Bugera Mark Clone amp!! Holy Likely Lawsuit Batman!!!!

[mdortona]

I wish I was kidding........ :shock:

http://www.bugera-amps.com/EN/products/MAGICIAN.aspx

Matt

 

[Sixstringpsycho]

I wouldn't even waste the time or money on a law suit because it's like comparing a cobalt to a porche.

 

[mdortona]

Not even a Cobalt, more like a Yugo! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Matt

 

[MrMarkIII]

It's fugly, it sounds like poop, it will break in two months, who bloody cares? :lol:

 

[94Tremoverb]

Mesa needs to sue, regardless of the lack of quality.

Fender recently *lost* the legal trademark on their own body shapes because they had not taken the proper steps to defend them in the past. For years they ignored the copies because they thought they were low quality and not worth the trouble... they were wrong. First the copies got good enough to be a serious threat, and now anyone can make a Strat or Tele copy (apart from the head shape) with total impunity.

 

[KH Guitar Freak]

Unfortunately I enjoy many of the strat copies for the money over the Fender equivalents... :lol: :|

 

[fluff191]

Mesa needs to sue, regardless of the lack of quality.

Fender recently *lost* the legal trademark on their own body shapes because they had not taken the proper steps to defend them in the past. For years they ignored the copies because they thought they were low quality and not worth the trouble... they were wrong. First the copies got good enough to be a serious threat, and now anyone can make a Strat or Tele copy (apart from the head shape) with total impunity.

+1

 

[madryan]

Mesa needs to sue, regardless of the lack of quality.

Fender recently *lost* the legal trademark on their own body shapes because they had not taken the proper steps to defend them in the past. For years they ignored the copies because they thought they were low quality and not worth the trouble... they were wrong. First the copies got good enough to be a serious threat, and now anyone can make a Strat or Tele copy (apart from the head shape) with total impunity.

My G&L Kicks the **** out of any Fender I've ever played. Same with my buddies Suhr. I'm glad.

 

[EleventhHour2139]

It's fugly, it sounds like poop, it will break in two months, who bloody cares? :lol:

Quoted for truth.

Not sure what Bugera thought they'd accomplish with these, other than to gain even more hatred and disrespect from the guitar community. Hopefully these backfire on them in every way possible.

 

[droptrd]

I know soo many people that love these things. I dont understand it. Every model ive heard has been nothing more than a cheap imataion that falls way short of the original. My buddy has the 5150 knockoff. It blows. But he thinks sounds awesome with his bugera and agile guitars. I dont mean to offend bugera fans, but I dont see the value in them.

I asked my buddy - "if you wanted 5150 tone why didnt you pick up a used 5150? wouldve been the same price as the bugera and sounded better and have better build quality." Hes convinced bugeras are the ****.

 

[msi]

The only way Mesa could win a lawsuit would be if the Bugera looked like a mesa. Which it doesn't. The circuit isn't copyrightable, and bugera designs their own PCB's, which can be copyrighted. So Mesa can't sue for infringement of trade dress or for the circuit. Which leaves Mesa's patents which they could sue on. But most of their patents are very weak and for a decent number previous art or common sense can be proven, which would invalidate the patent. The reason Mesa's patents stand, is because Mesa leaves the big players alone, and focuses on suing little companies that can't afford lawsuits. Fender has had many amps that utilize multiple rectifiers, which would violate Mesa's patent. Why doesn't Mesa sue Fender? Fender has better lawyers, and a lot of them.

I'm sure Behringer has looked into possible reasons it could be sued and lose. They probably have as many lawyers and technicians. The would not have designed and built, and announced the amplifiers if they didn't think they could release them. Notice the MKIV clone looks very little like a MKIV. similar panel layout, but the cabinet has a different aesthetic, and the chassis is not slanted. Mesa would lose a lawsuit based on trade dress. The circuit can't be copy protected, so as long as Bugera designed their own circuit boards they are safe from being suied for that. Simulclass is patented so therefore protected, and my guess is thats why we haven't seen them in stores, yet.

