Rondo's got an MM copy!

[james on bass]

 

Is that directed at me? I guess you don't consider "medical doctor" and "professor of medicine" to be real jobs. Incidentally, don't we have forum rules in place to discourage 12 year olds from making insulting (and non-contributory) posts around here? Emre

 

 

I presume by "real job", Johnny was referring to his own dual professions of a paper route and 12 hours a week at McDonalds.

[LanEvo]

Well, it looks like Rondo has pulled the bass from their website already. I guess we can all thank our very own syciprider for blowing the whistle...

 

http://www.ernieball.com/forums/music-man-basses/28694-rondo-selling-ray-copies-again.html

 

Thanks, syciprider, for defending EB's honor (and profit margins)

 

Emre

[t3ch]

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah that's damn funny!!!!!!!!! Get a real job, save some real money, and get a real one...............................................................................

 

 

Seriously?

 

I wish someone would invent a device that allows you to slap people through the internet already.

[t3ch]

 

Well, it looks like Rondo has pulled the bass from their website already. I guess we can all thank our very own syciprider for blowing the whistle... http://www.ernieball.com/forums/music-man-basses/28694-rondo-selling-ray-copies-again.html Thanks, syciprider, for defending EB's honor (and profit margins). Emre

 

 

What a bunch of nitwits. God I hate cocky, uppity {censored}asses.

 

"LOL, NOOB. IF YOU CAN'T BUY A $1500 BASS YOU DONT DESERVE TO PLAY AT ALL, LMFAO WTF IT'S KNOBS AREN'T MADE OUT OF PLATINUm!!!1!"

[Undead Sycip]

 

What a bunch of nitwits. God I hate cocky, uppity {censored}asses. "LOL, NOOB. IF YOU CAN'T BUY A $1500 BASS YOU DONT DESERVE TO PLAY AT ALL, LMFAO WTF IT'S KNOBS AREN'T MADE OUT OF PLATINUm!!!1!"

 

 

Nobody is saying that. You can buy an inexpensive bass, but you ain't getting an unlicensed copy of an EBMM.

[L-1329]

They built me a Dargie after the dealer I ordered it from secretly used the money to fund a habit (and never ordered the bass). I EBMM.

 

Whoa, no kidding!? That's pretty cool on them, gotta love a company that will help their end customers in spite of lousy dealer's.

[Undead Sycip]

Yup. A dealer whose name suggests that they specialize in old basses.

[Robin]

What a bunch of nitwits....

 

Ridiculous isn't it?!

 

Yeah, shame on Rondo for supplying countless thousands (myself included) with inexpensive basses and providing some inspiration for future and current bassists whom maybe otherwise would have a tough time getting into a $500+ bass.

 

 

What were they thinking?

[Poltergeist]

i want one

[Undead Sycip]

Ridiculous isn't it?! Yeah, shame on Rondo for supplying countless thousands (myself included) with inexpensive basses and providing some inspiration for future and current bassists whom maybe otherwise would have a tough time getting into a $500+ bass. What were they thinking?

 

There there.

 

You can still get the J and P bass copies

 

I got an idea. You make your music, release an album and I will record and sell my covers of your work and not give you a cent nor credit for them.

[brake]

Ridiculous isn't it?! Yeah, shame on Rondo for supplying countless thousands (myself included) with inexpensive basses and providing some inspiration for future and current bassists whom maybe otherwise would have a tough time getting into a $500+ bass. What were they thinking?

 

 

 

A good number of the people on the EBMM forum that post about the basses work for the company and/or are personal friends with most of the staff. They are trying to protect something that is theirs. I think they were probably thinking "Hey, that's our design and it's even made to look like our basses for a 10th of the price...somethings not right here".

 

 

If Kia started selling cheap Cadillac copies, what do you think Cadillac would (be well within their rights to) do?

[LanEvo]

 

I got an idea. You make your music, release an album and I will record and sell my covers of your work and not give you a cent nor credit for them.

Let's ignore the fact that Leo Fender himself designed these instruments for MM as a "silent partner" in violation of his non-compete agreement with CBS after he sold them Fender.

 

We should also ignore the fact that they were designed in the 1970's, so the patents should have long since expired and the designs should long ago have entered public domain.

 

People who cripe about "intellectual property violations" should remember that the whole point of copyright laws was to encourage competition and to introduce new products into the public domain. This was done by protecting novel designs for the short term. Companies and individual inventors were given a 7 year window to recover their R&D costs. After that, it's fair game.

 

By extending patents to 30+ years, you have the exact opposite effect: the formation of monopolies in the marketplace. This is exactly what copyright laws were designed to prevent. Why do you think EB can charge $1500 for what should be a $600 bass that probably costs $100 to produce?

 

Emre

[Undead Sycip]

Let's ignore the fact that Leo Fender himself designed these instruments for MM as a "silent partner" in violation of his non-compete agreement with CBS after he sold them Fender. We should also ignore the fact that they were designed in the 1970's, so the patents should have long since expired and the designs should long ago have entered public domain. People who cripe about "intellectual property violations" should remember that the whole point of copyright laws was to encourage competition and to introduce new products into the public domain. This was done by protecting novel designs for the short term . Companies and individual inventors were given a 7 year window to recover their R&D costs. By extending patents to 30+ years, you have the opposite effect: the formation of monopolies in the marketplace. Emre

 

Let's ignore the fact that Leo Fender has nothing to do with today's EBMM anymore.

