Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

aceonbass wrote: Have you seen the Lollar HS? It doesn't have a different appearance. It looks the same, and that's the core of the trade mark issue. Besides that, anyone, especially Lollar, could have filed a challenge to the trade mark in the federal courts any time in the last several years and didn't. So it's kinda like the way Gibson, Fender, and others lost many of their trade mark rights, but in reverse. Lollar, and Hipshot for that matter, should have made a product that was functionally interchangeable, but didn't. They both make products that LOOKED exactly, or kinda like what they were replacing in order to sell them to people who they knew wouldn't buy them unless they LOOKED like what they were replacing. That LOOK is the basis of the trade mark. In the case of Lollar's pickup, it's made to look like an original HS and fit RIC's surround. In the case of Hipshot's bridge, it's made to cover the same footprint when it didn't have to. The offending parties just take all that for granted, and even though it stares you in he face, I think it just doesn't occur to most people.

I am largely in agreement with you here Dane. I had been struggling to understand your long-held outspoken opposition to the Hipshot bridge until you spelt it out in this post (I guess I'm a bit slow on the uptake). In the case of the Hipshot, a bridge with the same functionality could have been designed without the bulbous tail that mimics the shape of the Rickenbacker tailpiece and, as such, the Hipshot would appear to infringe upon RIC's trademark. In the case of the Lollar pickup, any discernible difference in appearance would impact upon the desirability of the pickup, which suggests that there is a trademark infringement if, as John Hall states, there is a multiplicity of designs that could replicate the functionality of the HS without mimicking the appearance of the Rickenbacker product.

My only point of difference is that a court may well take a more nuanced approach - hence my use of language as "appear to infringe" and "suggests... a trademark infringement". Until the argument has been tested in court (and potentially subject to an appeals process) or there has been an out-of-court settlement (always a preferable solution), there is no definitive answer to the question, though there may be a strong legal opinion towards one side or the other. Whilst there is a widely-held belief that the law is black-and-white, this is not always the case - interpretation at the court level is subject to change over time. Additionally, small differences in fact can result in what appears to be a radical difference in application of the law to different cases. Further, there can be variations in interpretation and application of the law between different courts and different judicial officials in respect of identical facts. When talking about the potential outcome of a legal process, it is rarely possible to have 100% certainty. This is one of the reasons why litigation is usually a last resort in resolving a dispute.

WolfeMacleod wrote: You are missing the point that the the way the pickup looks is directly related to the way it operates.
Round wheel vs. square wheel. Square wheel does not roll.

I'm not sure we're in exactly the same ball-park here. Minor cosmetic changes (e.g. to the polished finish of the shoes) would not alter functionality but would severely affect the desirability of the pickup.

So, it reads like Wolfe's argument, if his interpretations are correct, are that you really can't trademark a horseshoe design because, no matter what, the horseshoe shape creates the magnetic field? (I haven't followed all of this thread, so this next question may have been answered already) Are there any other pickup designs that have gone to court to set the precedent? It just seems like, based on this interpretation, that, maybe, no pickup at all could be trademarked because the shape (if it is metal) will affect the magnetic field.

Down the wormhole again. Wolfe took me on a tangent (14 years is a long quest is all I can say), but I found an interesting discussion on those cream pickups. Similar views and skews as this one. Post #38 is interesting.

http://music-electronics-forum.com/t29076/

aceonbass wrote:

cassius987 wrote: but honestly, the idea that RIC protecting the way something looks prevents somebody else from designing something with the same function but a different appearance just sounds utterly wrong.

Have you seen the Lollar HS? It doesn't have a different appearance. It looks the same, and...

I think you read way too much subtext in my post. I'm on your side. What sounds utterly wrong to me is the argument against the trademark, not RIC's trademark itself.

nukebass wrote:So, it reads like Wolfe's argument, if his interpretations are correct, are that you really can't trademark a horseshoe design because, no matter what, the horseshoe shape creates the magnetic field? (I haven't followed all of this thread, so this next question may have been answered already) Are there any other pickup designs that have gone to court to set the precedent? It just seems like, based on this interpretation, that, maybe, no pickup at all could be trademarked because the shape (if it is metal) will affect the magnetic field.

Even if the horseshoes are non-functional, magnetically, there are still at least three functional aspects that immediately come to mind, just by their mere presence.
Gibson could not register a Trademark for a covered humbucker, because the nickel silver cover provides a) electromagnetic shielding b)coil assembly protection.. those are the two that come to mind right now.

