Looks like there was an Agile/EBMM lawsuit...

[pfindeis]

Counterfeit guitars my ass. Companies have been doing it forever.
If kurt can make some decent guitars and get away with it more power to him.
Isn't it about the same as when fender is going to sell the Blackie replica for $24,000.Yes they do hold patents but they are theives in my book.

Besides almost everthing you can purchase is a copy.Bought anything in walmart or kmart in the last 20 years?

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

Originally posted by pfindeis Counterfeit guitars my ass.

 

 

Nothing to do with counterfeiting. It's about copyright. EBMM "own" that headstock.......Kurt didn't ask them if he could sell guitars with the same shape in the same country, hence he quite rightly was "asked" not to do so. That was a foolish business decision.

[LeftyTom]

Originally posted by Kingsnake I belong to the JJ Pistols School of Inexpensive Guitars - there ain't a guitar in the world that should cost more than $200. Tell ya what - you spend all your money on so-called expensive guitars - I'll stick with what I know.

 

 

Kingsnake, you just jumped way up on my list of good peeps.

[pfindeis]

Originally posted by Ratae Coritanorum Nothing to do with counterfeiting. It's about copyright.

 

 

It's the same thing dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit

[datstrat]

Let's face it everybody copies everyone out there, it's the way of the world. Some seem to think it's unethical of Rondo to offer "copy" products. However, virtually all manufactures borrow/copy from others. Heck, you could make the argument that it is unethical for EBMM to include traditional humbucking style pickups on their guitars, as this is copying a Gibson design. It's hard to think of a manufacturer who hasn't borrowed from his competition is one way shape or form.

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

Originally posted by pfindeis It's the same thing dude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit

Nope!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

[Virgman]

I was fortunate enough to grab one of those Seg2's for $89.

Mine was a good one.

Anyone can see that it in no way resembles a real Axis.

Why the toggle and tone controls are reversed.

As for staying in tune, I back the adjustment screws all the way out and it's always in tune.

I just checked the TEAM Int. Co. website and the SEG2 is no longer listed:

http://www.teamintlco.com/SX/



And here's the manufacturer of Agile:

http://www.unsung.co.kr

[Save The Pine Weasel]

Originally posted by Kingsnake Yeah - I gues Ernie Ball & Co. doesn't have enough balls to go after the MANUFACTURER of the offender (China, of course) - they would rather go after an American retailer & then boast about it on their worthless website, so all their minions will praise them.

 

I doubt it's a matter of balls, it's a matter of laws. It may not be legally possible for them to go after the manufacturer.

[Z_Zoquis]

It seems to me that the idea of copywriting a shape is a bit loony and really more of a way for manufacturers to ensure they can get away with maximising profit margins. I mean, We're talking about guitars here. All that really matters is this - does my 1 or 2 thousand $ git make your 1 or 2 hundred $ git sound like a tin shoe box the way it rightfully ought to? If I'm a guitar manufacturer and I see some dude on the street corner selling a guitar that looks exactly like one of my designs only he's selling it for one tenth the cost, should I be concerned? Well, If I pick the fake up and look at it and play it and then say to myself "man, this is a pos. It sounds like ass and it's a mess to look at up close," then why would I care? Is the person who's going to buy that cheapie guitar really a potential customer for me and my cork-sniffer? Not very likely.

Otoh, if I pick up that knock-off and play it and say to myself "holy {censored}e man, this thing is nice! It sounds good and wow, I can't see a flaw on it physically," then I suppose I might be pretty concerned becuase then I might have people asking me uncomfortable questions like "hey, how come this guy can make a git almost as nice as yours for a tenth the price?"

Now if we were talking about a knock-off that looked exactly the same and was selling for 60 or 70% of the original's price, I'd have a real issue becuase then there'd be a more realistic possibility that I'd be losing potential customers to the fake. But when we're talking about these $200 knock-offs of $2000 guitars it seems silly to me...theres not much chance the guy buying the $200 cheapie would be shelling out for the $2000 axe if the knock-off weren't available....

[Guitarfetish]

As someone who has been in the crosshairs before let me shed a little light-

Every single product in the music industry is based upon the work of others- from the early works of Leo fender to modern Ibanez guitars.

