IceCreamMan
TGF wrote:
beardedmoose wrote:
TGF wrote:
IceCreamMan wrote:
TGF wrote:
I just have one problem.
If Toyota builds a car that looks identical to a Lamborghini in every way possible, shape, design, cosmetics, but its still a Toyota with badges and all. Would that be ok? I dont think so. Is it happening. No.
Toyato 86 and Subaru wrx.....
just being facetious hey ?
Lol
Everyone knows that Tokai's are not Fake. That would be illegal and Tokai would not have been able to trade. Thats not the problem allot of people have.
People get annoyed because Tokai copied. Thats it.
Is there even an original design by Tokai?
Tokai Talbo. Original Design.
Everyone is replicating at some point ... its the craftmanship that matters at the end of the day.
DAMN!!!
No wonder they copy!
haha ... but to answer yr question ,Tokai have made an original
studmissile
Are there any other musicians who don't like Tokais? ....besides the lone guitarist behind the grassy knoll?
warrenpridgeon
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
TGF wrote:
Gibson and Fender fans will defend Gibson and Fender. Tokai fans will defend Tokai's.
That's very true.
Why didnt Tokai design their own guitars, like PRS, Gretsch, etc. Respectable and ORIGINAL guitar makers.
They do. The Tokai Talbo has always been one of my all time design favourites (alongside the like of Steinberger, Parker and Klein).
I've never read any thread on any forum where people were debating if a PRS or a Gretsch is a fake Gibson or Fender.
You weren't around when Big G were suing PRS over the Singlecut then?
Look, the whole question was are Tokais counterfeits or not. That has already been answered.
What few seem to realise is that Gibson are in the process of trying to shut Tokai's distribution down and getting a favourable ruling, stating that the LP, 335 and other body shapes are copyrighted or trademarked in SA will affect the distribution of
every LP-alike in the country and will likely be used to spearhead getting similar rulings globally (which they have already failed at before - they are just trying to do an end run around it this time). And then G will be the only company free to manufacture guitars anything like those models, charge whatever they want for them.
And sorry, but they gave up that right by never copyrighting the designs in the first place (even if they had, I think they would have expired by now), and allowing other manufacturers to build those shapes over the last 5 decades. The
legal facts is that by not copyrighting the design and not defending said copyright against imitators, they lost the right to do so now.
The simple fact is, they know they cannot compete unless they have a monopoly, and given their recent history and "like it or lump it" attitude to consumers, a monopoly would the worst possible thing as far as we consumers go. You don't see Fender, with their thousands of imitators struggling do you?
I don't even like Les Pauls or 335s myself, but I'd be stupid not to see that allowing G to get away with this latest dick move would be a bad thing for the industry.
ALAN!
Nice to see you ?
Big G is just scared ?
studmissile
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
What few seem to realise is that Gibson are in the process of trying to shut Tokai's distribution down and getting a favourable ruling, stating that the LP, 335 and other body shapes are copyrighted or trademarked in SA will affect the distribution of every LP-alike in the country and will likely be used to spearhead getting similar rulings globally (which they have already failed at before - they are just trying to do an end run around it this time). And then G will be the only company free to manufacture guitars anything like those models, charge whatever they want for them.
And sorry, but they gave up that right by never copyrighting the designs in the first place (even if they had, I think they would have expired by now), and allowing other manufacturers to build those shapes over the last 5 decades. The legal facts is that by not copyrighting the design and not defending said copyright against imitators, they lost the right to do so now.
The simple fact is, they know they cannot compete unless they have a monopoly, and given their recent history and "like it or lump it" attitude to consumers, a monopoly would the worst possible thing as far as we consumers go. You don't see Fender, with their thousands of imitators struggling do you?
I don't even like Les Pauls or 335s myself, but I'd be stupid not to see that allowing G to get away with this latest dick move would be a bad thing for the industry.
Ah ha, makes sense now! Thanks Alan......Damn I do miss you!
proze
Hang on, if the original shapes were never copyrighted, how were Ibanez copies banned in the US?
peterleroux
proze wrote:
Hang on, if the original shapes were never copyrighted, how were Ibanez copies banned in the US?
They weren't.
