Lollar lawsuit

[jdogric12]

http://konschaklaw.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... ringement/

[jdogric12]

I just ran this by an experienced IP attorney I know... he thinks Lollar will win the functionality argument but who knows.

[Lefty4001]

I just ran this by an experienced IP attorney I know... he thinks Lollar will win the functionality argument but who knows.

I'm not an IP attorney, but I'm the scientific expert they consult for some things. This is my read on it from what's been given your link and Beauchamp US2310199A. I do not have any of the RIC trademark references.

Horseshoe pickup covers are just decorative now and kinda designed to be removed to suit different aesthetics, right? If RIC hasn't advertised the nonmagnetic versions as having functional advantages, but covered them with their design marks, then Lollar is more likely to lose. I don't know if they ever asked for a license from RIC for the design. As far as Beauchamp's disclosure, that was for functional, magnetic horseshoes. If you removed those from the device, it doesn't work. Those lost their utility patent before I was born.

This, and the discussion in "Curmudgeon" on Fender going after the Relickers (my spelling) are interesting. This one probably won't have any corporate posts, but since lawyers are expensive and RIC does tend to cover it's bread and butter, I've got $5 on RIC based on what I can read.

I've attached Beauchamp because the figures are so nicely drawn and presented.

[cjj]

The Lollar pickups have functional horseshoe magnets, following the Beauchamp patent, and would be non-functional without the shoes. So the question here is, can a non-functional, decorative element that is someone's design mark make a public domain, expired patent unusable if following the patent ends up looking like the design mark?

Here's the RIC Design Mark info:

[paologregorio]

I thought the latest RIC horseshoes were functional; they're not?

[Lefty4001]

The Lollar pickups have functional horseshoe magnets, following the Beauchamp patent, and would be non-functional without the shoes. So the question here is, can a non-functional, decorative element that is someone's design mark make a public domain, expired patent unusable if following the patent ends up looking like the design mark?

Here's the RIC Design Mark info:

RIC_Shoe.jpg

Thickens.

I was wondering about that possibility because I admittedly didn't know the construction of the Lollar PUPs before I posted. I was thinking there would have been a period of time after Beauchamp expired where someone could've constructed and sold a horseshoe PUP like this. But if that wasn't done before the trademark was granted, then it still seems in RICs favor. It seems backwards in a way, but if it's decided that the mark is valid, then Lollar could make the argument that having the magnet as the cover only works if it's shaped the exact way it's shaped, etc. If you could build their pickup in a way that makes it NOT look like a RIC horseshoe, then they may be told to do so.

Thanks for the other document. Did you notice that the coverings are described as metal? Would that simply allow for a plastic fakey version covering "regular" pickups? That seems too easy.

Again, it seems unfortunate that a licensing agreement didn't head this off. Lollar makes quality products. Lawyers are expensive.

Thanks again. Check back in a year to see how it played out?

[Lefty4001]

I thought the latest RIC horseshoes were functional; they're not?

not sure. making the argument that "if they are not, then..."

maybe RIC is allowed the leeway of having them functional or not, but the look can only be as described.

I'm not trying to throw up too much speculation. I know that others can weigh in to make things correct. I'm interested in this because it is similar to some claims being used in my world (biotech) to try and extend protection on some devices. The argument of function and trademark are the same ones going on.

[cjj]

The reissue horseshoes do not have magnetized shoes. There are magnets in them for the pole pieces, similar to a toaster. So, in the strictest sense, they are purely decorative. But, since they are metal, and almost certainly some kind of steel alloy, they will act to shape the magnetic field to some extent. It has been said that this does affect the tone/sound of these pickups...

[Lefty4001]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=409297&start=15#p800180

Hey CJ, I moved this part of the Bass Forum discussion over. Thanks for digging out those old references (materials, switch to alnico, etc.). I now remember reading that thread a while ago, too.

I'm not sure if it helps clarify things, though.

