Question for BP: Patents and MusicMan instruments, instruments in general

[cky4ever]

First off I've become gear crazy and some recent aquisitions have got me thinking. Im not in the position to buy 5 6 music man basses or any other high end brand. Ive got two anniversary models and Im still paying of my loan. So Ive come to collect lawsuit models by univox ibanez and greco. J copies, p copies even a rick. So I got to thinking what was the or were the blocks for those lawsuits, other than the fact that the instruments look alike and the components are similar. There are only so many ways to wire pickups make a bridge, instrument body.

Which leads to the most important question of my thread... there are some music man knock offs. Does MM patent their gear... I imagine so... So why doesnt the company go after rip offs... It would make sense it seems...

What does an instrument patent guarantee... Is a bigger question that comes to mind...

I think this is an instrument subject and id really to hear bp out or bovine or any of the balls...

 

[Big Poppa]

YOu protect what you can but so much is generic With us copy cats cannot use either the 3+1 headstock or the 4+2

There is much conjecture and controversy in current efforts to protect a design. I support the people who create the ideas to reap the profits not just in guitars but all of my purchases

 

[Aussie Mark]

So Ive come to collect lawsuit models by univox ibanez and greco. J copies, p copies even a rick. So I got to thinking what was the or were the blocks for those lawsuits, other than the fact that the instruments look alike and the components are similar.

If I recall correctly, the only actual "lawsuit" that eventuated was Gibson hitting Fujigen Gakki (the manufacturers of Greco and Ibanez at the time. Funnily enough, "real" Gibsons were later made by the same factory when they kicked off in Japan with the Orville brand) with a cease and desist on the "moustache" headstock.

After the Gibson suit, Tokai (who were making the best Les Paul and Fender copies at the time) got scared and made some minor modifications to their instruments so that they weren't next.

30 years later Rickenbacker aggressively pursue the Univox/Greco/Aria/Ibanez Rick copies, to prevent these used instruments being sold on ebay. Rickenbacker was asleep at the wheel at the time the instruments were made, so now the 3rd, 4th or 5th owners of these 30 year old instruments are the innocent parties who get caught up in the Rickenfaker antics.

I've not seen any Stingray copies produced by Fujigen, Terada or Matsumoto, but I may be wrong. Anybody?

 

[cky4ever]

does the 3 + 1 and 4 + 2 headstock only apply to bodies shaped like MMs, or all instruments because i can recall some name brands using them...

thx for the quick response btw

 

[Duarte]

I've seen the occasional cheeky 3+1 headstock on copies...

 

[GHWelles]

The 3+1 and 4+2 are exclusive to EBMM. So are the body shapes and headstock shapes. So are the Ernie Ball and MM logos and names.

EBMM strongly protects its intellectual property.

 

[Smakbass]

You have to stronly protect these trademarks if you dont thats one arguement that can be used against you in court.