frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

Open in hackernews

Thomann takes legal action against Fender

https://www.thomann.de/blog/en/inside/thomann-takes-legal-action-against-fender/
109•Audiophilip•1h ago

Comments

sparkling•1h ago
502 Bad Gateway, the HN kiss of death

Archive.org link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260624025836/https://www.thoma...

eqvinox•1h ago
Works fine here…
kulahan•30m ago
Dead for me, as is the archive link.
eqvinox•5m ago
Still works... it's not showing as using a CDN, in fact they seem to own their IPv4 space and getting connectivity from a midsize Bavarian ISP (M-net). Maybe there's a routing problem somewhere. The path for me is <my ISP> - DE-CIX - their ISP.
altairprime•1h ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20260624025836/https://www.thoma...
jorisw•1h ago
Those who don’t know what this is about may appreciate Rick Beato’s (a guitar music vlogger) rant about it

https://youtube.com/watch?v=OU7RUpkXsV0

vintermann•1h ago
Apparently Fender got bought up by a private equity fund, Servco Pacific Capital. Who would have guessed.
al_borland•1h ago
Apparently this started back in 1985.

> In 1985, Bill Schultz and a group of investors—including company employees and external companies like Servco Pacific Capitol—purchased Fender from CBS for $12.5 million and renamed it "Fender Musical Instruments Corporation" (FMIC).

> Ownership changed in December 2001, when private equity firm Weston Presidio bought a controlling stake in Fender for $57.8 million.

> Longtime investor Servco instead bought out Weston Presidio, with TPG Growth as an equal partner.

> In 2020, Servco bought out TPG Growth's stake, making them Fender's majority owner.

A long history of private equity ownership. I'm not sure CBS owning them would be much better, which started in 1965.

As much as I like to blame private equity for the downfall of once great companies, I'm not sure how to feel about this one, as they've been investor owned and passed around for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_%28company%29

leoc•45m ago
IIRC pre-GFC FMIC has a generally good reputation among guitarists, and certainly in comparison to the preceding era of Fender, when it was owned by CBS.
jwitthuhn•59m ago
This is true but the buyout happened in 1985. Servco Pacific has been in charge for longer than Leo Fender and CBS, the two previous owners, put together.
alexjplant
okanat•1h ago
No such contempt has one against another in Western culture as much as politicians have against their constituents, and trendsetter companies against the cultural heritage they helped to create.
worik•52m ago
I am confused. What is this about?
dofm•43m ago
1) Fender got someone in Germany to buy a Strat type guitar from a Chinese vendor on Aliexpress and ship it to Germany (I assume this part)

2) Fender sued said small Chinese Aliexpress vendor in a regional German court for selling a "copied" design in Germany

3) The small Chinese guitar vendor didn't turn up, obviously

4) Fender got a default judgement that the S-type (Stratocaster etc.) guitar body shape (which has indisputably been in the public domain in the USA since 2009) is a "functional work of art" in which they have copyright.

5) Fender's weird law firm went on a rampage, in the EU and USA, using said default judgement as if it represents some kind of precedent, warning guitar firms (PRS included) and music retailers to stop selling them, recall and destroy their inventory on sale in the EU, and confirm they had done so, or be sued

6) guitar people, especially luthiers working in the USA who have solid reason to believe the S shape is public domain, took that about as well as you'd expect

7) Fender tried to walk it back, especially the bit about smashing perfectly good guitars

8) Thomann, based in Germany, certainly Fender's largest retailer outside the USA and one of the biggest music retailers in the world, have decided not to take it lying down.

eigenspace•30m ago
This is extra bizarre to me, because for most purposes German law doesnt operate on a system of "legal precedent" the way countries which adopted the UK model do.

Am I missing something about Germany following a precedent system for patent/copyright or something, or is this even dumber than it sounds?

dofm•26m ago
It's that dumb.

Sorry, I rushed through my comment and perhaps didn't make it clear.

They have a default judgement only. But they used it to demand US-based manufacturers recall European-bound inventory, destroy it and certify it destroyed.

Even though they know full well that inventory can legally be sold in the USA — which is part of the near-comical gaslighting walkback the FMIC CEO attempted the other day. They are already admitting it's not a USA thing.

dofm•49m ago
I still think this whole Fender-suing-everyone thing will end up with Thomann owning them either partially or completely.

But the weird German lawsuit was always about the fact that some private equity suits (or bad Hawaiian shirts, it seems) are upset that Thomann (and others) sell the PRS Silver Sky, which as they have probably deduced from the reverb.com data they now own, likely outsells equivalent Fender models by some margin.

