Hipshot bridge discontinued?

rumbush · Post by **rumbush** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:45 am

Evidently my posts elicit smart-*** rather than intelligent responses. Thanks Manuel!!!!!

I thought it was a reasonable question. Anyone else want to comment?

jsod · Post by **jsod** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:55 am

The 4003 pickguard looks pretty unique to me...

In fact, that's the first identifiable thing that jumps out at me when I see a 4003 from a distance.

Sorry, I'm no lawyer, but I just don't get all this hullaballoo about the footprint of the tailpiece. Considering that the pickguard shape is much more distinctive than the tailpiece, and that there is no trademark on that, I think any action against Hipshot over the bridge footprint would have some difficulties.

But as I said, I'm no lawyer.

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:59 am

Excellent post, Paul!

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:10 am

"Pick-guard shape probably can't be trademarked due to the similarity of them on all guitars and we haven't claimed it as such."

What? The pickguard on the 4001/4003 is unique, and I have never seen that on anything else, other than a fake.

Thank you for making me look like an idiot, Paul.

Well I'll go with what's been said. The tailpiece lifts, and that's a problem, so fix it.

And this is starting to turn into the last thread, with people making fun of others opinions. How bout we just go back to "Flats vs. Rounds" now guys?

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:20 am

Paul - Thank you! I am fascinated by the creative process, although I am not a natural at it. It is HARD work to create!!!!

This was a glimpse into the mind of a design master. The thought process is unique when looking at something with an idea of "improving", just as creating something out of "whole cloth".

Oh, that I were gifted with that!

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:46 am

Gotta love it. Especially when the lift makes it dig into the front and chip the finish like mine does.

geddeeee · Post by **geddeeee** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:53 am

The pick guard is DEFINITELY unique! I agree with Nate. I can't see why RIC wouldn't go after 'trademark' infringements with that part. My cynical voice says "cos it's the cheapest part".
On the bridge debate, I hope that Hipshot win and are allowed to continue producing it. It's good for the customer IMO. You can't have 2 rules for different parts, if we're saying design or 'footprint'.
As I've said before if RIC can get their redesign to market soon, this Hipshot business becomes null and void. We Want Rick parts!!!! As such the market would become less for the 'after market' bridges.
Thanks for listening.....

jsod · Post by **jsod** » Fri May 25, 2007 8:54 am

"My cynical voice says "cos it's the cheapest part"."

Agreed.

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Fri May 25, 2007 9:02 am

The owner of the "trademark" makes the decision on what to go after and what not to. So saying,"You can't have 2 rules for different parts, if we're saying design or 'footprint'." is wrong. RIC can make any rules they want. They just happen to think the pickguard "infringement" would not hold up in court, and the ones they enforce will. It is nothing more than that..

geddeeee · Post by **geddeeee** » Fri May 25, 2007 9:40 am

Yeah, you're right. RIC can do what they want. It is their design and product after all. I still think that the pickguard is like no other. It is, as Nate P pointed out, unique. You see that and think - Rick bass. It's the same as the Fender headstock or body shape. You identify it as a Fender because of it. Even if it is a copy.
I realise RIC want to safeguard and protect their designs. What company wouldn't. I can see JH's point about 'knockoffs'.
But there MUST be a way for all parties involved to come to an arrangement where the customer benefits. The Rick bass bridge is an old design and has suffered, unlike the rest of the bass. The neck was redesigned, or should that be, reinforced, quite quickly. The space between announcing a new bridge design and implementation is killing us. So we go with the Hipshot, because it is a great, solid part.
I know RIC will want that market back, hence the lawsuit. New Rick bridge = No market for Hipshot. Simple as that!!!
Anyway, dead and horse come to mind. Enough from me.......

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Fri May 25, 2007 9:52 am

The arrangement would be licensing. I have not heard RIC's perspective on licensing of their trademarks so........

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:23 am

Some folks may still want the extra weight to counter neck dive, or may prefer the Hipshot style of saddles, or whatever, but that's just speculation.

It won't mean a thing once proceedings have begun (whatever they may be).

mfb · Post by **mfb** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:04 pm

Evidently my posts elicit smart-*** rather than intelligent responses. Thanks Manuel!!!!!

Don't mention it!

But seriously, all the existing tailpiece may need is a little tweaking to stop the tail lifting and still retain exactly the same aesthetics. In my opinion it's simply a statics exercise, which could be solved in less than 30 minutes given the forces that act on it.

The tooling for the mould may take a little longer.

Actually there is just something about the Hipshot that doesn't appeal to me, maybe it's TOO utilitarian, those saddle adjusting screws and springs just seem so long ...

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:09 am

Well, I crossed over to the dark side today. I bought a new aluminum Hipshot bridge on the 'bay! This is going on my "player" V63.
I can't wait to give it a go!

loendmaestro · Post by **loendmaestro** » Thu May 31, 2007 9:20 am

I just pulled the trigger on a chrome plated brass one. I agonized over it, but my 4003 is just missing something. The E is a little weak & the G has trouble intonating and is seemingly too close to the edge of the neck.
I'm looking forward to getting it to my luthier!

If nothing else I can sell it once they are discontinued!