal with it"...you might see it differently?

Except that's not what happened. Fender copied their products from lap steel manufacturers, Bigtsby, and Les Paul who were kind enough not to sue. Then 70 years elapse, after which Fender wants to re-write history and pretend they were the inventors of the solidbody guitar, the dobule-cut guitar, the "strat" headstock etc.

And since no court in the land would support such absurdities, they find a defendant they know won't show up, and sue them in a court literally on the opposite side of the globe from where the defendant is, and get a default ruling. And then in complete disregard for the law they pretend that ruling sets a precedent (which it doesn't) and applies to people other than the Chinese firm they sued.

 

[Meanjoegreene]

It’s a shame that fender is taking the Gibson approach - why make better guitars and innovate when you can just engage in lawfare.

I don’t think fender and Gibson are playing the long game but it would be cool if they were setting the stage to protect future innovation and legit improvements to classics

But yeah, it’s probably easier to sue

 

[Geo]

It's like a bad soap opera.

 

[Rackman]

I don’t think fender and Gibson are playing the long game but it would be cool if they were setting the stage to protect future innovation and legit improvements to classics

But yeah, it’s probably easier to sue

The budget for this shit and the budget for R&D come out of the same pool. More lawyers = less lutherie and engineering.

Honestly the whole guitar industry may not have much in the way of innovation left. While I am not a fan of the Parker Fly, I will acknowledge it contained the last actual guitar innovation - stainless frets. But that was '93 so it's been 33 years since we've gotten anything new. Not every area of design has useful innovations left given available materials etc.

Most other instruments older than the electric guitar have essentially no innovation going on any more as well. So maybe this isn't a huge surprise.

 

[PurityS.L.G]

Rhett Shull had a GREAT video about it. Oh wait.....

 

[7704A]

Copying isn't stealing. It's copying. And patent trolling is repulsive and uninnovative, except there's no patent so Fender is just trolling. I hope Thomann kicks their butt.

 

[TheGreatGreen]

The budget for this shit and the budget for R&D come out of the same pool. More lawyers = less lutherie and engineering.

Honestly the whole guitar industry may not have much in the way of innovation left. While I am not a fan of the Parker Fly, I will acknowledge it contained the last actual guitar innovation - stainless frets. But that was '93 so it's been 33 years since we've gotten anything new. Not every area of design has useful innovations left given available materials etc.

Most other instruments older than the electric guitar have essentially no innovation going on any more as well. So maybe this isn't a huge surprise.

I'm with you for the most part but I also think the new ultra modern headless designs like the ones Strandberg makes counts as innovative. Not that I would be caught dead playing one on stage but as a studio or practice guitar, those designs can be really handy. They're compact enough that you can chill around the house with one, and the ergonomics are hard to beat. I'm not a fan of the twisted angle neck back design they use, but that aside, the bodies sit against your really well.

 

[Rackman]

Copying isn't stealing. It's copying. And patent trolling is repulsive and uninnovative, except there's no patent so Fender is just trolling. I hope Thomann kicks their butt.

Yeah if this was in the patent system it wouldn't be a problem because the maximum statutory lifespan of a US patent is 20 years.

I'm not defending the patent system in general (I've spent way too much time watching sausage being made to have a positive opinion of it) but it's not THIS stupid.

 

[Rackman]

I'm with you for the most part but I also think the new ultra modern headless designs like the ones Strandberg makes counts as innovative.

That design (with tuners on the bridge side) dates back to steels from the 40s.

 

[TheGreatGreen]

That design (with tuners on the bridge side) dates back to steels from the 40s.

Wait, the full design? you sure?

Even if the tuners being on the bridge is that old, I'd be surprised if the ergonomic body + headless neck design is.