Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

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

Embedded into the pavement by now.

Whether or not the Hipshot design infringes on RIC's trademark is a matter for the courts. Whatever we here on this forum think is totally irrelevant.

RIC absolutely must defend their intellectual property since that is the only real way to protect it. If you don't defend your IP, it becomes, by default, essentially in the public domain. And, if you let one item go unchallenged, it can set a precedent for further infringements on other IP. It doesn't matter if the supposed infringing design is better or even if you happen to like it better, if you don't try to defend your IP, you may forfeit your rights to it.

As for licensing agreements, well, there is no point in that until a determination has been made in the courts that there is an infringement. That also applies to getting the supposed infringing company to stop production, until it is decided that there is an infringement (or the evidence strongly points in that direction), production can continue. Basically, the court has to order the infringing company to stop.

jingle_jangle wrote: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.

Granted, Graeme may have been able to formulate it a little less "aggressively". But I tried to read beyond the caustic remarks and understand what he's really trying to say. Remember, Paul, he's not on the "inside" like you are so he can't know what you do about the reasons things are the way they are. You're privy to information that most of us aren't.

While I unequivocally support and understand RIC's wanting to protect themselves against trademark infringement, there's comes a point where it starts appearing to the average Rick consumer that the policy is no longer about simply protecting trademarks, but rather about eliminating any and all competition on the parts and accessory market. Personally, when I look at the Hipshot bridge, the only similarities I see between it and the standard Rick bridge is the footprint. It's a trapezoid. But its implementation and functionality is nowhere close to that of the original. Can a trapezoid shape be trademarked? I honestly don't know, but I would doubt it. It's a generic geometric shape. Can one trademark a circle or a square?

I honestly believe that when designing the Rick replacement bridge, Hipshot made a conscious effort to make the design functionally and visually far enough away from the original so as to avoid the very trademark infringement issues they are now having to deal with. The footprint was obviously chosen in order to keep the "tan lines" left by the old bridge from showing, especially on older white or Mapleglo finishes. Also, the fact that no new holes have to be drilled just makes installation easier for the consumer, not to mention that drilling extra holes can devalue an instrument. I think Hipshot's intentions were simply to offer a user-friendly alternative to the stock bridge while still trying to respect RIC trademarks. If that weren't so, they could have just done what Allparts did (albeit crappily) and clone the original.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of musicians using Rick basses are not the purists, fans and/or gear-heads like we Forumites are. They just want to get the best sound out of their instruments and play their music on them. To these people, RIC's actions send out false signals. How does all this look to someone on the outside? The scenario would probably go something like this:

1) I'm just a working musician and I want to replace my Rick bridge because I'm not satisfied with it.

2) I want to buy a more flexibly designed, drop-in replacement.

3) I can't because RIC won't allow anyone to sell replacement parts for their instruments, no matter how technically different it is from the original.

4) RIC offers no alternative and there has been no news from the company regarding an improved design.

5) I'm now frustrated and angry at RIC.

I guess I can understand someone feeling that way. What I don't understand is why RIC doesn't try to work out some kind of licensing deal with the aftermarket parts companies (not just Hipshot). As long as RIC's quality standards are adhered to, everyone wins. RIC, the parts makers and most of all, the musicians. Or if RIC does have something in the works, then let the buying public know about it. Let "Joe-the-Plum-...umm...Musician" know that RIC is listening to them and is working on a new and improved bridge.

That having been said, let me say that I neither own nor intend to buy a Hipshot replacement bridge. I'm completely satisfied with the stock bridges on my Rick basses. And I don't necessarily agree with the prevailing attitude here that everything RIC does is always right and everyone else is always wrong. Nobody's perfect. And while their continued success shows that RIC has done a lot of things right, in even the best companies there is always room for improvement.

God..this got long, didn't it?

Daniel: What a wonderful post and a tutorial on how to express controversial points of view in a manner that is respectful and insightful.

As you have beautifully illustrated, reflection, insight and well-chosen words make all the difference. As I am sure you have also appreciated, it took more words and time than you might have predicted.

Thank you.

A quick response to Daniel:

Your points are eloquently expressed.

My statements refer more to someone "going off" on this Forum and airing an uninformed viewpoint, without doing the homework. Rick prices are not inflated, as anyone who has done some reading on this Forum would understand. That conclusion hardly takes someone "on the inside" to arrive at. What I saw was sarcasm and a good deal of attitude, and ill-considered opinions.

admin wrote:Daniel: What a wonderful post and a tutorial on how to express controversial points of view in a manner that is respectful and insightful.

As you have beautifully illustrated, reflection, insight and well-chosen words make all the difference. As I am sure you have also appreciated, it took more words and time than you might have predicted.

Thank you.

You're welcome, Peter. And thank you for the kind words.
To be honest, I'm just happy that at least one person actually read the post all the way to the end!

jingle_jangle wrote:A quick response to Daniel:

Your points are eloquently expressed.

My statements refer more to someone "going off" on this Forum and airing an uninformed viewpoint, without doing the homework. Rick prices are not inflated, as anyone who has done some reading on this Forum would understand. That conclusion hardly takes someone "on the inside" to arrive at. What I saw was sarcasm and a good deal of attitude, and ill-considered opinions.

Roger that, Paul. I didn't mean any offense to you, of course. Thanks for clearing that up.

It may have been a lot of words, but sometimes it takes that to make your meaning come through clearly. Well done, Daniel. I'm a retired editor and know a bit about copyright law, so I understand and appreciate RIC's aggressive pursuit of trademark issues. RIC expends a lot of effort going after infringers, effort that can only be described as an investment in the future. They don't make money right now, but it helps guarantee steady income in the future. But I wonder if the flap could have been avoided if Hipshot had sought permission from RIC to produce this tailpiece/bridge assembly? Has RIC trademarked the unique 4001/4003 pickguard? It is my observation that RIC doesn't go after Pickguardian even though RIC sells pickguards too (which are not warrantied, BTW). Maybe Pickguardian sought permission and RIC gave them their blessing. That, too, would be considered trademark enforcement as they would be an officially endorsed parts supplier. I honestly don't know what these situations are behind the scenes.

How can a product that people are waiting in line for two years to buy be judged to have an inflated price?

I would be the first to agree that learning about and understanding the origins of differing points of view is an important and fascinating study.

Eventually, however, our persistent focus on a thought can lead us to the point where we may lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Life imitates art!

Before we went to "only" five levels of alert status following 9/11, there were actually more proposed (I think it was nine...). One of them was "magenta"...