As for quality, you get what you pay for. Because you're ok with paying top dollar for a particular feature, doesn't mean someone else is.

 

[94Tremoverb]

Behringer has already lost a lawsuit from Mackie, and changed the design of their pedal range after being threatened by Roland (Boss). So there is a precendent for them going too far and having to back down. Here's hoping this is another one.

KH - sorry, but if you play Fender copies you have no right to complain about any other company copying any other. It's theft pure and simple - morally, even if trademark law says otherwise due to lack of proper defence. Fender now makes a guitar at every price point, so there is no excuse for buying cheaper. And yes, I agree that if the likes of Tokai had not started, perhaps Fender would never have done so, but that doesn't really justify it.

G&L has a license agreement with FMIC (which I think was granted as a courtesy to Leo Fender back in the day), so it's a different case. Suhr is as bad as the rest of the high-end copiers - they can and do make nice guitars which are only inspired by (and in many ways improved over) Fenders... so why do they have to make blatant rip-offs too?

 

[msi]

Behringer has already lost a lawsuit from Mackie, and changed the design of their pedal range after being threatened by Roland (Boss). So there is a precendent for them going too far and having to back down. Here's hoping this is another one.

Right, the boss lawsuit was for infringing on trade dress. The pedals looked too similar to boss's design. All Behringer did was change the enclosure design and they released the pedals. All I was saying is the only thing Mesa could sue on was patent infringement. They have never sued a larger manufacture to my knowledge. They have traditionally targeted small business who can't afford legal fees. Fender and B-52 have both released amplifiers recently that have selectable rectifiers. Mesa could sue for patent infringement and seek damages. They won't because fender can afford lawyers. Losing a lawsuit like that could mean losing their patent. The bugera amp doesn't look like a mesa, and their advertising never mentions anything copyrighted by mesa. We can hope they get sued, but it most likely won't happen. And besides, competition is good.

 

[polotska]

Just curious—what recent Fender amps have selectable rectifiers? The only one I can think of is the Prosonic, which hasn't been offered for a while.

 

[msi]

Just curious—what recent Fender amps have selectable rectifiers? The only one I can think of is the Prosonic, which hasn't been offered for a while.

The prosonic is the one that comes immediately to my mind. It was produced from 1996-2002 which puts it as a contemporary to the dual rectifier.

 

[KH Guitar Freak]

Behringer has already lost a lawsuit from Mackie, and changed the design of their pedal range after being threatened by Roland (Boss). So there is a precendent for them going too far and having to back down. Here's hoping this is another one.

KH - sorry, but if you play Fender copies you have no right to complain about any other company copying any other. It's theft pure and simple - morally, even if trademark law says otherwise due to lack of proper defence. Fender now makes a guitar at every price point, so there is no excuse for buying cheaper. And yes, I agree that if the likes of Tokai had not started, perhaps Fender would never have done so, but that doesn't really justify it.

G&L has a license agreement with FMIC (which I think was granted as a courtesy to Leo Fender back in the day), so it's a different case. Suhr is as bad as the rest of the high-end copiers - they can and do make nice guitars which are only inspired by (and in many ways improved over) Fenders... so why do they have to make blatant rip-offs too?

Was I complaning? Hardly. Besides, most of these Fender copies have different styling (ie different contours etc.) than a typical Fender design. Furthermore, they are marketed as not being copies at all. You could say they were inspired by Fender, but they made the copies different enough that an average Joe can tell the difference between the two (ala PRS Singlecuts and Gibson LPs). What you are referring to, as I can tell, are those that blatantly copy the design down to a T, which I don't really support anyway. Even if I purchase a Fender "copy", they would either be owned by FMIC or given licences to produce them as such...

