Where did my thread go?

[johnhall]

I have zero regard for leeches that appropriate others' sweat and tears, slap a patent on it, and take credit for something they had zero input in creating.

I agree when you say "appropriate" but would strongly disagree if you had said "purchase".

[mfb]

Entities that purchase something, merely have the privilege of having it transferred into their possession.

It does not mean they designed it or created it, and in my opinion, if they take the credit for that, they're nothing but mugs.

[kcole4001]

Unless, of course, the purchase is for the rights of the trademark, copyright, etc.

It's done all the time.
One company buys another, the former owner relinquish the rights to any trademarks, which pass to the new owner, if that's part of the agreement.

If a designer sells his/her design, including rights to that design, then the new owner OWNS those rights.
What's hard to understand about that. It's a perfectly clear business transaction.

Otherwise what would happen when the original owner passes on?
A certainty of nature, does this mean that after the designer dies everything becomes public property?
Certainly not!

I mean no offence, but this sort of argument would be regarded as 'trolling' on every other public forum on the net.

[Lost Coyotes]

You know, Kevin, I was thinking the same thing.
It seems to me that Manuel is saying that if John personally didn't design or create a Ric or Ric part, he should have no regard.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[kcole4001]

That's how I saw it too, but maybe we are interpreting the wrong 'spirit' of the post.

I'm tired, so I thought that might be it, too.

It's not like MR. Hall hasn't designed at least some of RIC's output in the past, & I'm sure he certainly does now.

The designers who worked for RIC & it's predecessors, and participated in the older designs were most likely under the type of contract where their work was intended to be property of the company, otherwise, why would they be paid for designing guitars?
It was their job, after all!

[Lost Coyotes]

"but maybe we are interpreting the wrong 'spirit' of the post."

Yes, I'm willing to allow that. The posts are not "quite" saying things, and maybe it's just me filling in the perceived blanks, so to speak.

[jingle_jangle]

"Like anyone who goes to work for a Corporation that has that person sign a document stating: any and all inventions and or discoveries belong to the company and it's owners."

Not all the time. These assignments can be negotiated.

On a separate note: RIC (and its predecessor, Electro), to my knowledge, has employed precious few people (if any) with the "Designer" title, although design responsibilities have been shared by various employees and principals over the years. This is not unusual in the musical instrument business. The vast majority of designs in this area are copied, and if created, are done so by untrained designers, "seat of the pants", so to speak.

Serendipity occasionally comes into play, such as in the case of the Strat, the Tele, the LP, the SG, and other landmark classics that have stood the test of time. Roger Rossmeisl's strongest work (and he was trained--in the old country, Mittenwald artist/craftsman tradition) was done for Rickenbacker, and for that we can be grateful, along with FCHall's foresight in protecting these properties.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

If I write a bestselling novel, when I die the royalties will go to my wife and kids.

It saddens me to realize that, based on their receiving the legacy I would have provided them, there would still be people harboring zero regard for them. Zilch. Zippo.

[mfb]

If a designer sells his/her design, including rights to that design, then the new owner OWNS those rights.
What's hard to understand about that. It's a perfectly clear business transaction.

But if that new owner or company as the case may be CLAIMS they were the designers or inventors of something they purchased, then, in my opinion, they are mugs.

I mean no offence, but this sort of argument would be regarded as 'trolling' on every other public forum on the net.

"This sort of argument" - if you're referring to the threads that discuss copies, fakers, rip-offs and that sort of thing (you know, people that take credit from others' design work and make money out of it) that happens very often here, so I can't see how you got to that conclusion unless many people here are "trolls', and I don't think that's the case.

[mfb]

It saddens me to realize that, based on their receiving the legacy I would have provided them, there would still be people harboring zero regard for them. Zilch. Zippo.

Yes, they would get zero regard from me (and I hope millions of others too) IF they passed YOUR novel off as having been written by them.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Okay, I'll bite, because I am not understanding where the criticism is being leveled.

Who exactly is pretending they designed something that they didn't?

[mfb]

Ok, I think you may be reading too much into this.

Go back and read the thread and how it has arrived here.

But to answer your question, there are many instances were this happens, either by outright fraudulent claims by the perpetrator or, by time and association.

For example, many people may believe that Henry Ford invented the motor car, but you and I know that's not the case. However some people believe this because of folklore and the passing of time.

Outright fraudulent claims of invention and design are happening all the time. It has happened to me on a number of occasions were I have caught others passing and building my designs as their own. In my case, it's bloody hard to catch them (mostly, houses built off my designs without permission).

[jps]

I think Senor Birrento is confusing John Hall with the Rickenbacker Int'l CORPORATION, thinking that John is claiming to be the inventor/designer of the protected trademarks, etc., when in fact, John is protecting the rights of the CORPORATION that he is CEO of, which holds all the TMs and patents. Is this correct?

There are legitimate patents and trademaks on everything RIC is protecting and I have the feeling that Manuel thinks anybody can use them for their own purposes since these patents and TMs were in place before John took over the reins of the company, therefore negating John's claims on them.

[Lost Coyotes]

Sounds about right to me, Jeffrey...

I notice Manuel didn't respond to my statement above:
"It seems to me that Manuel is saying that if John personally didn't design or create a Ric or Ric part, he should have no regard.".

I have read this thread several times and cannot figure where this is directed. It seems Manuel is trying to point a finger without actually pointing it, at someone here.

Manuel, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I have no way of knowing since you're just not quite specific enough.

[mfb]

I think Senor Birrento is confusing John Hall with the Rickenbacker Int'l CORPORATION, thinking that John is claiming to be the inventor/designer of the protected trademarks, etc., when in fact, John is protecting the rights of the CORPORATION that he is CEO of, which holds all the TMs and patents. Is this correct?

There are legitimate patents and trademaks on everything RIC is protecting and I have the feeling that Manuel thinks anybody can use them for their own purposes since these patents and TMs were in place before John took over the reins of the company, therefore negating John's claims on them.

You're kidding, right?

Slight correction (if you don't mind), if you prefer to use a honorific before my name (but you don't have to, really), in my case that it would have to be "Senhor" or "Sir", by ancestry.