[dofm]

FMIC likely cannot even properly identify the allegedly protected shape of the Strat because they sell multiple Stratocasters that have different body shapes and proportions. They may simply not be able to say "it's this thick", even, because they sell Strats with different thicknesses. They might not be able to say "it has these body contours" because they sell flat, edge-bound Stratocasters. The list goes on.

Plus, FMIC may not even be able to prove that they legally own any rights that do exist! It's not at all clear they acquired the long-lived rights from Leo Fender when he sold to CBS; they only secured a ten year agreement not to compete, and the design patent they had on some aspects of the body shape would have expired in 1969 or 1970.

The body shape is in the public domain in the USA; it has been for 17 years.

Part of me thinks that they are insane and part of me thinks they want to be acquired because they have debts.

[valdiorn]

This is exactly the argument that the lawyer for LSL guitars is making - who happens to be the same lawyer that beat Fender back in 2009 on behalf of the USPTO and cost them the copyright in the US :)

(Absolutely baller move for LSL to hire that guy)

[dofm]

FWIW I think if it is true they also sent a letter to Ibanez — presumably about the AZES, which is the only thing really close — then that is where it gets interesting.

Because the AZES is clearly a double-cutaway S-type guitar shape, but it is just different enough to spot. And that then raises the question of whether Fender's own variations are as noticeable, because one of theirs has an AZES-type top cutaway.

This is when the penny dropped for me on that first point — when I read last week they had sent a letter to Ibanez.

Fender's weird CEO did say it's "not about all double cutaway" guitars. But if it is about a PRS and it is about an Ibanez, they are going to have to get somewhat specific about what they are claiming.

[dofm]

Yep. Brutal.

ETA: I reckon Fender will fold, because I think the second point is entirely possible. If CBS could have stopped Leo Fender selling S- and T-type body shapes entirely on the basis of what they owned, why did they only secure what amounts to a non-compete agreement?

The big risk for FMIC is in discovery on this point, I reckon. It will do a lot of harm to their reputation if it turns out they have been properly advised they have no claim and they've gone ahead anyway.

[codedokode]

Maybe the law should protect creative part of the shape (that doesn't affect the sound)? I do not know but I think that designing a good instrument is not easy and it is not cool that someone can just copy it without doing any work.

[dofm]

That is effectively what Fender are claiming they now have in Europe (off the back of a case that was not even argued because the vendor didn't turn up).

One key thing here is that the Stratocaster did have a design patent attached, and when your design patent expires, that's it; none of that is protected.

But the guitar was designed in 1954 (and indeed the body shape in 1951, fundamentally, because the Fender Precision bass guitar looked like that first). So the design patent was gone by 1970.

At the time, US copyright did not apply to functional shapes, and most of the core aspects of the Strat shape are actually functional — cutaways and sculpting.

Manufacturers like Schecter were making guitars with an S body shape by 1979. So this isn't new, and it is weird.

[balfirevic]

> that doesn't affect the sound

That would be the whole shape.

[codedokode]

I do not think the exact shape has any influence, especially potentiometer or audio jack placement.

[balfirevic]

> I do not think the exact shape has any influence

Yes, that's what I said.

[dofm]

Haha I was going to say that but I thought, no, I don't need the downvotes. Lots of guitarists here (including me)

[colechristensen]

72 years later?