So I think Thomann are just bringing it on.

And they aren't the only ones: LSL hired the lawyer who won the judgement that put the S-type body shape in the public domain in 2009.

borlox•32m ago
German lawsuits are far less expensive than … what we learn from huge american lawsuits in tv. Unlikely that Thomann will make piles of money. It‘s more about the right to keep selling those guitars and quite some marketing impact.
Animats•40m ago
This is a place where European copyright law is significantly different from US copyright law. In the US, copyright cannot cover a "functional part", which is why there is a third party auto parts industry. Improved functionality can be covered by a utility patent, but that lasts only 20 years. Designs can be protected by design patents, which last only 15 years. So in the US, any rights left in the form of the Stratocaster expired long ago.

US companies sometimes try to make "trade dress" or trademark claims, but that's much weaker than copyright.

codedokode•38m ago
But technically the guitar does not have to have a shape of a strat. It could be any other shape, why not be creative and make your own design?
frankfrank13•36m ago
Because strats sell. Oddly shaped guitars don't, or at least not for a long time, and would never break into the top 10 best selling guitar shapes.
codedokode•31m ago
But I think people who want to buy a strat, would prefer to buy a Fender strat and not a cheaper copy that has the same shape but might sound worse?

I personally do not like the price though.

_kblcuk_•20m ago
OTH people who want to buy strat would prefer to buy "strat with all inherited problems already fixed", be it PRS silver sky, or any boutique brand like LSL / Sandberg / Suhr / Tom Anderson.
normaler•38m ago
I used to work for a Thomann competitor "Musicstore" in ~2005.

The server was some tower server in a back office with a note reminding everyone not to turn it off.

With Thoman being hugged to death right now I would like to think of there being a similar situation (its probably fine, but it made me feel nostalgic).

matchagaucho•5m ago
Similar work experience, I was with a CBS-owned music company that had a CNC machine with some old Fender Telecaster and Stratocaster body templates.

The hardware manager was cool and would let employees turn slabs of wood into Tele- and Strat-style bodies after hours.

When the Fender/German court ruling came down, my first thought was: Fender has had roughly 70 years with the Stratocaster design, and the broader industry has been making S-style guitars for decades.

Surely at some point a body shape becomes generic, right?

ben7799•24m ago
I play guitar, I own a Fender guitar and a Fender amp, along with another non-fender amp and 2 other non Fender guitars.

I'm just super sick of hearing about this story. Guitar players online are way too worked up about this. Fender is being annoying, but there is no way I'm getting rid of my Fender guitar or amp over this, and there is no way any of this would stop me from buying another one.

The Fender shapes just don't need to be copied at all. I live near a famous boutique type shop. They may have some boutique guitars that rip off the shapes of Fenders, it's been tolerated, but they have a lot of guitars that don't rip off Fender shapes and many of them are really great guitars.

Too many players are acting like the sky is falling if Fender wins with any of this stuff. The sky is not going to fall. We'll go back to the way things used to be where Fender body shapes weren't ripped off so often and it will be fine.

I think some of the doom and gloom is also because too many players are super obsessed with buying more and more guitars all the time. It's all about what is the next purchase as opposed to just enjoying the guitar they have.

Aboutplants•6m ago
Fender has seen quality deteriorate to extremely concerning levels in the past 5-10 years, ask any luthier. That frustrated players and now this is icing on the cake as competition has surpassed them in quality and in value and now they come beating them up since they are seeing their piece of the marketplace get smaller.
codedokode•7m ago
On a side note, think how conservative music world is, if people are still manufacturing and successfully sell guitar designed in 50s. You can probably take a 50s guitar and connect to a modern amp, or take a modern guitar and connect to a 50s amp and it will work.

Compare this, for example, to smartphone chargers or headphones and their compatibility.

•
58m ago
Makes complete sense to me. Fender has immense cultural cachet among multiple big-spending demographics: blues boomers, Cobain disciples, indie kids, even the hair metal guys via Charvel. The Gibson/Harley-Davidson move of leveraging a company that makes stuff into a lifestyle brand is the play here. Fender would rather throw legal weight around to execute that than compete by building high-quality guitars at a good price.

