Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[hippietim]

Re: Gibson is doing their part...

Here's the thing, most of these small companies have been riding on Fender and Gibson's successes without too many of their own innovations - heck, half of these guys cut their teet AT Fender or Gibson. So the free ride is over - big whoop. Now they actually have to design an original guitar. Rather than pity these guys you should be excited - maybe we'll get some new $@@#$@$ body shapes again.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]
YAO ~ your "logic" is not valid, nor is your analogy of a burglar. Fender has decided 50 years later to use huge corporate muscle to bully small builders out of building guitar models they have been using for years and years, building successful small businesses by hard work and word of mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You pretty much make my point with that last sentence. It's a nice emotional appeal in the best David v. Goliath mold but that's really all it is. If customers want "Strats" then some percentage of the folks who bought knockoff Strats from Lentz would've bought from FMIC if they were the only provider in the market. Thus every sale by a builder turning out knockoffs of FMIC's designs does take money right out of FMIC's pocket just as surely as the burglar walking out your front door with your favorite axe is taking money out of yours. No difference there at all.

[ QUOTE ]
The current corporate entity of FMIC had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with designing these guitar body styles. NOTHING! Leo Fender, Bill Carson, George Fullerton and others can validly make that claim, but not the existing FMIC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please, that's just silly. Suppose Microsoft bought Intel. Would AMD then be free to use all of the former Intel's intellectual property just because, "The current corporate entity of [a Microsoft-owned Intel] had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with designing [the former Intel's intellectual property]! Nothing!"? Silly argument isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
And that's why they're going after the small guys - builders that cannot afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees a court fight would cost on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what's wrong with that? Misappropriation on a small scale is just as wrong as misappropriation on a large scale. Lentz and others like him are leeches who've attached themselves to the body of a larger and more successful competitor and have achieved some modicum of success in doing so. But they achieve success in part (perhaps in large part) because the larger and more successful competitor has spent many millions of dollars promoting & popularizing the designs they're knocking off. Lentz el al. are merely trading on the hard-won goodwill that their larger competitor has earned in the marketplace, without that goodwill (e.g., if forced to come up with their own designs) these small builders would likely be far less successful. Lentz and others like him are classic free riders and their free ride costs their competitor money.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see Fender tackle someone like G&L or Samick - someone with a sufficiently vested interest who will fight them in court! I would bet that Fender will not find a court to support these claims, but until someone can afford to challenge them, they'll get away with crap like this, and have toady little corporate apologists claim that all they're doing is "protecting their interests" - like the largest domestic guitar manufacturer in North America (second largest in the world?) has to crush some guy that builds fewer guitars in a YEAR than Fender does in a DAY to "protect their interests"? What a complete crock...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you understood even the fundamentals of the relevant law you'd understand why FMIC (or any entity in a similar position) must act to protect their rights or face losing those rights or being unable to enforce them in the future. That much is extremely clear. If you don't like the fact that lawyers charge for their services why don't you quit whatever it is you do for a living, get a JD, then work for free (or for minimum wage, or for whatever you think legal services should cost) fighting the good fight for the little guy? Nobody's stopping you.

Fact is that Lentz made an economic decision to not fight this. If it were worth it to him he'd have made a different decision. Or maybe he just knew that his position was a loser. Who knows. But I do know little guys who've taken on larger corporations than FMIC and won. Heck, it happens every single day in this country.

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, since when is that kind of behaviour "right" or "proper". Even if Fender could defend their bullying tactics in a court room (and I don't for a minute believe that they would be able to), the Law is a legal tool of measure, not a moral one. I don't want to deal with companies that behave in a manner I would not accept from my children. That's my choice and I stick to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't dispute your choice to not purchase FMIC products as a protest and I hope no one else here would either. Quite to the contrary, I applaud your convictions. By all means: boycott companies whose actions you don't like, set up your own web site to inform others about such things, circulate petitions, organize mass sell-offs & boycotts of products, start a legal defense fund for small builders, find attorneys to take these cases pro bono, lobby your congressmen to change the laws you don't like, (best of all IMHO) start your own straw-man corporation and sell knockoffs until you get your own chance to prove your theory in court, or do something else entirely. But I'll stick with my assertion that protecting one's property is a right and proper action. In this case it's about as immoral as peeling a leech off of your ass.