Lefty4001 wrote:Down the wormhole again. Wolfe took me on a tangent (14 years is a long quest is all I can say), but I found an interesting discussion on those cream pickups. Similar views and skews as this one. Post #38 is interesting.

http://music-electronics-forum.com/t29076/

I have been the single most outspoken person against the Dimarzio Trademark ever since I first learned of it, in 1998.
Functionality Doctrine lists aesthetics as part of function, as well. Included in this are also barrs against registration where the part of registration affect the cost of manufacture, and ease of manufacture, neverminding the color-depletion aspect of it. In humbuckerland, dismissing covered humbuckers, there are only three very commonly accepted colors - black, zebra, and cream. You don't often see hot-pink or green on a Goldtop LP, do you?
Speaking of Cost of Manufacture, I have absolute proof that it was les expensive for Dimarzio to procure cream bobbins than black bobbins, right up till the mid 90's, at least.
As far as ease of manufacturer, I can tell you for sure that it is far easier to see a dark Plain Enamel wire being laid onto a cream bobbin than a black bobbin.

Did you catch the part about the USPTO deying Dimarzio a registration for a "mirrored" chrome-plated bobbin in 2005? Refused registration for aesthetic functionality because guitars have chromed hardware, basically.

Jason's statement in post #38 was aimed at people who don't branch out enough, or don't advertise enough, to let the inability to make Cream 'bucker have a serious impact on them. This is not about that though. It's about a misuse of Trademark laws to in an attempt to protect a Patent that expired decades ago.

Post #40 is interesting, including the quote embedded in it.

jps wrote:Post #40 is interesting, including the quote embedded in it.

I don't see much interesting in that quote by me, really. Resentful? Sure. At it's core, the Dimarzio trademark is anti-competitive.

As far as the poster I quoted, he's one of those type of people who doesn't give a @#$% about fair business practices. Lots of people think "Let the other guy do what he wants, cause it doesn't affect me" when they aren't in the business to begin with. When we ignore what's wrong, we let people trample over other people.

Give me a pencil and paper and I'll draw as many non-infringing designs using the horseshoe principle as you can stand. (There's one I won't draw for you, because I think it's so aesthetically pleasing that it's worthy of a trademark of its own!)

I can also think of a number of ways to make it much better than the original- better because you're NOT limited to the current physical configuration described in the trademark.

This doesn't come from the 50+ years of experience I've had designing pickups but just basic design sense.

Some people would rather tell you ten reasons why something can't be done, whereas I prefer people who work to find ten reasons why it CAN be done.

johnhall wrote:I can also think of a number of ways to make it much better than the original- better because you're NOT limited to the current physical configuration described in the trademark.

The market that Lollar is targeting is clear. They didn't stumble onto the design because it was the best functional way to make a horseshoe pickup, they did it because they want to sell them to people with Rickenbacker instruments.

No one else uses horseshoe bass pickups. There's no question about the market that Lollar is attempting to fill, a market Rickenbacker clearly wants to populate with their own product.

Grey wrote:

johnhall wrote:I can also think of a number of ways to make it much better than the original- better because you're NOT limited to the current physical configuration described in the trademark.

The market that Lollar is targeting is clear. They didn't stumble onto the design because it was the best functional way to make a horseshoe pickup, they did it because they want to sell them to people with Rickenbacker instruments.

No one else uses horseshoe bass pickups. There's no question about the market that Lollar is attempting to fill, a market Rickenbacker clearly wants to populate with their own product.

And if such a product existed,and was being marketed at an affordable price,do you think Anyone would be buying $450.00 Lollar horseshoes?

woodyng wrote:and was being marketed at an affordable price

Given the cost of genuine horseshoe pickups I really doubt a Rickenbacker-produced product would be much cheaper than the Lollar offering.

Not my point. Lets say there was a choice of a RIC made HS,and the Lollar for the same price,even. I know i would be much more inclined to buy the RIC product. There is no choice at this time. I think what we are talking about is a pretty darn small market after all,but who knows?

Grey wrote:Given the cost of genuine horseshoe pickups I really doubt a Rickenbacker-produced product would be much cheaper than the Lollar offering.

Genie RIC HS pickups are as expensive as they are because they're not produced anymore by RIC, plain and simple. Remember how high RIHS's got before RIC re-released them ($700.00+)? While RIC could certainly charge $450.00 for an original style horseshoe, I don't think they would. Lollar charges what he does because he can based on what it directly competes with (original 60's HS pickups). I think if RIC reintroduced original design HS pickups and charged say, $300.00, it would really put the hurt on Lollar prior to his upcoming legal battle, and further limit the amount of money he thinks he'll make if he continues his HS production. I do know of a couple people who are buying Lollar's HS's because they'd rather have that than the RIC version, even though it's more, so he is competing with RIC there too.

aceonbass wrote:

Grey wrote:Given the cost of genuine horseshoe pickups I really doubt a Rickenbacker-produced product would be much cheaper than the Lollar offering.

While RIC could certainly charge $450.00 for an original style horseshoe, I don't think they would. Lollar charges what he does because he can based on what it directly competes with (original 60's HS pickups). I think if RIC reintroduced original design HS pickups and charged say, $300.00, .

Lollar charges what he does because it's a very expensive pickup to make. If I recall correctly, well over $100 just for components. Those horseshoe magnets don't come cheap.