The Steel Guitar Forum

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 3:19 am**

They should have been flogged

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 3:31 am**

Personally I wasn't privy to the details ... I was no longer "in business" (you must have an item of yours in "current" production/sale) ... when that date rolled around.

I imagine the point that carried a tremendous weight was ... First use in Commerce: 1931 ...

Since it was "a look" issue ... not a "function thang" ... RIC has had one form of the pup, or another, in continual use ... since '31.

------------------

Hawaiian Steel Stuff
The Casteels

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 11:38 am**

There oughta be a law against those kinds of laws.

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 1:31 pm**

If the Ric horseshoe is still in production, it would seem one could easily get an old bakelite "reshod".

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 2:13 pm**

Just the facts Rick ...

RIC:

1) Utilizes horseshoes only on Bass Guitars ... specifically Model 4001C64 & 4001C64S

2) They will not sell replacement horseshoe pickups from their parts department ... *

3) They are "Faux" 1.25" alnico pole piece, bass pups ...

* Its rumored that they might ... once the "infringers" are stopped ... and some "warranty" expiration thing occurs (don't know much about that).

I hope they do ... as stated before ... Ricky bassists have harvested many a "steel shoe" from post-war steel guitars ... to retro-fit their horseshoe-less basses.

------------------

Hawaiian Steel Stuff
The Casteels

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 3:05 pm**

I don't understand how a trademark protects the design. I thought that just protected the name. Isn't a patent the protection of the design? I obviously don't know jack about IP law.

What if some guy sold a similar pickup with a singular magnet cover instead of the two halves thereby not violating the protected design? And what if then some other guy, or even the same guy, sold some "halves" that just so happened to fit and replace the single magnet cover? Then the user could modify the thing and end up with the desired result.

Any patent lawyers here?

Brad

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 3:37 pm**

This is a "Design Mark" ... hence the drawing.

Similar marks belong to folks like Fender, RIC, Gibson, etc ... for the shapes of their famous guitars.

These are supposed to protect the "buyer" ... so he isn't confused or hood-winked into buying a "fake".

Its basically an "OEM" thing ... keeping manufacturers from copying anothers design ... and profitting from it.

The "if" here was ... you can't trademark "function" ...

So there was a chance that the US Patent/Trademark Office ... would see these horseshoe magnet pickups as functional units

They didn't see that way ...

In your scenario ... nothing can stop a buyer for doing mods ...

But then re-selling it ... that might be "iffy" ...

------------------

Hawaiian Steel Stuff
The Casteels

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 3:41 pm**

Rick, how does all these different companys that make Humbucker style or Strat syle pickups get away with it since the function is the same and they look the same as the originals?

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 3:42 pm**

Any patent lawyers here?

I once saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.....

Posted: **26 Apr 2006 3:52 pm**

There is lots of the same stuff goin' on in the conventional pup world ...

Just doesn't get the publicity of the Gibson vs PRS thing.

Its a tough world out there ...

------------------

Hawaiian Steel Stuff
The Casteels

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 7:41 am**

Checking with the patent office, I've found no one holds a patent on the wheel. I'm applying for it myself __ imagine the royalties.[This message was edited by Rick Collins on 27 April 2006 at 08:42 AM.]

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 8:30 am**

You don't need a lawyer for that, but you will need a spokes person....

[This message was edited by HowardR on 27 April 2006 at 09:33 AM.]

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 10:33 am**

Oh man, we could go round and round with this one all day.....

------------------
Half-assed bottleneck and lap slide player. Full-assed Builder of resonator instruments.

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 11:30 am**

until we're Tired....

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 11:43 am**

I guess that's why this is called a thread...

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 11:43 am**

"That's the hub of it|"

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 12:15 pm**

If I can support the minority view (what else would you expect):

There is nothing wrong with Ric defending their trademarks, even if they have no intention of currently producing them right now themselves. In fact, not to do so would be corporate irresponsibility as it would harm the current shareholders of the company.

There is obvious value to the mark, or else no one would be upset by the ruling. If the mark has value, it is the duty of the corporation to protect their ownership of the mark. It belongs to the corporation and hence the shareholders of the corporation.

Just because they are not utilizing the mark now does not mean they will not in the future.