[RP]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

If you understood even the fundamentals of the relevant law you'd understand why FMIC (or any entity in a similar position) must act to protect their rights or face losing those rights or being unable to enforce them in the future. That much is extremely clear.

This is the problem area, though. After fifty years of not protecting whatever rights they might have had, they should surely have lost whatever protections they had.

If they had been enforcing their rights from the beginning, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's retroactive enforcement when they should no longer have the right that bothers me.

[tonemonster]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[img]/images/graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]
WOW is this an entertianing thread [img]/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif[/img] I love it.

Talk about a "grey" area!!!!

I think anyone has a right to protect their designs, but only if they were properly copyrighted when they were introduced to the market. A company trying to do that 50 years after they have been in the market with that product is a different story in my opinion.
I wonder how this would really play out in a court of law [img]/images/graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img] given the large time frame?? This is one hell of a good question. we have had a ton of opinions about this with respect to morals. but my question is is there anyone on the board that has some real knowledge of law that can offer their opinion of how valid this issue is 50 years after the product was introduced to the market? [img]/images/graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

I agree that "retroactive" enforcement isnt right. If the design was properly copyrighted from the beginning OR if they would have legally pursued builders copying their designs from the beginning and set strond precedent, then its fine and I would agreee with it. But 50 years later after tons of companies have been able to build copies and sell them.... [img]/images/graemlins/bs.gif[/img]

It seems this country is overflowing with lawsuits...its sad. I am all for the small businessman. I dont like "nazi like" big business tactics trying to push out their competitors just by their legal power. not cool or healthy for the ecomony on any scale. competition is very important in business. Things are going bad...... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Firebird V]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

The only way we will know if it is all legal is if someone stands up that gets a cease and desist order and goes to court against Fender/Gibson. Deep pockets.... That is what scares everyone away.

[shreddermon]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

AFAIK, Fender didn't start to actively protect the trademark on the strathead until the 80s or so. Maybe late 70s. So that would've been 25 or 30 years after it was first introduced.

...Where do you draw the line? 25 or 30 years later is OK, but 50 isn't? Total grey area.

And, geee... Do you think that it's merely a coincidence that Fender and Gibson are - at the same time - getting legally proactive with protecting "their" body styles? And how about the "gentleman's agreement" to not make each other's body styles?

I'm sure that, from their perspectives, they believe they need to protect their designs and trademarks, and that these actions are in the best interests of their respective companies. But I really think the lawyers are being given a litle too much leeway on strategy, and this overly pro-active approach is alientating some buyers.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem area, though. After fifty years of not protecting whatever rights they might have had, they should surely have lost whatever protections they had.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe & maybe not but I don't think that any of us (aside from the FMIC folks who might happen by) could really claim to know exactly what FMIC has done WRT their rights over the years.

FMIC is trying to do what Gibson did several years ago in seeking trademark registration for the Strat & Tele body shapes. Unfortunately (for FMIC & unlike Gibson) they're doing so at a time when their industry has become far more savvy to this sort of thing (probably due to Gibson's success) and as a result their registrations are being opposed by a whole bunch of people. FMIC clearly is facing an uphill battle but I wouldn't bet more than I could afford to lose on the probable outcome.

[RP]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK, Fender didn't start to actively protect the trademark on the strathead until the 80s or so. Maybe late 70s. So that would've been 25 or 30 years after it was first introduced.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't have supported the efforts 25 or 30 years after the fact, either. I just didn't have this message board (or the typing skills, really) to publically oppose it back then.

If I made a movie in 1955 and didn't apply for proper copyright protection, I would've lost the rights to it long ago. A trademark is a different animal, of course, but I don't know why Fender should get more protection than I would have creating something at the same time and putting forth the same effort to protect it.

I'm sure the current owners of the RKO Pictures catalog would love to profit from 'It's a Wonderful Life' these days, but since they didn't follow the proper procedures, they no longer own the rights to it.

[yard dawg]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

Im just gonna buy "used " guitars now..at least untill all this power trippin is thru ..Then I'll look around see if there are any little guys left after the dust settles..

[LarryL]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK, Fender didn't start to actively protect the trademark on the strathead until the 80s or so. Maybe late 70s. So that would've been 25 or 30 years after it was first introduced.

...Where do you draw the line? 25 or 30 years later is OK, but 50 isn't? Total grey area.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually not that much of a grey area. It's just fairly confusing to us normal people that aren't very interested in patent / trademark / copyright law.