Ibanez settled out of court, agreeing voluntarily to change their headstocks..
proze
peterleroux wrote:
proze wrote:
Hang on, if the original shapes were never copyrighted, how were Ibanez copies banned in the US?
They weren't.
Ibanez settled out of court, agreeing voluntarily to change their headstocks..
Thanks for the link. UK-destined Tokais have the dimpled headstock. I wonder if that's for the same reason.
studmissile
Joe Moore wrote:
These 'Sanchez' branded copies below, of Lp's and Strats are available at any of the 152 branches of Cash Crusaders in Southern Africa . They are imho , shockingly built and are not even worth the masonite , chipboard they are probably made of ? lol . They are not counterfeits either , they are also just very badly made copies.
Yeah but they don't play as nice as Gibsons? ....sometimes even better! The recent lawsuits are PRS and Tokai, those two are real threats in quality and playability.
Wizard
Some business models favour innovation. Others favour mastery.
Both are valid.
From a player's perspective it is surely highly desirable for someone to be aiming at higher quality at a lower price with complete honesty.
What part of that can possibly be bad???
Wizard
The label, headstock shape and body shape are probably the 3 things that affect the tone least. Other than perhaps colour. And they cause all this fuss.
The really important tone stuff like nuts, bridges, strings, pickups etc seem to escape this copycat sensitivity.
Do you want to look at the guitar? Or play it?
Rabbit
The big guitar companies are not in the business of innovating, they are in the business of manufacturing products developed decades before I was born (and I am nearly 40) with minimal changes to their production processes. How many other industries would survive on this model?
The only way such companies can survive is through branding, IP, higher quality, lower price or eliminating the competition.
IP consists of things like patents, copyrights and trademarks. Patents are only valid for 20 years, so any patents on those designs would have expired in the 1980s at the very latest. The main technical innovations in guitar designs have thus been in the public domain for ages. (The Floyd Rose seems be an anomaly here, but I suspect that this is a copyright rather than technical issue.) Copyright is currently in a phase where it is looking like it will last forever due to never-ending extensions (at least partially to protect Mickey Mouse, for Disney but that is a whole other rant! ? ). Trademarks last forever in any case. So those aspects of guitars which are copyrighted or trademarked may not duplicated. Maker's names, headstock shapes and similar unique identifying characteristics are thus protected.
So as far as I can see, anybody can replicate a guitar design, except for minor issues which would violate copyright or be seen to be attempting to deceive consumers. Tokai and many other companies make replicas which are thus quite legal, as far as I can tell... That said, IANAL, so there might be some subtlety that I am missing.
I rather like the car example mentioned earlier. The Lamborghini sports car company was only started in 1963. Before that Mr Lamborghini's automotive business was making tractors. I honestly cannot see anybody complaining if Toyota started manufacturing 1950s tractors! ? Or perhaps to make my point more clearly, I cannot see any problem with anybody making replicas of cars from many decades ago, and in fact, there is a thriving industry doing just this. Also, saying that only one company should be allowed to make singlecut guitars would be a lot like saying that only one company can make hatchbacks.
So why is this a problem for guitars?
Well, the large companies are in the main not innovating, they are manufacturing their products in some of the most extensive places on earth using outdated production processes, and their quality is no better than many other companies. So they can rely only on branding, creating perceptions of quality, and leveraging their dominance. The marketing that the big brands do shows how hard they are pushing that angle. The number of posts to guitar forums about how anything other than a USA guitar must be junk is an indication of the success that they are achieving there. And bringing expensive lawsuits which smaller competitors cannot afford to fight is a good way to achieve the third option - and a surprisingly common one in many industries...
How many of the lawsuits brought by the big companies have led to judgements in their favour? And even then, how many of those judgements led to major changes to the competing guitars? Even out of court settlements do not usually lead to major changes to competitors' guitars. Using the example of Ibanez changing their headstock design mentioned earlier: This was a great move in Ibanez's part which allowed them to create their own highly successful brand. They would have been fools to fight a costly legal battle with a wealthy opponent on the opponent's home ground because even winning would have entailed huge financial costs to end up back where they started. But even then, Ibanez still makes double and single cutaway, hollowbody, semi-hollowbody and acoustic guitars which look a lot like other well-known products.