As to referring to my Fender copies, my Hamer strat has several differences that an average Joe should be able to tell. In fact, the pickguards, neck joints, routings, headstock designs, etc., are not close copies at all. My Hamer only looks like a strat from far away, and they were never ever marketed as blatant strat copies. In fact, Fender should be thankful that most people who see my strat would then presume it's a Fender, and go buy a Fender instead anyway. All my other strats are Fender strats or licenced strats. Also, about Fender's price points. Unfortunately, you could get a better strat for the money than your typical Fender strat. Of course, you are going to argue that Fender have the right to charge whatever they want, but whatever. I'm not keen to argue about that point. Simple matter of the fact is, the courts have decided they didn't go out to protect their designs, so it's legally ok for others to copy them exact if they wish to...

The only blatant guitar copy (again, they are subtle differences if you can tell) I have would be an early 80s Burny LP Custom copy. The only reason I didn't go buy a Gibson is that I don't have the confidence to splash cash on a 5 grand guitar or more, only to get a sloppy made one that's inexcusable. Whatever. I'll buy a Gibson if I find one that's right. On the other hand, those Navigators look good. You might call them blatant copies, but there are several distinctions to make them obviously enough that they are not the same to begin with...
As for Mesa, I'm quite sure the only thing they can sue for are breaches in their patents. That would be up to the judge to decide, as I don't know the details of Mesa's patents, nor know what and to what extent Bugera is infringing the copyrights to the patents...

 

[94Tremoverb]

OK, so we're closer on this than I thought, but I just think it's hypocritical to do what so many people do, and complain about their favorite amp brand or whatever being ripped off while playing a Fender copy because "Fender don't make as good a guitar as this at the same price", or bashing Fender for being a large corporation not a small builder. Design theft is the same when Suhr does it as when Behringer does it.

 

[KH Guitar Freak]

Dont get me wrong, Fenders are nice. On the other hand, there are so many licenced copies out there that are great too, and for me, the lack of brand name recognition doesn't bother me. So much so I trade my Tokai Les Paul today for a G&L, and I'll say that it is better than most current mass production Fenders for less money. In this case, I doubt Leo Fender would be too upset about that...

As for the Suhr debacle, I'm going to have to disagree, unless you are talking about their particular strat copies, then perhaps you have a point. On the other hand, are the designs exactly the same right down to a T? No, I'm not just talking about headstock designs. I'm also talking about body contours, neck joints, overall shape of the body, routing, etc. Just curious as I have yet to personally touch and see Suhr's strat copy...

Personally, I also think the firm's marketing strategy would play a part here. If the design was merely to pay homage to amps that came before them, such as Mesa and Marshall acknowledging Fender amps gave them inspiration to design their own, the judge might take into account that they aren't just going out to blatantly copy the designs, and sell them to profit from there. Judging by Bugera's advertising, they seem to suggest otherwise. Again, I'm sure there are several points to bring up in a court case anyway...

 

[Heritage Softail]

A good lawyer would ask the plantiff, "What is the outcome you seek?". So what do we want to happen to Bugera? The cheap copies may drive the price down on some amps but Boogie does not seem to care about price dropping. They drop dealers over price dropping. Boogie buyers are not those to buy 'copy amps'. I think the Boogie copies will hit the B market amps, like Peavey/Marshall Solid Sate/Line 6. If you can get a decent Boogie copy instead of a Peavey... Hmm..... That is who will drop a sale because of Bugera, not Boogie.

Boogie should still sue.

My .02$

 

[94Tremoverb]

Yes, I was talking about Suhr's Fender copies - the ones that are indistinguishable from a Fender at a quick glance apart from the head shape and the square fingerboard end... which is ugly too, but that doesn't really make it different when the rest of the body and hardware is exactly the same. John Suhr can make beautiful modern guitars that are *not* copies, but are "Fender-inspired" or "evolved-Fender" guitars, why does he have to stoop to copying as well? He says, because the market demands it. Well, the market demands all sorts of things that are neither legal nor moral, but it doesn't make it right to supply them.

Mesa should definitely sue, even if it *is* Peavey that will probably take the hit. Personally I would still buy any Peavey over a Behringer with a stupid name anyway, but I know a lot of people won't know or care why there is a difference.