Too many Clapton lawyers have gotten hip to boutique builders. Fender would rather make them buy a $5000 Masterbuilt Custom Shop Deluxe Roadworn Heritage Double Relic No-Caster than a Tom Anderson or Suhr. Same for kids buying Harley Bentons and ESPs - a $1000 Indonesian-built instrument is their future if Fender has anything to say about it.

lenerdenator•8m ago
> Fender would rather throw legal weight around to execute that than compete by building high-quality guitars at a good price.

The thing is, they already do that, or have in the relatively recent past. Arguably, they invented that move in the 1980s when they started selling non USA/Japanese models as Squier models.

There's only so much that brings them, though, and guitar music ain't what it used to be. The pie isn't growing very much (maybe at all) and now there's competition trying to capture more of the market.

Would Bill Schultz have done the same thing if the 80s and 90s hadn't been so good to rock music? Hard to say, but if the alternative was "No more Fender", maybe.

eigenspace•21m ago
Yikes. I guess we'll find out in a couple months that Fender had replaced their legal department with ChatGPT 3 or something.
12_throw_away•21m ago
As a legal theory, "this default judgement against an anonymous AliExpress seller is binding on literally everyone in the world" kinda reminds me of the Dune nft bros' "we bought a book about Dune and therefore now own the intellectual property rights to Dune."

Except this one is apparently coming from actual accredited lawyers? (Who knows, I'm not a lawyer, maybe it really does work that way and Fender is the first company to figure out how to exploit this)

lompad•26m ago
This really reads like some american lawyer used an llm and never questioned whether legal precedent is even a thing in germany aside from the highest courts.

Have seen several like this in the last months, though in much more niche areas and with barely any publicity.

dofm•18m ago
The law firm is Bird and Bird, and they are not that small.

So the whole thing really looks like legal bullying.

The S-type body shape has been in the public domain in the USA since 2009. One of the luthiers that Fender sent a C&D has hired the lawyer who secured that 2009 judgement against Fender, and he has been quite withering.

Fender have a huge uphill struggle here, and they clearly do not understand just how much time hobby guitarists with money spend watching Youtube. Big mistake.

_def•22m ago
aliexpress? Thomann themselves are big in manufacturing guitars in china.
wander_homer•33m ago
Fender recently won a case in a german court, from which they assumed to own the copyright to the famous Stratocaster guitar shape. They then sent out cease and desist letters to many manufacturers who build and sell such guitars in Europe, asking them to destroy their inventory, etc. Among those manufacturers was PRS and also Thomann, which are now taking legal action against that.
wavesplash•19m ago
Fender makes a whole series of Strats at different price points. The challenge is even at the high end Fender has inconsistent QA, so the 'knockoffs' are sometimes way better quality/consistency. See this video for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU7RUpkXsV0
codedokode•10m ago
I think I watched that video but sadly there is no sound comparison to demonstrate the quality issues.
codedokode•23m ago
To be fair there is nothing in the shape that makes it sound better than other guitars; so it is not like those modem chip makers or video codec developers that patent the only optimal way to achieve the goal and prevent anybody from competing. Fender does not prevent anyone from making a better guitar. So I do not like copying. It would be better if everyone used their own unique shape rather than something from 50s.
dofm•31m ago
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.

codedokode•29m ago
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•21m ago
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•21m ago
> that doesn't affect the sound

That would be the whole shape.

dofm•14m ago
Haha I was going to say that but I thought, no, I don't need the downvotes. Lots of guitarists here (including me)
codedokode•13m ago
I do not think the exact shape has any influence, especially potentiometer or audio jack placement.
colechristensen•16m ago
72 years later?
valdiorn•23m ago
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•7m ago
Yep. Brutal.
jdietrich•6m ago
Ergonomics. Any solid-body guitar that's designed to be comfortable when played sitting or standing will converge on a strat-ish body shape. You can make a computer mouse in any shape, but the shape of a comfortable mouse is constrained by the shape of an average human palm.

The various curves and bevels on the Stratocaster aren't arbitrary aesthetic features, they're affordances to fit the human body. Change them too much and you get a guitar that won't balance on your knee or that pokes you in the ribs or that limits your access to the high frets.

Ola Strandberg set out to design the most ergonomic guitar possible. His design is both radical and basically derivative of the Strat, because Leo Fender happened to find something close to the perfect solution in 1954.

https://strandbergguitars.com/en-GB/product/boden-essential-...

dwroberts•20m ago
Fender has protected the strat design under the claim of "work of applied art" (https://spotlight.fender.com/newsroom/news/1004) which is also a concept in US copyright law, they just don't have a judgement for it etc. in their favour, unlike in Europe.