Manufacturers got clever as their patents began to expire- remember- Fender had US Patents on the tele bridge, Strat Bridge and several other aspects of their early guitars- same with Gibson. When the patents expired the guitar "copy" industry was formed. (Hence the PAF- Patent Applied for pickup)

Clever lawyers realized that they could actually get a trademark on a non-functional aspect of the guitar- like the shape or arrangement of controls- as long as it's non-functional- lawyers call it "Fanciful". So A guitar with 6 inline tuning machines may be exactly like a Strat- but it has to be really confusingly similar- since the inline machines have a functional purpose-and have some additional meaning that would lead you to believe that it was a product of the trademark holder's company. Like you can rip off Rickenbackers tuner arrangement- but not ANY other aspect of the guitar- pickguard shape- truss rod cover shape- even pickup look- because they have protected every single bit and piece on those guitars. When you walk down the aisles of the Shanghai Music fair every booth has ten Rickenbackers for sale- not a good idea for an American company though!

The guitar everyone here was discussing clearly had a similar headstock shape to an instrument protected by a US Design Trademark, and the trademark holder had specific rights.

There's also an issue of "Trade Dress"- where the manufatcurer has NOT sought protection, but the mark is so clearly established in the marketplace that selling something that is confusingly similar is infringement. Like if you called your guitar "Pender" and had a similar logo- Clearly you're not using the US Trademarked "Fender" logo or their trademarked "F"- but you would create confusion in the marketplace.

If you copied a moderately known luthier for example, even if it was dead-on- you'd probably have a very good shot of defending yourself in court, since his mark is not well established in the marketplace, and in order to defend trade dress you need to prove a long and consistent pattern of advertisements, trade show appearances- clear steps you have taken to establish your brand and your product in the marketplace.

Exact "replicas" of ANY company's products that have been selling through dealers with artist endorsements and paid magazine ads, for DECADES is just not smart business. If the company holds a US Design Trademark or Patent- then it's suicide.

But that'swhy the big manufacturers troll hall "E" of the NAMM show- looking for up-and-coming new products that they can mooch off of- without having to pay royalties, since the non-protected products offered by small 2 man companies are fair game- Just the way it is...

[BlackHatHunter]

I gotta tell you... I see both sides of this issue.

As a content developer myself - I have written and published 20+ books - I understand the need to protect my work from others. After all, how is it fair for me to write a book, which takes many months of work, just to have some wahoo in China make a copy and sell it with their name on it? I think we can all agree that this sort of situation sucks the big one. It's my work, my time, my sweat and tears that went into this book. If someone is going to market it and profit from it, it should be me and no one else. If you want to sell my book, or use portions of it in your own book, then contact me and pay a licensing fee. Again, I see this as being only a fair business practice.

I have dealt with Kurt many times in the past, and he has always come across as a nice guy who saw a business opportunity and ran with it. I am not here to second-guess him in terms of whether he knew that this particular guitar was basically a violation of copryright infringement laws. I don't know, and no one else here does either, for that matter. Only Kurt knows.

Clearly, to me anyway, that guitar did consitute such a violation, and whether I respect Kurt and his business or not, it's pretty clear cut to me that this guitar should be removed from sale from that stand point alone. Again, not taking sides as much as looking at the law objectively, and finding that it matches "common sense" - in this case.

I don't see why EBMM should not be allowed to protect their intellectual property. I don't see why they should be seen as "the bad guy" because they wanted the law to be enforced.

I don't see Kurt as the bad guy either, though I must admit that this guitar was awful close to "the line."

I don't seee Kurt as a great guy because of the published apology. That's standard boiler-plate stuff. He did what he had to do to remediate a bad situation that was probably going to escalate into something very expensive and potentially ruinous, both from a PR perspective and a financial one.

Whether Kurt re-sells the guitars only, or whether he manufactures them, is irrelevant. To draw an admitedly unfair analogy, whether I cultivate and grow my own dope, or just resell it, is irrelevant as both activities are seen as unacceptable in the eye of the law - and rightly so, I might add.

I think that, with all the respect I have for him, Kurt made a bad business decision when he decided to resell that guitar. I think he made a smart business decision when EBMM basically sent him their standard cease and desist/threat letter and he decided to go along with their terms to make the whole thing go away.

There is a place in this industry for EBMM, Gibson, Fender and all the big ones. There is also a place for the Rondos of this world. Validating the existence and relevance of the former does not indict the relevance of the latter, and vice versa.