Fender never bothered to TM the Strat & Tele shapes. They hold common law trademarks that may or may not still be valid. They will find out whether or not they get "official" TM protection based on the current proceedings. If they didn't properly defend the trademark (the assumed common law one) they will lose. As for not defending it in the past, I'm sure their lawyers will claim that there was considerable legal activity (or threats) through the years that didn't make headlines. It will be up to the Lentzs in the business to prove to an appeal board that the shapes have become generic due to a lack of enforcement by Fender. We'll see who has the best lawyers.

As for the people bashing Gibson and Fender for being heavy handed, remind me to not write them a recommendation if they ever decide to look for a CEO position at a company. Fender is privately held and there is speculation of a public offering. If they can secure trademarks on these body shapes and shut down the knockoff shops the company would likely be much more attractive to investors.

[LarryL]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]

If I made a movie in 1955 and didn't apply for proper copyright protection, I would've lost the rights to it long ago. A trademark is a different animal, of course, but I don't know why Fender should get more protection than I would have creating something at the same time and putting forth the same effort to protect it.

I'm sure the current owners of the RKO Pictures catalog would love to profit from 'It's a Wonderful Life' these days, but since they didn't follow the proper procedures, they no longer own the rights to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copyrights are automatic on a creative work, even if you don't apply for one. They typically last 50 years on movies so you'd still have a year left on your film made in 1955.

To a lesser degree the same applies to trademarks. If you developed a unique guitar design and had been producing it for 25 years, you could sue me if I started producing that design today (even if you didn't TM the design along the way). If I could prove that it was a generic design that many people used over the years without you defending it then you would lose. Chances are I would stop making the guitar once I got your cease & desist order.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]
Copyrights are automatic on a creative work, even if you don't apply for one. They typically last 50 years on movies so you'd still have a year left on your film made in 1955.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern (c) terms for works (any type of copyrightable works) created on or after 01 Jan '78 are life of the author + 70 years for human authors, or date of creation + 120 years or date of publication + 95 years (whichever is shorter) for all anonymous/pseudonymous/corporate authors.

For works created earlier, determining the remaining term is complicated and depends on the original date of creation, whether the copyright was properly renewed, whether the work was "published" before 01/01/78, whether it was published before 12/31/02, whether any pre-'78 publication was properly noticed, etc. The possible results of such an analysis include terms: running through 12/31/02, running through 12/31/2047, of 28 years + 1 renewal term of 67 years, of 95 years from first (c) registration, or having expired and fallen into the public domain.

[Mister Zero]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

Had Fender vigourously defended their trademarks from day 1, I would have no problems w/ the current actions. However they are now pulling the rug out from under builders who have been allowed to use those body shapes for 50+ years. I feel sorry for Lentz, he builds a great guitar.

[LarryL]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Copyrights are automatic on a creative work, even if you don't apply for one. They typically last 50 years on movies so you'd still have a year left on your film made in 1955.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern (c) terms for works (any type of copyrightable works) created on or after 01 Jan '78 are life of the author + 70 years for human authors, or date of creation + 120 years or date of publication + 95 years (whichever is shorter) for all anonymous/pseudonymous/corporate authors.

For works created earlier, determining the remaining term is complicated and depends on the original date of creation, whether the copyright was properly renewed, whether the work was "published" before 01/01/78, whether it was published before 12/31/02, whether any pre-'78 publication was properly noticed, etc. The possible results of such an analysis include terms: running through 12/31/02, running through 12/31/2047, of 28 years + 1 renewal term of 67 years, of 95 years from first (c) registration, or having expired and fallen into the public domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are numerous specific items that can be copyrighted for varying durations. This also varies by country. A copyright on a film lasts for 50 years.

Patents and copyrights have nothing to do with the Fender issue. A Google search on trademark law will make it pretty clear why they are pursuing it. It's definitely in their best interest. As of now, none of us know to what extent they have tried to protect their designs or whether they deserve the TM protection.

[hippietim]

Re: Fender tells Lentz to Cease and Desist...

[ QUOTE ]
Had Fender vigourously defended their trademarks from day 1, I would have no problems w/ the current actions. However they are now pulling the rug out from under builders who have been allowed to use those body shapes for 50+ years. I feel sorry for Lentz, he builds a great guitar.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have to stop building great guitars, he just has to design his own body style. What's so bad about that?