So I believe that Tokai and other similar companies are well within their rights to manufacture replicas. They must just not violate IP (but there is very little here) or create the impression that they are attempting to deceive consumers.
Norman86
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
TGF wrote:
Gibson and Fender fans will defend Gibson and Fender. Tokai fans will defend Tokai's.
That's very true.
Why didnt Tokai design their own guitars, like PRS, Gretsch, etc. Respectable and ORIGINAL guitar makers.
They do. The Tokai Talbo has always been one of my all time design favourites (alongside the like of Steinberger, Parker and Klein).
I've never read any thread on any forum where people were debating if a PRS or a Gretsch is a fake Gibson or Fender.
You weren't around when Big G were suing PRS over the Singlecut then?
Look, the whole question was are Tokais counterfeits or not. That has already been answered.
What few seem to realise is that Gibson are in the process of trying to shut Tokai's distribution down and getting a favourable ruling, stating that the LP, 335 and other body shapes are copyrighted or trademarked in SA will affect the distribution of
every LP-alike in the country and will likely be used to spearhead getting similar rulings globally (which they have already failed at before - they are just trying to do an end run around it this time). And then G will be the only company free to manufacture guitars anything like those models, charge whatever they want for them.
And sorry, but they gave up that right by never copyrighting the designs in the first place (even if they had, I think they would have expired by now), and allowing other manufacturers to build those shapes over the last 5 decades. The
legal facts is that by not copyrighting the design and not defending said copyright against imitators, they lost the right to do so now.
The simple fact is, they know they cannot compete unless they have a monopoly, and given their recent history and "like it or lump it" attitude to consumers, a monopoly would the worst possible thing as far as we consumers go. You don't see Fender, with their thousands of imitators struggling do you?
I don't even like Les Pauls or 335s myself, but I'd be stupid not to see that allowing G to get away with this latest dick move would be a bad thing for the industry.
I really really hope they do not get away with this move.
chrisbark
+1 to what Rabbit said. My fiance
is an IP lawyer and we have discussed this topic ad nauseum and Gibson has no legal leg to stand on here, they are just using their legal team to scare the competition.
Guitar shapes are registed with the patent office as designs and they get exclusivity for 10-15 years.
After that it's public domain. That is the double edged sword of a patent ... once you patent something its public knowledge forever and once exclusivity expires its fair game for all and sundry.
The LP design patent was granted in 1955 so Gibson's exclusivity expired long before most of us were even born.
I know this because I got these
http://www.amazon.com/GIBSON-GUITAR-Poster-Vintage-Reproduction/dp/B00IA3BP94 awesome printed copies of the original patents from my fiance for Christmas.
@Lance if these douchebags are really trying to drive you out of business PM me the actual legal docs where they state the exact nature of the infringements they are claiming and I will sic my girl on them in exchange for a big discount on a springysound ? If it ever actually gets to court I suggest we start a GFSA fund to contribute to your legal costs and start a social media campaign to bash the crap out of the overly litigious money-loving vampires at Gibson.
Charlie4
THIS, I want this on my wall. Very cool. Doesn't have to say Gibson either. ?
Rabbit
From Charlie4: THIS, I want this on my wall. Very cool. Doesn't have to say Gibson either. ?
Off topic, but I would rather have this:
http://www.google.com/patents/US4656917
That picture on the title page is in a patent!!? ?
chris77
To paraphrase Kate Hudson in that movie - I love you Gibson, but right now I don't like you very much.
Why the suits at Gibson are apparently trying their very best to destroy the goodwill guitarists have towards them because of their heritage is a total mystery to me. It should be so simple for them. Create good quality guitars at reasonable prices, steer clear of controversy and watch the coffers fill up with sweet sweet profits. But that seems a bit hard for them.
I have already made up my mind that the current Gibson management will not see a single cent of mine, and it has nothing to do with Tokai guitars. The current board at Gibson are slowly killing a brand which I really love and until they either change their business practices or gets bought out by another company I cannot in good conscience support them - and that sucks. A Gibson Les Paul has been one my dream guitars ever since I started playing, but I just can't justify to myself buying a new one.