So, the horseshoe today itself is not a functional magnet. An improved approach to pickup life was utilized with the alnico pole pieces and metal coverings. One can imagine that these coverings would have an effect on a magnetic field, but it seems that effect is minimal. A piece of test equipment could show it, but in practice there is little tonal difference. But, you showed that there is at least some marketing language around using the cover, too. If there aren't any technical claims, then it's still a design thing. I guess that is where the legal rasslin' can take place.

It could take some time for this to work it's way through the courts. I guess we can bump this when someone sees new information?

[david/wales/u.k]

You guys are very intelligent.....I'm completely lost!!

[Lefty4001]

You guys are very intelligent.....I'm completely lost!!

David, it's just that this topic brought out the nerd in me. I'm plenty dumb enough in other situations to balance it out. I can't speak for CJ, but you're probably spot on there.

I've got a science background and love how engineering puts theory to practice. So, it's kind of a "what if" topic for me. How the lawsuit works out will be down to the arguments and interpretations of those involved. I can tell there is enough gray area in our discussions that others are digging for "facts" too. We've politely hi-jacked a thread over in Basses where a Forum member has just installed the toaster/HS PUP combination, trying to get clarity.

Also, with all of the speculation that we've thrown out, those who know the case better probably are laughing at us.

The more I read about the different pickups, the more I wish they could both be on the market. Maybe it will work out that way? But at $450 for the Lollar, I think you have to really really really want that configuration regardless of how they work.

[cjj]

Well, being an electronics design engineer for close to 40 years helps. Also, after spending countless hours with patent attorneys, going through my own patent applications to get 'em just right, you tend to get a bit of an idea how these things work.

In general, it's usually assumed that once a patent expires, the ideas in it are public knowledge and can be used by anyone. In this case, it appears that perhaps if there is a trademark (which do not have a set expiration and can be renewed) on the look of it, then, while one will not be infringing on the expired patent, they may well be infringing on the trade/design mark. I have no idea if anything of this sort has ever been tested in the courts before, if not, this could set new legal precedent. In any case, it will be interesting to see the outcome if it actually goes to court...

[weemac]

I would love if it could be sorted out for some sort of win-win situation, but I doubt that could happen...

Eden.

[antipodean]

I would love if it could be sorted out for some sort of win-win situation, but I doubt that could happen...

Eden.

+1. I have fitted one of Lollar's HS pickups onto my V63. It is a very different beast to the Rick RIHS - far lower output with a more transparent sound, which would appear to be qualities shared with vintage horsies. Lollar's second-generation shoes also appear to have decent charge retention properties.

Without doubt RIC has to protect its IP, but it is clear that there is demand for a charged shoe HS pickup that RIC does not currently fill (most probably for very good business reasons). From an end-user perspective, it would be great if a third-party is able to build such pickups under licence, but my guess is that this would be very much at odds with RIC's very successful long-held IP protection policy.

Alas.....

[woodyng]

I would love if it could be sorted out for some sort of win-win situation, but I doubt that could happen...

Eden.

+1. I have fitted one of Lollar's HS pickups onto my V63. It is a very different beast to the Rick RIHS - far lower output with a more transparent sound, which would appear to be qualities shared with vintage horsies. Lollar's second-generation shoes also appear to have decent charge retention properties.
..

Yes,that is one of Mr Lollar's claims to fame,reproducing various pickups that sound just like the vintage ones. It would be cool if the 2 companies could collaborate,maybe offering a toaster/lollar horseshoe option in a new Ric. (Preferably an S model) And $450 seems like a lot for a pickup,but it wasn't that long ago that RIHS pickups were being sold for more than that secondhand. I've seen "real" horseshoes going for closer to $1k,during the peak. I used to really want to get one,but ultimately decided that it was to fix a problem that didn't need fixing. (My 74's hi gain sounds just fine,and i'm just too dam cheep to spend that much money just to have the gap tooth look)