Hipshot bridge discontinued?

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sat May 19, 2007 6:40 pm

One other thing,,,individual string height for each string is kinda cool.....

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:47 am

Looking at the 2 bridges I really think that trying to prove the hipshot violates a trademark would be a longshot with little chance of success ...

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Sun May 20, 2007 7:58 am

All of the features you mention are mechanical and functional, which are not in the purview of trademarks.

The aesthetic only, curved contours, the overall envelope, on the other hand are exactly within the domain that trademarks are all about.

As I recall, you said the same thing about the horseshoe pickup, and of course that now has both registration and precedent.

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Sun May 20, 2007 9:38 am

That's why JH gets the big bucks! He's one super sharp CEO! Which is why RIC is as successful as it is!

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:04 am

There is legal and there is right ... it would be wrong to see the hipshot bridge go away ... it is superior to the Ric part in every way ...

The original Ric bridge/tailpiece is pretty but it very poor in functionality and it is prone to failure ... the hipshot is the best alternative to those who want to replace the Ric part ...

Making the hipshot bridge may be good for the Rickenbacker International Corporation but it is not what is best for the end user ...

it is not a copy of a Ric part it is only vaguely similar to a Ric part ...

geddeeee · Post by **geddeeee** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:12 am

As I said earlier, maybe RIC should endorse the Hipshot bridge. Maybe then all involved will be happy. I'm sure the customers would be.
OR RIC should get their bass bridge to market. I realise they have other things to concentrate on, but think of all that lovely cash you'd get from existing 4000 series owners......

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:18 am

I like it. Its a nice upgrade.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:29 am

I've never said it should go away and have commented positively on its functionality. They simply shouldn't have borrowed the envelope and should have taken the time to develop their own format. They still could, in which case we have no problem.

I won't endorse people who knock us off and, indeed, our own revised design is superior, in my opinion.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:43 am

I am pleased that we are able to express these differences here without anger and without the thread getting pulled ... I appreciate all of the input ... even those that disagree with me ...

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:51 am

I think the Hipshot piece's beauty is that it fits the requirements without changing the overall look of the bass (at least to the untrained eye).
Retooling may be beyond what would be profitable to them in the future, but that's something for them to decide at any rate.

Mr. Hall, can we expect the new tailpiece soon?
I'm sure we're all very curious, to say the least!

elysrand · Post by **elysrand** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:52 am

There is a great deal to be said for a limited license. This would not dilute trademarks, and could be written conditioned to completely protect RIC IP while earning RIC $20 a pop fees.

A trademark holder does not have to Cease And Desist to protect its marks. Licensing provides this protection and makes a functional and in some cases mechanically-superior product available to the aftermarket bass player and owner, with a wide-enough adjustment range to finally intonate every string, and with complete civil contract protection to the mark holder and the aftermarket manufacturer.

geddeeee · Post by **geddeeee** » Sun May 20, 2007 12:29 pm

I suppose Hipshot have shot themselves in the foot somewhat. I'm sure they thought their design would not infringe copyright. I can also understand JH's point about knockoff design. I think if Hipshot made the same bridge but with a rectangular footprint, everyone would be happier. I don't think that this would detract too much from the aesthetics.
Oh, and asking for a date on the new bridge is like asking 'how long is a piece of string?'
I'm sure John Hall would answer, 'When it's ready'.
Looking forward to the new bridge anyway. In the meantime I'll go with the Hipshot.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sun May 20, 2007 12:59 pm

I was rather hoping for something in the ballpark, like 'later this year', or early next year', not a specific date.

mfb · Post by **mfb** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:43 pm

This is an interesting bridge/tailpiece. It looks like it also has individual string height adjustment as well as intonation adjustment... and it has a rectangular footprint...

http://www.wesleyguitars.co.uk/storefrontprofiles/DeluxeSFItemDetail.aspx?sid=1&sfid=44184&c=519508&i=187665156

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:48 pm

Anotyher infringement bass with a bridge style I've never liked.