re: The Fender legal issue

quote:

---

you replied saying no one supported Fender, which is false.

---

I said no such thing. I said I saw no one. You attacked. No idea why. I never claimed to have read every comment.

quote:

---

If you like their product, why would something like this dictate your buying preferences?

---

It’s predatory capitalism and a complete perversion of what patent law and trademark were created to do. They didn’t like that their 80 year old designs had been treated as public domain for decades. They didn’t like that competitors (who were not just undercutting them on price. Fender’s Squire brand was already the premier cheap guitar) were innovating on their designs.

Guitar players like unique products. People constantly tinker with old designs trying to build a better mouse trap or a mouse trap that serves their exact desired sound. I bought a fender telecaster because I needed a specific fender tele sound to make the album I was working on. However, some want different sounds while still wanting the familiar body shapes that give them access to knobs and upper frets the way fender strat bodies do. Customizing fender bodies has been a common practice since EVH in the 70’s. Ibanez and Charvel were built on making these “super strats”. If Fender had made them, people would have bought them from Fender, but Fender wasn’t making them, so people made them themselves.

Fender is essentially using the courts to try and put the horse in the barn 50 years after it ran away. While Fender has the deep pockets to afford the lawsuits, a lot of the small upstart guitar makers cannot. Even though Fender likely loses these suits (or at least should based on the similar LP suits by Gibson in the 70’s), the process will likely bankrupt most small guitar builders who choose to fight it. The process is the punishment.

I don’t like seeing a company exploit the legal system to wipe out small businesses even when the company makes a product I like. I will be buying competing products going forward unless Fender does a total about face and apologizes for this frivolous and punitive lawsuit meant purely to harm PRS.

If I like a product, but the company I buy it behaves unethically relative to direct competitors who make a similar product, I will buy that similar product.

I used to buy Bud heavy as my cheap domestic beer of choice. I choose a different cheap domestic beer now because Anheiser Busch pulled a bunch of dumb crap that pissed me off. I used to wear Patagonia clothing, but now buy competing brands for similar products. I see no reason to continue supporting a business that does things I don’t agree with when I have suitable alternatives that don’t present such moral delimmas. I will suck it up sometimes when they’re the only game in town (see Disney/ESPN), but I will bolt at the first opportunity and limit my spending as much as is reasonably possible.

All this lawsuit does is make me want to buy a PRS as a f$&k you.

They stole John Mayer because PRS was willing to make a guitar based on the Fender design that Fender wasn’t. It has a similar neck and body shape, but the features on the John Mayer PRS are not offered by Fender.

This is akin to Ford motors suing every automaker who makes a vehicle with 4 wheels and an engine in 2026. Even if Fender had properly patented the design back in the day, it long since should have expanded.

I'm sure Fender was heartbroken with they lost John Mayer and emotions played a part. Because without John Mayer being involved, I don't think PRS is making models copied from Fender.

Now, John's story may be 100% correct, but I have never heard comments like he made from any other Fender artist. Just the opposite most of the time. And they have no problem making changes. I know this from basses like the Jino, Moon Neon, and others. They aren't just standard Jazz basses or P basses. John may have been a pain in the arse to deal with. Who knows?

Personally, I do think it had to be emotions from Fender because why pick that guitar for the C&D. It has that awful headstock on it and it just makes it look stupid and I don't really consider it as much like a Strat as many, many other makers put out.

quote:

---

If I recall, the people playing Charvell's that Rick cited were pre-2002.

---

My point is still valid.

1) AFAIK, FMIC has not targeted ANY individual player of a strat-like guitar and has not requested they destroy said guitars.

2) Even if the guitars predated FMIC acquiring Charvel, Fender suing users of a current line THEY OWN would be an extremely poor look. Rick should have thought that one through a bit better. There are other players using guitars NOT made by a Fender sub that would have been a better, although still flawed (see point 1), argument.

On a related note, pre-CBS,
Or
CBS

I like the big CBS one.

I'm a Strat guy. Always have been, always will be. My parents got me a Strat for Christmas in 7th grade. Still have it along with six other Strats. The best part of a Strat is being able to change out the parts so easily.

But once you change some parts out, is it really a Fender Strat anymore? Or just another parts o caster?

quote:

---

Gibson also came after them for copying Les Pauls.

---

And Gibson lost