It's simple, really: there are rules, and whether we like it or not, those rules must be respected. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

Let me, for the sake of the argument, be the devil's advocate for a minute.

Let's imagine that Kurt had created a new design, and legally protected that design in such a fashion that no other guitar manufacturer could use it without Rondo's consent.

Let's pretend that EBMM had seen that design, and decided to create a guitar of their own using that same design.

Do you think for one second that Kurt would not have sent them a cease and desist? Of course he would have. And he would have been 100% justified in doing so.

Now be honest: for those of you who posted in this thread in defense of Kurt and blamed EBMM, would you have supported Kurt's strategy given the hypothetical situation I put forth? I bet you would have.

I have nothing against supporting Kurt and Rondo. Again, I have been vocal many times on this site and mine about the respect I have for Rondo. But in this particular situation, Rondo made a mistake and they had to pay for it. Simple.

[jjpistols]

Originally posted by Kingsnake I belong to the JJ Pistols School of Inexpensive Guitars - there ain't a guitar in the world that should cost more than $200.

 

 

 

I never said that - I just don't have lots of money to spend on expensive gear and can make inexpensive stuff work well for me

 

 

for the record, I think EBMM turns out some great stuff - local GC has a rosewood Axis that gives me a boner everytime I go in there

[fuzzy4dice]

Some really nice debating here. Just to further clarify my own position:

This has nothing to do with Kurt being a nice guy or whatever. Though I'm not really into them now, Agiles are nice guitars and Kurt has always been a friendly person to deal with. No one is disputing that.

This has to do with everyone convincing themselves that every friggin' guitar Rondo has ever distributed has been a total winner and that Kurt and Rondo and Agile and SX can do nothing negative. Ever.

The Cult of Rondo is Real.

[SpeedBallBlues]

Originally posted by jonny guitar Good for EBMM...if Gibson and Fender had done this early in the game they could of protected themselves more.

But then we wouldn't have all the great copy's we've got now.

 

And it's "could have" not "could of".

[SpeedBallBlues]

Originally posted by Kingsnake Oh really? Would you would rather spend $1000+ for the Ernie Ball name - or would you rather find someone that sells SX ({censored}, as you call it)guitars from Team International for 1/10 the price? I gig in my basemet & bedroom - a home noodler. Why the hell would I want to pay those bastards $1000 or more for one of their guitars when I can get one for a substantial discount? I belong to the JJ Pistols School of Inexpensive Guitars - there ain't a guitar in the world that should cost more than $200. Tell ya what - you spend all your money on so-called expensive guitars - I'll stick with what I know.

I cant imagine my USA Hamer Artist Custom being made for $200 bucks. Maybe a "model" of it that looks close, but not the woods, parts, build quality, and woody ringing tone that comes out of it.

 

I think the problem is that most gibsons are just "models" of what they used to be, yet they still charge the big bucks.

[Skilo885]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues But then we wouldn't have all the great copy's we've got now. And it's "could have" not "could of".

[Facejackets]

Originally posted by stacerdamen at least Kurt is 100+X friendlier than Ed Roman

 

 

 

Yeah but Kurt wasn't cutting off the SX headtock and glueing on EBMM headtocks in its place...

 

 

He has done it with Gibsons, he does it with Fenders, Jacksons, PRS and probably more.

 

 

I can't believe the crap I hear from ex-employees of his.

[Bmajor]

Sig

[ChrisGansz]

I belong to the JJ Pistols School of Inexpensive Guitars - there ain't a guitar in the world that should cost more than $200.

Yep - I agree - but I also do have my share of Gibsons and Fenders.

[SlayerofShadows]

Originally posted by SpeedBallBlues But then we wouldn't have all the great copy's we've got now. And it's "could have" not "could of".

 

 

 

Kind of like how it's "copies" not "copy's"?

[TheMadMonk]

Originally posted by fuzzy4dice This has to do with everyone convincing themselves that every friggin' guitar Rondo has ever distributed has been a total winner and that Kurt and Rondo and Agile and SX can do nothing negative. Ever. The Cult of Rondo is Real.

 

 

Bit of a hyperbole there, don't you think?

 

It could also be said that there are plenty of people who are in the Cult of Anti-Rondo, and will speak badly about them every chance they get, even if they have never dealt with them, nor touched a guitar from them.