Lollar lawsuit

[jps]

rick turner horseshoes are not involved in any infringement suits, or were these lollar pickups ?

Turner and his lawyer were most gracious by ceasing and desisting promptly when asked to do so. They earned our respect in the process.

I am glad to hear this as I have always considered Rick a class act, and I have a great appreciation for his instruments.

[aceonbass]

:As long as RIC is not making and selling true horseshoe pickups themselves there will be room in the market for third-party HS PUs.

That makes no difference. Stealing intellectual property is still stealing, although many these days seem to have a hard time grasping that concept while they're downloading music for free. Even if RIC did make magnetic horseshoe pickups, someone would still infringe. Can anyone say China? I am curious to know why RIC can't make functional HS pickups until this is all sorted out.

[johnhall]

I am curious to know why RIC can't make functional HS pickups until this is all sorted out.[/i][/b]

Nobody said "can't"- we said "won't"- but there's a very good reason for this. However, if I tell you, I have to kill you.

[aceonbass]

[Wiker]

:As long as RIC is not making and selling true horseshoe pickups themselves there will be room in the market for third-party HS PUs.

That makes no difference. Stealing intellectual property is still stealing, although many these days seem to have a hard time grasping that concept while they're downloading music for free. Even if RIC did make magnetic horseshoe pickups, someone would still infringe. Can anyone say China? I am curious to know why RIC can't make functional HS pickups until this is all sorted out.

Was that a response to what I said


My comment was directed to John Hall’s statement that “[…]when this market is fully "cleaned up" we will produce true horseshoe pickups again [...].”
Lollar is providing a pickup that RIC has not made and sold for decades. If their objective is (solely) to have Lollar stop making these HS PUs there are several ways to fight it. One effective “method” would be to actually make and sell it themselves. If RIC were selling true HS PUs today I believe there wouldn’t be much of a market left for any third-party.
I don’t see much reason in waiting until all infringements are solved, as RIC has decided to do.
What if the lawsuit does not end in RIC’s favour? Will they never make these pickups then? What if Lollar stops making them, but someone in China starts up . . .

[johnhall]

Lollar is providing a pickup that RIC has not made and sold for decades.

I won't respond to much of what you say for a variety of reasons other than to say that Lollar's pickup is not a true horseshoe replica either, so no one for some technical reasons has been producing the "real deal". As I said, when things are cleaned up, we intend to change that, if only for the fact that we're in a position that many others are not to make the kind of investment necessary to do it properly.

[Kopfjaeger]

I'd like to go on the record and state, on other musical forums (TB), I've always defended the way RIC defends its intellectual property and trademarks. I only wish the other instrument manufacturers would have been as vigilant. For example Gibson with the Les Paul and Fender with the Precision and or Jazz. I digress. Especially now I hope RIC comes out on top in this suit since I'd love to be able to put a quality functional magnetic horseshoe pup into a Rickenbacker 4001 to recreate some vintage magic!!

Sepp

[Colonel Sanders]

For example Gibson with the Les Paul and Fender with the Precision and or Jazz.

Sepp

Leo was on slippery ground with the Precision pickup. The split pickup is actually a humbucker, which design was patented at the time Leo Fender came with the P-Bass. He cleverly kept quiet and avoided any reference to humbucking...

[soundmasterg]

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.

I seem to remember that RIC didn't get the trademark on the horseshoe pickup until 2005 or so, which was after Lollar was making his true functional horseshoe pickup. I have no idea if that makes a difference or not but I guess we'll see....

Greg

[soundmasterg]

Lollar is providing a pickup that RIC has not made and sold for decades.

I won't respond to much of what you say for a variety of reasons other than to say that Lollar's pickup is not a true horseshoe replica either, so no one for some technical reasons has been producing the "real deal". As I said, when things are cleaned up, we intend to change that, if only for the fact that we're in a position that many others are not to make the kind of investment necessary to do it properly.

Mr. Hall,

I was wondering what you mean when you say Lollar's pickup isn't a true horseshoe replica? It gets its magnetic field from the shoes and won't work without them right, just like the originals? Do you mean the type of metals he is using are not exactly the same or something? I would think it is closer to the originals than the facsimiles RIC has been making since 1968 or so from what I've read about how they work?

Greg

[cjj]

It would seem that since the issue is about the trademark, it's all about how it looks. If Lollar made them to look different, and so, not infringe on the trademark, there would be no issue. As for when RIC got the trademark, I'm not an expert by any means, but I think that's the point of the time period where the trademark can be contested. After that, it's a done deal and it doesn't matter if someone had been making something like it for years...

[aceonbass]

I think the fact that RIC made them first, and applied for a trademark first is why they'll win this lawsuit. Lollar should have a applied for a trademark first. I think that would have really strengthened his case, but like a lot of people/companies, he probably thought sufficient time had elapsed since he last actual production of this part, that he didn't have to. If Lollar were smart, he'd drop out now. He'll spend more on legal fees that he would have made on the pickups. Then again, at $450.00 a pickup, he was definitely making money, and I think, taking advantage of the fact that RIC wasn't making theirs, and that the reissues were going for up to $800.00 on Ebay.

[johnhall]

It would seem that since the issue is about the trademark, it's all about how it looks. If Lollar made them to look different, and so, not infringe on the trademark, there would be no issue.

You're one of the few people who actually understand this and gets it!

As for when RIC got the trademark, I'm not an expert by any means, but I think that's the point of the time period where the trademark can be contested. After that, it's a done deal and it doesn't matter if someone had been making something like it for years...

We "got" trademark protection in 1931 when we first started to use this configuration. A trademark exists from the moment that the design trade dress or appearance is first used in commerce. This is different and separate from the patent, which was applied for in 1932 and not granted until 1937- and only relates to the functionality. The patent covers any number of possible different appearances that use the same principle of operation, whereas the trademark only covers one specific appearance which may or may not use the patent's principle.

The reasons for registering a trademark are different from how or when the mark is established. Registrations are primarily made in order to go into federal court, as that's a basic requirement. Registration also secondarily provides convenient notice to all parties that a particular design is claimed and the process allows input from all parties to state any objections they may have.

Then, after 5 years, if no one has objected, one can file the "Section 15 Declaration" moving the mark from wet concrete to stone. In order for us to obtain this, we had to prove:

•No final legal decision was made against the mark.
•No challenge to the mark is still pending.
•The Declaration was filed on a timely basis.
•This trademark is not generic.

We did all of this to the satisfaction of the trademark authorities.

[iiipopes]

Folks, what Mr. JH describes takes a lot of time, effort and money (I know -- I took the course in intellectual property in my graduate studies). And Mr. JH did an excellent job of distinguishing the difference between patent and trademark, better than I could (I would have needed a whole lot more bandwidth). RIC is to be commended for their thoroughness and diligence.

I have seen on other forums where these efforts have been criticized, made fun of, made light of, and condescended. But the protections of intellectual property are what give inventors and developers the confidence and protection to keep inventing and developing to the benefit of all of us.

Here's to Mr. JH & Crew!

[johnhall]

I have seen on other forums where these efforts have been criticized, made fun of, made light of, and condescended. But the protections of intellectual property are what give inventors and developers the confidence and protection to keep inventing and developing to the benefit of all of us.

Thanks for the support. In reality, many of the posters at those other forums have only shown . . . their probably blissful . . . ignorance of law and ethics.

Ironically, most of those same posters would bit shricks if someone recorded and released a song that they had written, yet they won't gracefully allow us to protect the creative work we've done over the decades at great cost. Still, these things are as you suggest, an investment- one which we're happy to make- if others are not given a totally free ride on our coattails.