Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

How sick and tired I get of seeing G*bson and especially F*nder clones. Geez, how many do we need?!?
I wouldn't ever want to see that happening with RIC instruments!

aceonbass wrote:By the way Joey, your pumpkin icon is a violation of RIC trademarks

Hey, it took me a long time to carve that Rick into that pumpkin! And it's very rare that the moon is in the shape of a bass clef. Well, I'm not making money off of it and it will be rotten the day after Halloween.

rickenbrother wrote:And it's very rare that the moon is in the shape of a bass clef.

Didn't notice that! Cool.

sloop_john_b wrote:

rickenbrother wrote:And it's very rare that the moon is in the shape of a bass clef.

Didn't notice that! Cool.

Notice that the stars lined up just right that night also!!

I find joey's avatar to be very festive

jingle_jangle wrote: So the one firm that has practiced due diligence and continues to do so, gets bad-rapped by its own customers?

And quite right too. If Hipshot started churning out tailpiece assemblies with mute pads, grooved channels, built in tail-lift capability and in-accessible adjustment screws, then Rickenbacker might have a case. But attempting to shut-down production of Hipshot's all-singing all-dancing tailpuece just because it follows the same slightly less than square footprint with screw-holes in the same place (although only 4 of them in the same place), is just nonsense.

If Rickenbacker finally (after several decades) re-invest some of their income from their inflated (let's try and cool demand) prices into hiring sufficient bodies with sufficient expertise to produce a practical tailpiece assembly, then it better not be anything like the Hipshot one in terms of design and functionality. I think Hipshot would have a very good case to 'sue those mothers' asses right off' (or whatever the Californian vernacular is).

Rickenbacker like to use the 'backlog' to justify resting on their laurels and letting the customer 'Go spin' (again, is that the proper term?), but just what were they all doing when no-one was buying Rickenbackers? Moonlighting in a Fender factory to kill time, instead of addressing their (numerous) design flaws?

I don't know where to start in responding to the post above. It's a mix of attitude, ignorance, and fable that flies in the face of everything I have observed about Rickenbacker the company and its principals, and the need to protect intellectual property, at least here in the USA.

Since I do not wish to make another of my overlong, point-by-point attempts to refute cynical and negative posts of this nature, I'll just ignore it.

But it's so wrong, and it rankles.

Graeme: You are entitled to your opinion but we will not accept your insensitivity or rudeness or here. There are many ways to articulate your point of view without offending others. I would ask that you use any one of an infinite number of alternatives should you wish to stay on this Forum.

Paul - I have my listings inverted (most current first) so your navigation instructions “…responding to the post above.” only confused me a little while - I am getting older!

Joey – the pumpkin carving, the bass clef moon… I didn’t realize you were so ONE with nature!

I think if I were to have a lump of brass or aluminum machined down to be a similar look of to a Ric bridge (for personal use) that would be one thing. I imagine a court wouldn’t have a problem with that as long as I don’t try to sell it. But if I were setting up something similar and selling them I think the courts would have and HAVE had a problem with that.

Like it or not it is Rickenbacker’s property. They can pretty much do with it what they please. If the market changes due to their policies then they might loose their market share (which I seriously doubt). But again that is their decision to protect what is theirs they way the see fit and the courts seem to agree.

This whole thing is starting to be like running over a dead cat … it just makes it flatter.

Has Rickenbacker actually taken some action against Hipshot claiming trademark infringement? Not allowing talk about them on the factory forum is one thing, but I think they'd have a pretty tough case claiming trademark infringement---the two bridges really don't look very much alike, if you do more than glance at them for a second. Any number of pickup makers make pickups that fit Ricks but don't look exactly like Rick pickups, and I haven't heard of them going after them. I don't recall whether they allow discussion of replacement pickups on their forum.

I think by now, most of us on the forum know the potential for design "flaws" of the current bass bridge design. Some people have no problems with the bridge and others will have horrible experiences.

After reading all the current threads on bridge problems (and the seeing the way the chrome is bubbling on my used DCM), I am glad the Cii I have on order will not have the 4003 bridge. However, I have no real issues with the bridge on my 79 (except the few times I do have to adjust it, it is a hassle). I can understand the hold back for releasing an improved bridge design because RIC makes the 4003 bridges in house, but I hope they are working towards resolution. If it was really that big of a deal, people wouldn't order the basses. RIC really has no driving market force to issue a new design because their demand is high at the current price with the current bridge. In some ways, the consumer is to blame for this as much as RIC.

Given the current trend in 4003 changes (push pull pot, FWI, walnut wings) that some people wanted, I think it bodes well for a new bridge design in the near future. I just hope it will be backwards compatible so that I have the option of a drop in change on my 79.

I think its a waste of time.
i prefer playing bass, than arguing at web forums with people i don't know..

i remember that i had read some treads about the hipshot bridge and i remember posts of John hall about his design for a new bridge.
the post was from 2005. now its almost 2009. this is a long time...
i don't want to wait. there was an alternative to choose and i had choose. and yesterday at the rehearsal, i was enjoy playing my Ric like i never enjoyed before.

i don't care if Rickenbacker will sue hipshot. i got mine already... i bet they will lose in trial but i don't care.

and also please explain me what is the difference between hipshot bridge and pickguardian pickguards?
i think its the same. if someone want to mod his Ric with a tortoise shell pickguard or black or gold or what ever, and the Rickenbacker company offers only white pickguard IIRC, what is the problem with that?
i don't think both pickguardian and hipshot do any damage to Rickenbacker business. their costumers already bought Ric basses and guitar. its an after market products.
if some company make a copy of Ric bass, they deserve any penalty.
but if you cant see the difference between copying guitar and after market modding product, i think there is a problem.

I wonder why a compromise cannot be reached here - wouldn't the logical course of action be for RIC to license the Hipshot bridge? Hipshot would pay a royalty to Rickenbacker and benefit by the increased sales that the "official" endorsement of the product would doubtless bring. I know there's apparently a redesigned Rick bridge in the works - but this has been nowt but a rumour for so long that I'm sure many of us have written it off as "vapourware"!

Anyway for my part I prefer the aesthetic of the original unit - but the Hipshot gets my vote (and is on my bass!) because of its functionality, adjustability, sustain - and no big gap under the tail!

Jon.

Wasn’t tryin to say that Ric has won court cases on this exact subject – just that courts have a problem with vendors making items that look like other companies parts and selling them. Don’t know what would happen here but it seems that judging from the responses of the parties involved there may be something to Rickenbacker’s claim.

Man this cat is getting flat… I'm done.