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 12:30 pm**

What about a licensing deal similar to the one that Warmoth has with Fender?

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 1:00 pm**

Mr. McCloskey ... Dave Mudgett best described the "underlying issue" ... here in this thread about PRS & Gibson ...

http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum10/HTML/200587.html

It should not be possible to trademark things that affect the utility of a product, which are protectable by patent. Trademarks are things like logos, trade names, and so on - things that purely identify the product. Just my (engineer, not-lawyer) opinion.

And ...

To me, the issue is not whether Gibson should protect their trademarks - of course they should. The issue is what actually constitutes a trademark. Body shapes, headstock shapes, etc., IMO, do not constitute trademarks, but are designs, protectable by patent for a limited time only. Both Fender and Gibson have argued for some time that the shapes of their body/headstock are proprietary trademarks - I and many others disagree. They are primarily functional.

And ...

I simply argue that body and headstock shapes are designs, not trademarks. I agree with the appeals court decision wholeheartedly on this ruling, and hope this leads to additional action on other misuse of the trademark rules. If we could remove the monopoly on fabricating 50-year-old designs, there would be more competition on quality and price. This monopoly is the reason that some of these guitars are so overpriced. As always, my opinion.

Obviously the US Patent and Trademark Office ... didn't see it that way ... in this case.

In the immortal words of Doris Day:

Que Sera Sera

------------------

Hawaiian Steel Stuff
The Casteels

[This message was edited by Rick Aiello on 27 April 2006 at 02:17 PM.]

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 1:56 pm**

'Dave Mudgett best described the "underlying issue"

Right. And Dave is wrong obviously. Wishing something should be or feeling that it should be, doesn't make it so. The design can be trademarked and protected. Ric did so, and in my opinion, responsibly.

To me this does not stifle creativity but promotes it: it forces another manufacturer to come up with a totally unique design. And what is wrong with that?

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 2:04 pm**

it forces another manufacturer to come up with a totally unique design. And what is wrong with that?

Not a thing, pal ...

In the immortal words of Mike Neer ...

Can you say "MRI"? I knew you could...

------------------

Hawaiian Steel Stuff
The Casteels

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 4:11 pm**

Iknow for a fact that Rickenbacher has a surplus of NOS frypan bodies and when I spoke with Mr. Hall about them at the last NAMM show, he said they were considering re-introducing them at some future anniversary date.
That's all I know.
Rick, Those MRIs are your "ticket to slide!"

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 4:44 pm**

I read on a RIC forum ...

John Hall was goin' to put them out for their 75th anniversary ...

But decided to wait and turn them over to his son Ben ... for their 100th Anniversary.

The way things are goin' ... I won't be around to see that ...

------------------

Hawaiian Steel Stuff
The Casteels

[This message was edited by Rick Aiello on 28 April 2006 at 12:07 PM.]

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 6:30 pm**

Don't worry Rick. When you start feel a little old, tired and weak, you can always re-mag yourself

Posted: **27 Apr 2006 7:35 pm**

Well----Imagine my frustration at seeing this thread a few days back. I have six guitars in my shop with finish on them and ready for final assembly. There is a little machine work left to do and also anodizing of the tops and headstocks. I took some of the parts to the anodizer today in fact.

I have 3ea 8 string guitars and 3ea 6 string guitars very similar in design to the CruzTone prototypes I built last year, but with several refinements. But, the 8's have the Lollar/Aiello horseshoe pickup and the 6's have the Turner horseshoe. Two of the eights are sold. My plan was to show them all at Loni's Amp Show next month. These are probably the last three L/A horseshoes ever to be made. The pickups are indeed beautiful, and I understand why Ric wanted to trademark them

I couldn't sleep the first night I read about the Ric Trademark development. I doubt I'll get sued over six guitars, however. These six guitars will still be in Van Nuys on May 13th. I'm calling them THE OUTLAWS. I'll post pictures, but probably not until a couple days before the show. I'll be down to the wire, I'm sure.

I'm looking forward to the challenge of continuing the sculptural look of the CruzTone by creating a beautiful treatment for the pickup that is a suitable replacement for the 'shoes'.

------------------
Colin Alder
www.cruztonesteel.com
Act Dorky, Live Forever

The Steel Guitar Forum

Bye Bye Horseshoes