- May 2, 2007
- Reaction score
The further back I go. the harder these are getting to find.
The guitars themselves have nothing to do with it, and everything to do with this portion of the statement which I posted earlier.I'm not sure I understand your post.
Those guitars ^^^ are CLEARLY made to steal the look of another company.........If I had a "look" that was taking off with the public, and seeing that look immediately copied by the likes of Mity Mite or Ibanez, I'd apply for a trademark to protect my products (at least in the US).
Exactly. No company should be able to try to monopolize and entire area of a market. Apple makes things that are only compatible with their own products. They FORCE you to buy their brand. Plus I am an android user when it comes to cell phones and IPhones are consistently about 3 or more years behind android products, but the sheeple will continue to buy them "because everyone else buys them." If there is an entire store dedicated to replacing your cell phone screen, I want no part of it.He might just dislike the company, regardless of the quality or function of their products.
the *only* thing this is indicative of is what a musician once told a reporter remembered by a third party and absolutely not one thing beyond that. The quality of clear, concise, fact based evidence in this thread should not be muddied by conjecture.I remember reading an Ace Frehley interview from about 1975 when they asked him what pickups be used and he said "its a really hot pickup wound by Larry Dimarzio".
He did not refer to it as a super distortion, nor did he refer to the company name, just Larry. That would indicate that everything regarding Dimarzio as a company & his pickup designs was still in the embryonic stages.
well duh.the *only* thing this is indicative of is what a musician once told a reporter remembered by a third party and absolutely not one thing beyond that. The quality of clear, concise, fact based evidence in this thread should not be muddied by conjecture.
I would support that as well.I would support Dimarzio's claim if it were for those hexagonal screws, to me, that is a distinctly Dimarzio look. But to claim ownership of double cream is just BS.
they understand how much filing a suit against DiMarzio would cost and how many double cream pickups they'd have to sell to break even. think of that in terms of years.... Cathy and Henry aren't spring chickens, you know.I just want to see Duncan and Gibson step in and join the fight, since they'd profit the most from the trademark being cancelled. Only fair.
listen to the Lutherist podcast from a few days back. within the first 15 minutes Perry Ormsby talks about how the Duncan company has treated him. some might say that Cathy isn't running her company in the same spirit as when Seymour was actively there. hardly as dramatic and theatrical as the double cream issue, but some people might not consider one any more or less an angel than the other.Duncan and Dimarzio are the big two of aftermarket pickups but look at the difference in how they conduct business. Clearly there is no need to be a litigious and gimmicky dickbag to be a successful pickup winder
I see what you're saying, but unfair taxes still deserve Boston Tea Parties.it would seem Dimarzio would be well served to just charge a $5 royalty per double cream pickup. That way we can buy any brand double cream we want and Dimarzio gets their money, in the end everyone is happy.
That's their loss because there are ways around it, like buying from Bareknuckle or other boutique makers.I see what you're saying, but unfair taxes still deserve Boston Tea Parties.
As I understand it, they don't offer licensing. Not that they can't. They just don't.