jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
GC alone being 15% probably isn’t so bad now that half of GC’s guitar inventory seems to be Squier models.
Gibson in trouble?
- Thread starter pmc100
- Start date
GC alone being 15% probably isn’t so bad now that half of GC’s guitar inventory seems to be Squier models.
Acadiafall
Kiss Me Hardy
Flatspotter
What?
I have one Gibson, a very nice Les Paul Standard. I have no further use for Gibson.
Pine Apple Slim
Kick Henry Jackassowski
I have one Gibson. A 2004 RB3 Standard Mastertone Banjo. It's a solid piece o work.
Other than maybe a sweet old J45, Gibson guitars, nah don't need em.
Other than maybe a sweet old J45, Gibson guitars, nah don't need em.
gtrjunior
Wannabe
I have 2 Gibson. A 2012 Les Paul Standard Plus and a 2008(?) Studio. Both of them are great guitars but I don't think I'd buy another. At least not right now.
Lately, I'm sort of infatuated with Fender products. I've always considered myself a Gibson man but like I said, Fender (and Fender-like guitars...G&L etc.) have my attention.
Lately, I'm sort of infatuated with Fender products. I've always considered myself a Gibson man but like I said, Fender (and Fender-like guitars...G&L etc.) have my attention.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
In related news, Gibson has hired Lee Cheng, formerly Chief Legal Officer at NewEgg, to be Chief Operating Officer. His experience at NewEgg was primarily defending the company against patent trolls.
https://blog.unpatent.co/patent-troll-tales-1-lee-cheng-newegg-5188505a5f2f#.6c1ybjz81
Given this statement from the article, I wonder how he'll approach Gibson's trade dress:
"It is not the ideation what it is important, because there are a lot of smart people all over the place. All the Intellectual Property protection laws (the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Trademark laws) are ultimately supposedly to benefit the public. They are not contrary to the expressed desires of a few people who hold deathhand right, monopoly rights on ideas, various types of ideas.
Contrary to their demands and beliefs and desires those laws aren’t in place to make people rich. Making people rich is supposed to be one of the side effects of benefiting the world. The world doesn’t benefit when the great great granddaughter of Martin Luther King can try to charge the universe like licensing fees for using the “I have a dream” speech. That is bullshit. The world doesn’t benefit when someone uses a certain shade of grey and whoever holds the trademark on the Eiffel Tower’s grey gets to try to charge a licensing fee or something stupid like that."
https://blog.unpatent.co/patent-troll-tales-1-lee-cheng-newegg-5188505a5f2f#.6c1ybjz81
Given this statement from the article, I wonder how he'll approach Gibson's trade dress:
"It is not the ideation what it is important, because there are a lot of smart people all over the place. All the Intellectual Property protection laws (the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Trademark laws) are ultimately supposedly to benefit the public. They are not contrary to the expressed desires of a few people who hold deathhand right, monopoly rights on ideas, various types of ideas.
Contrary to their demands and beliefs and desires those laws aren’t in place to make people rich. Making people rich is supposed to be one of the side effects of benefiting the world. The world doesn’t benefit when the great great granddaughter of Martin Luther King can try to charge the universe like licensing fees for using the “I have a dream” speech. That is bullshit. The world doesn’t benefit when someone uses a certain shade of grey and whoever holds the trademark on the Eiffel Tower’s grey gets to try to charge a licensing fee or something stupid like that."
Heh...Funny that Moody would be the "expert" to rate them. Seeing as Moody's was just a major player in the false ratings scams that helped lead us into the shitstorm of '08, it amazes me that they would be considered a reliable source of rating another company.
I guess to many a liar is no longer a liar after awhile.
As for "Too Big To Fail"? Nothing is too big to fail in a free-market system and should be allowed to die a natural death. Sure, the consequences would be huge but what are the consequences of helping them out?
Our economy has not experienced any fundamental change that will prevent that from happening again. In truth that kind of thinking has allowed our economy to continue to act in the very same manner it was acting prior to the recession.
So...We make companies "Too Big To Fail" and give them trillions of dollars in welfare handouts while they use chewing gum and duct tape to repair the very system that got us into that mess. We seem to have learned nothing from our experience and are heading back to the very same place.
Conclusion: We give welfare entitlements to companies that are "Too Big To Fail" so we can keep "thousands and thousands!" of jobs for the middle class.
Yet AIG uses that money to pay millions in bonuses to the people that caused the problems in that company. Chrysler continues to follow it's policy of shitty cars and trucks while pushing the trucks on the populace. Trucks that are worthless as anything but compensators to most of their owners. The very same business plan that led to its near-demise 10 years ago.
I could go on but the end-game is that trillions of dollars went to use a band aid to treat a near amputation. Sure, it looks good to the masses that don't do much thinking, it mollifies those that deify Wall Street, it makes stupid politicians look smart...
And it merely delays the inevitable because it did not come close to curing the problem.
And thousands end up losing their jobs in an even crappier market than before.
Welfare rarely helps unless there is a fundamental shift in how the recipient acts after receiving the welfare assistance. I don't see it.
I guess to many a liar is no longer a liar after awhile.
As for "Too Big To Fail"? Nothing is too big to fail in a free-market system and should be allowed to die a natural death. Sure, the consequences would be huge but what are the consequences of helping them out?
Our economy has not experienced any fundamental change that will prevent that from happening again. In truth that kind of thinking has allowed our economy to continue to act in the very same manner it was acting prior to the recession.
So...We make companies "Too Big To Fail" and give them trillions of dollars in welfare handouts while they use chewing gum and duct tape to repair the very system that got us into that mess. We seem to have learned nothing from our experience and are heading back to the very same place.
Conclusion: We give welfare entitlements to companies that are "Too Big To Fail" so we can keep "thousands and thousands!" of jobs for the middle class.
Yet AIG uses that money to pay millions in bonuses to the people that caused the problems in that company. Chrysler continues to follow it's policy of shitty cars and trucks while pushing the trucks on the populace. Trucks that are worthless as anything but compensators to most of their owners. The very same business plan that led to its near-demise 10 years ago.
I could go on but the end-game is that trillions of dollars went to use a band aid to treat a near amputation. Sure, it looks good to the masses that don't do much thinking, it mollifies those that deify Wall Street, it makes stupid politicians look smart...
And it merely delays the inevitable because it did not come close to curing the problem.
And thousands end up losing their jobs in an even crappier market than before.
Welfare rarely helps unless there is a fundamental shift in how the recipient acts after receiving the welfare assistance. I don't see it.