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).
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?
Leo Fender patented the Strat design, the body became public domain when the patent expired in I think 1965. More recently a US court ruled that only the headstock design of a guitar remains intellectual property, because there's really only so many ways to design the body of a guitar
I think you're thinking of trademark, but this isn't a trademark claim, it's a copyright infringement claim. The legal question is whether the guitar shape can be copyrighted.
It would be odd to try this as copyrightable in the U.S, where there’s a pretty clear distinction between art added to a guitar, like PRS bird inlays, and the core body shape.
That's why they aren't trying this in the US (yet), where the bodies were explicitly declared public domain. They're trying to turn a default judgement into something bigger in the EU.
You would think this would have been quite an easy win, because regardless of who makes guitars with S-type bodies, the outline of the Stratocaster or Telecaster is surely sufficiently identifiable with Fender as to be something they could at least claim should be their trademark in certain categories (on merchandise etc.)
Fender failed to prove that if people saw a line art outline of the Stratocaster, they would associate it first with "Fender". And indeed an illustrated dictionary at the time used such an outline to just generically illustrate "Electric guitar", apparently.
And in that finding:
Finally, there is no evidence of record that from the
first production of the guitars incorporating these shapes
in the early 1950s until 2003, that applicant or its
predecessors in interest ever treated the outlines of the
body shapes as trademarks. In fact, we may infer from the
evidence of record that applicant and its predecessors
themselves did not view them as trademarks. They never
policed the body shape, only the word marks and headstock
profiles. In addition, they never claimed trademark rights
in the body outlines publicly through, for example, the
catalogues, until 2004. Rather, they only claimed the word
marks and the headstock profiles. In the meantime, many
other guitar manufacturers sold guitars with the identical
body shapes for at least 30 years, either as complete
guitars or in the form of kits.
This was in 2009, when it was clear that Fender had never "policed" the body shape until that point.
And this — from a deposition from Warmoth as far as I can determine (they made spare parts) which makes it clear that Fender never entered into an agreement with Warmouth about the body shape, only the neck (because of the headstock shape which they believed was trademarked):
Q. And you have a licensing agreement to
manufacture what from Fender?
A. Replacement necks utilizing the Fender
trademark head shape.
Q. In those discussions utilizing that license,
was there any conversation or written
documentation with reference to body shapes?
A. No.
Q. Would your company be harmed if you’re no
longer able to make body shapes depicted in [126,
928 and 127]?
A. It would have a significant impact on our
sales numbers and value [sic] of employees.
Q. Why are you an opposer in this proceeding?
A. I’ve been making these body shapes for 30
years, unopposed, untrademarked, and have built a
business on making these parts. There’s a lot of
demand for it. While I make other body shapes,
the demand for them is pretty insignificant when
compared to these three shapes.
So this is Warmoth, in 2009, saying that Fender never asked them to license the body shape as far back as 1979 (which is also, if I remember reading correctly, when Schecter and G&L started making S-type guitars)
So even if they do have ownership of some kind of copyright, they've never asserted it before and three decades of their own conduct kind of militates against them being able to enforce it.
And they aren't the only ones, the finding goes on because Fender took action against multiple companies (this is around page 30–40 or so).
I always read around here how european server companies are incompetent so there is no european infrastructure so european companies have to host everything on AWS. But this biggest european music store apparently powers their huge store from some server in the back office?
My mother is very similar to what you have described and mimicks some reponses of her to her ADHD situation pre-diagnosis/post-diagnosis.
She is also ~60 and accomplished in her professional,social and family life.
Pre-diagnosis she would reject suggestsions going into the direction of an ADHD diagnosis, due to her accomplishments being above average --> not possible to have a disability/neuro-divergence.
The achievements are her achievements, but the expense in the context of her capabilities was very high and quite taxing on her.
A diagnosis or even treatment is not making the person normal, but it can help provide that person with options to alleviate the expense of operating differently to the baseline.
I am very happy that you managed to have this success in your life so far and you made that happen.
But under your assumption that you have ADHD you might have made that happen against odds that would have been in part optional if you had access to treatment options.
I am enjoying this Moment in time where I can ask chatgpt product related questions and not get ad biased suggestions.
I think there is ~ half a year left
Currently the most used phones in the US are iphones.
If the actual cost is not hidden behind monthly payments anymore, but some users can not afford iphones, people might start to consider cheaper phone options.
That is not what the article said. The German government subsidized American/Multinational oil companies who CLAIMED they had environmentally friendly companies in China.
Long term use aside, the amount of life changing (mostly in the bad sense) interactions I had while using alcohol are in a class in its own.
Prison statistics reflect that especially in violent crime.
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).