Nope, when I finally do succumb to Les Paul gas (and I have been very, very close to doing it in the last month or two) it will be a Tokai that I get. If Gibson makes it impossible for me to buy into their heritage without sacrificing my principles, then at least I can get a quality alternative at a much better price while actually supporting a company (and business owner) that I respect.
Trubore
Well, now I'm definitely going to buy another Tokai.
To me it feels like Gibson have been riding on its good name and reputation for a long time now, while neglecting quality control and good workmanship. It's finally catching up with them, and now they are trying to shut down the distribution of an company that actually do make quality guitars?
At least this proves that Tokai is doing something right with their guitars...
StefStoep
I am joining this conversation at a late stage and most of what could be said was said, and I agree with most of it. Just a couple of points to consider:
1) Yes, Tokai makes copies, not counterfeits, copies like a million other companies, but they basically copy every single aspect of the guitar as apposed to some of the others that will at least change the headstock, as the Epiphone Strat in one of the earlier posts. That is probably why Ibanez decided to change there designs way back when...
2) Gibson only has to take one company to court and get a ruling and all the other "copies" will have to submit to the same decision, so they take the one that is the biggest competition......makes sense. So this is not just a fight against Tokai, but against all the other guys as well. So, if Gibson wins, this will mean you will have to play a Gibson or Epiphone if you want a LP/SG/335, etc. shape guitar.
3) Would we except copies of pedals, that looks exactly like the originals so easy and without any question? I have seen people dissing pedal builders for copying/cloning a "brand" pedal and now those same people are trying to defend Tokai here? Thus, do we except all copying/cloning?
4) This is a business decision, not a personal attack on anyone. We must remember, there are shareholder that wants profit and as much of it as possible. If I had shares in Gibson I would be behind this 100%, or even if i just worked there.
Personally, I think Gibson waited to long and if they wanted to complain, they should have complained ages ago to give their argument any credit! Gibson is obviously trying a new approach, if we look at recent events.... the 29% increase on the guitars, a limited amount of new models being released for 2015 and now trying to get rid of the competition. Apparently there are less models to be built, so the quality should be better.....?
So this looks like their plan: Great quality guitars (don't know if the 2015 models have improved), that costs an arm and a leg and a kidney and half your liver and getting rid of the competition that does the same for half the price... ???
I own 3 Gibsons and 3 Epiphones and I think what they are doing is a bit of a reach and probably won't succeed. I also think having competition is good and personally I have no problem with the Tokais or any of the other brands that build copies. But what I think doesn't really matter, legislation will show what can and can't be done.
el-guapo
A lot of really good and insightful (inciteful? ? ) stuff from lots of people here. Great discussion.
One thing I will add is that I feel somewhat sorry for Gibson (and Fender to a less obvious degree) in that they just can't win on the progress/development front. The second they try anything different (and yes, most of their attempts are pretty miserable) they are shouted down for betraying their roots, etc ("I don't want to see new-fangled gizmos on mah Lez Pawl"). Ok, I don't want auto-tuners either, but they get lambasted for being unimaginative, feel they have to try something and then get lambasted for that too.
Also, we should remember on behalf of all guitar manufacturers that there are real limits on how much you can do on a design front. A guitar is going to need a long skinny bit around 25 inches long that you can wrap your hand around (sorry for the phallic imagery), that probably needs be be joined to a bigger shapey bit that needs to allow hand access to the upper end of the long skinny bit (ie either be swept back like a V or cutaways or some combo thereof), and that needs to be big enough to sound good, balance the weight of the long skinny bit, and hopefully allow the player to play comfortably, possibly even while sitting. The other end must (unless you're Ned S) hold 6 tuning pegs (which weigh a bit so your possible length of headstock is limited) so your options are 6, 5+1, 4+2, 3+3 or the other way around. When you really think about it, there are only so many ways a guitar can look. And people have been thinking about it HARD for 65+years (just electric). Even leaving aside those of us who are slaves to tradition (how ironic is it that the aural basis of young/rebellion - the electric guitar through an overdriven tube amp - has not been improved on in 60 years??) expecting original design at this stage in the game is to a large extent asking for the impossible.
