Gentleman's Agreement?

[ralph]

Since Fender bought Jackson/Charvel a decade or so ago, no more Gibson shapes have been produced with Jackson/Charvel logos on the headstock. Due to the Gentleman's agreement between Gibson and Fender to not copy each others shapes.

I understand why this is the case.

What I don't understand is why the Kramer superstrats made by Gibson (barretta's etc) do not fall into this catagory? I.e. how is a Kramer superstrat less of a copy of a Strat than a Jackson Firebird is of a Gibson FB:think:

Am i missing something bleedingly obvious here? or do i have a valid point?

let me know your thoughts

(P.s. if there is a thread related to this let me know, I couldnt find one while searching)

Cheers

[Axewielder]

I'd say it has to do with the fact that Kramer is a sub-brand with much smaller sales. Keep in mind Fender owns Hamer now, and is stamping out Flying V's and Explorers.

[MetalHeadMat]

... and is stamping out Flying V's and Explorers.

.... Seriously?

[ralph]

I'd say it has to do with the fact that Kramer is a sub-brand with much smaller sales. Keep in mind Fender owns Hamer now, and is stamping out Flying V's and Explorers.

Oh. ok, but i didnt think there were massive amounts of Jackson firebirds or explorers etc. being made

[shreddermon]

With recent court decisions, the "Gentlemen's Agreement" no longer has any legal basis or justification. You cannot legally trademark these older body styles (Gibson's and Fender's) and, therefore, they are open to the public domain for production by any manufacturer.

In fact, one could make a strong legal argument that, by continuing to enforce this handshake "don't compete" agreement on body styles against each other, FMIC and Gibson are colluding to manipulate their strong dominance of the guitar market against competition by other manufacturers. That would be illegal and subject to anti-trust actions.

I would suspect that - since the recent court decisions - continuing this colluding behavoir now presents a serious legal and financial risk to both FMIC and Gibson. Their legal staff and/or advisors should wake up and smell the coffee about the much greater downside risk this now presents to these firms, and discontinue these practices ASAP.

Then again, I'm not even sure why FMIC continues to honor their side of the gentlemen's agreement, when Gibson pulls stunts like this one...

http://www.premierguitar.com/magazine/Issue/Daily/News/Gibson_Unveils_Strat_Style_Jimi_Hendrix_Signature_Line.aspx

[shreddermon]

I'd say it has to do with the fact that Kramer is a sub-brand with much smaller sales. Keep in mind Fender owns Hamer now, and is stamping out Flying V's and Explorers.

These pretty much have nothing to do with it. How many Explorers and Roundhorn Vs do you think Jackson has made through the years? A hell of a lot less than Kramer has made Strat-like bodies. The Jackson production of Gibby body styles has been almost non-existent. It essentially amounts to a small handful of custom shop orders through the years, and the old RR polka dot V run.

Also, IIRC, Hamer had a licensing agreement with Gibson to produce these body styles that well pre-dated FMIC's purchase of the brand. Not sure how long that will last.

[Newc]

The whole point of a Gentlemen's Agreement is that while the conditions are not a genuine legal matter (i.e. Copyright/Trademark/etc), it's more about 2 entities having the financial means to wage all out war against each other to the detriment of both.

I don't see Jackson Firebird sales being a serious threat to Gibson's Firebird sales - that's a niche body style for either brand that's focused primarily on fans of a given artist associated with that body (Johnny Winter and some other Blues legends for Gibson, and Robbin Crosby for Jackson).

However, the roundhorn V is another matter entirely.

While Gibson never had many V artists (at least not enough to drive massive sales ala SG/Les Paul), the ones they've had were huge - Michael Schenker, for one.
His legacy is carved in stone, as is his black/white Gibson V.

Does Albert King's legacy drive many sales? Maybe, to A.K. fans.

Then you've got these kid's movies like Rock Camp or whatever and Deathklok where Gibson has prominent product placement going. If another brand were allowed to replicate their "traditional" shapes, that opens up these markets to more serious competition.

While Jackson is not financially able to compete directly with Gibson on that front, FMIC could very well contract Jackson's builders to make them under the Fender logo (inverse of the Charvel Production models).


I do think Gibson could ease up on the restrictions and allow Custom Shop orders, however, that requires some sort of allowance towards Gibson, and what does Jackson have that Gibson would want?

Certainly you'd have to keep it brand-for-brand; you couldn't say "Jackson can build Gibsons but Gibson gets to build Gretches". However, a deal could be struck where Gretsch could build Les Paul shapes and Gibson could build the White Falcon.

[excon]

It seems corporations can get away with anything these days. After the court decided against the Gibson/FMIC body shape monopoly I was ready to order some Jackson custom shop guitars, but it seems the ban still has not been lifted, so it stands to reason that Gibson and FMIC are going to continue to fight for the rights to their body shapes. If they win they will establish a guitar shape monopoly and they will make a fortune, and it will be guitar buyers that will pay for it both financially and with the loss of their freedom to choose.

[Newc]

There's no ban! It's an agreement between Fender and Gibson to not build each others' shapes.

[Rsmacker]

Since when has a "gentleman's agreement" meant anything in business? Never, unless you are talking about establishing a cartel. Fuck 'em, business is business, dog eat dog.

That said, I don't particularly want to see Jackson churning out Firebirds after signing up some teeny-bop Heavy Metal prick to promote them, it's the only body shape I'm actively pursuing by Jackson now (perhaps because of its scarcity?). I once felt the same about the Kelly before it became Toy of the Week; now it should be called the Jackson Clitoris - every cunt has got one.
But, like I said, if they thought they could sell loads of 'birds.......well, business is business.

[excon]

There's no ban! It's an agreement between Fender and Gibson to not build each others' shapes.

I was referring to FMIC's self imposed ban on Gibson shapes.

[excon]

[QUOTE=Rsmacker;1369329]Since when has a "gentleman's agreement" meant anything in business? Never, unless you are talking about establishing a cartel. Fuck 'em, business is business, dog eat dog.


I don't have a problem with people doing business. However, propbems arise when corporations start conspiring to screw everyone over. Competition is one of the few benefits consumers have under the capitalist system.

[Jack Napalm]

Its my understanding that this gentleman's agreement is more a hold over from the companies 'back in the day'. That there is no agreement and if they wanted to they could and would make any guitar shape they want. This is from many discussions with various FMIC over the last few years. There are reasons that certain shapes are not made but it has nothing to do with a gentleman's agreement. All this talk is speculation and nothing is fact based.

[shreddermon]

Of course not. If they talked about it openly, they would be acknowledging the fact. And that would be a potential admission of guilt as to illegality. They know that, at best, this is of questionable legality. At worst, it could be a large financial and legal risk. Conspiring to manipulate markets is something the Feds do not take lightly. By their own legal necessity, they have to disavow the concept. Nixon's folks used to call it "plausable deniability".

[RacerX]

Hmmm, so that explains all the secrecy when I was talking to Jackson guys on the factory tour last year. I was assured a Firebird was a sure thing, through the Custom Shop at least.