 

Let's ignore the fact that, public domain or not, Rondo was successfully sued in the last go around (they settled)

 

Let's ignore the fact that we are not talking about intellectual property here.

 

And let's ignore the fact that EBMM is not a monopoly.

 

The ONLY issue here is the 3+1 headstock design. Rondo can offer a Stingray looking bass with 2+2 tuners (like Jay Turser does) and they will be fine. No one is squashing the little guy.

[Zebra]

I feel bad for Kurt. I remember reading something on TB that he had posted that gave me the impression he didn't know much about basses. I may be entirely wrong.

As I remember it, though, he said something of the nature that implied he didn't know the difference between a J and a P.

[L-1329]

 

I feel bad for Kurt.

 

 

I don't. Not even one bit.

[Zebra]

 

I don't. Not even one bit.

 

 

The reason I was getting at-- and I may be way off, I know-- is that maybe, just maybe he doesn't actually know any better.

It looks like the MM's been removed already, too.

[LanEvo]

 

The ONLY issue here is the 3+1 headstock design.

If that's not an I.P. issue then what is it?

 

Look, EB isn't the only one guity of this. Our copyright laws have been misused for years now. They now serve to maintain monopolies in the market rather than making innovations available to the masses. This is exactly the opposite of what the copyright system was specifically designed to do.

 

Emre

[i_wanna_les_paul]

The reason I was getting at-- and I may be way off, I know-- is that maybe, just maybe he doesn't actually know any better. It looks like the MM's been removed already, too.

If you're going to be in business, you need to know your market and your product. If you don't know anything, you hire someone who does. If you don't know the legal end, you hire a lawyer.Ignorance in the end, equals stupidity.$.02Dustin

[Undead Sycip]

I doubt it Zebra. He was sued for the SX versions of these SR rip offs before and he settled.

[L-1329]

The reason I was getting at-- and I may be way off, I know-- is that maybe, just maybe he doesn't actually know any better. It looks like the MM's been removed already, too.

 

He knows better.

 

 

My biggest beef with these companies is that the world doesn't need any more stinkin' Fender clones! Every time someone breaks out a batch of these things there's another lost opportunity for someone to design and introduce a great new original bass. That's one thing I absolutely love about the EBMM Bongo, it's so unique, bold, and shows that EBMM at least isn't locked in a choke hold to 50 years ago. If patents are meant to protect and inspire originality, they should never expire and cover more things. There's no way a SX should be not considered a knockoff just because of a slightly different headstock. Same goes for the Sadowsky's and Lull's. Build your own stuff!!

[Zebra]

 

I doubt it Zebra. He was sued for the SX versions of these SR rip offs before and he settled.

 

 

That's what makes me think so. I mean, if he knew what he was doing, then what was he thinking? I'm not saying it's definite. I'm not saying he's gonna get away with it, either, but merely a possible explanation that he's just kinda clueless.

[Undead Sycip]

 

If that's not an I.P. issue then what is it? Look, EB isn't the only one guity of this. Our copyright laws have been misused for years now. They now serve to maintain monopolies in the market rather than making innovations available to the masses. This is exactly the opposite of what the copyright system was specifically designed to do. Emre

 

 

 

Guilty? Whoah, all of a sudden it's morally bankrupt to defend something that you derive your livelihood from? How about maybe EBMM (and Rickenbacker) were paying attention to what happened to the P and J bass designs?

 

And what innovation does the Douglas rip off make available to the masses? I can see how a Lakland or a Sadowsky can be viewed as an innovation. But a passive SR lookalike is hardly a step forward.

[LanEvo]

 

If patents are meant to protect and inspire originality, they should never expire and cover more things.

That's not at all what patents are meant to do. Originality has nothing to do with it.

 

Patents are designed to facilitate the entry of products into the public domain. If you come up with a good idea (like a novel way to reduce the weight of a headstock by moving one of the tuners), then you have 17 years of monopoly on the design. If it sells well and people like it, then it establishes a new standard of excellence and other players are allowed to enter the market and produce lower priced, "mass produced" versions.

 

That's what copyright laws are meant to do. Not make people rich. Not give one commercial interest a life-long monopoly on a good design.

 

Emre

[LanEvo]

 

And what innovation does the Douglas rip off make available to the masses? I can see how a Lakland or a Sadowsky can be viewed as an innovation. But a passive SR lookalike is hardly a step forward.

Again, "innovation" has nothing to do with copyright laws. That's not why we have them.

 

If copyright laws were doing their job in this case, we would see many companies offering mass-produced versions of this supposedly "superior" design. That would drive prices down and allow many more people to benefit from the superior design. Stingrays should be either selling for $600 or offer much better quality (or something similar) so that they command an appropriately high price in the market. That's how the free-market economy works.

 

Emre

[Undead Sycip]

 

That's not at all what patents are meant to do. Originality has nothing to do with it. Patents are designed to facilitate the entry of products into the public domain. If you come up with a good idea (like a novel way to reduce the weight of a headstock by moving one of the tuners), then you have 7 years of monopoly on the design. If it sells well and people like it, then it establishes a new standard of excellence and other players are allowed to enter the market and produce lower priced, "mass produced" versions. That's what copyright laws are meant to do. Not make people rich. Not give one commercial interest a life-long monopoly on a good design. Emre

 

 

I think patents apply to inventions and trademarks apply to things that make a product standout. And trademarks are good as long as the company vigorously defends them (the 3+1 headstock sets MM apart like the ribbon logo sets Coke apart).