• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Gibson fights back!!!

hamrhed1

Inspired
That's awesome! The music comes out better on a previously confiscated guitar.

(Hope they're not monitoring this post...$hit....)
 

BigD1977

Power User
Interesting. I'm wondering how guilty Gibson were to have to settle out of court for a $300,000 fine and a $50,000 financial contribution.

I'm also wondering if they could make still make their money back out of a 'Government Series" if they had been also using black rhino horn for their inlays. ;)
 

jimfist

Fractal Fanatic
Interesting. I'm wondering how guilty Gibson were to have to settle out of court for a $300,000 fine and a $50,000 financial contribution.

I'm also wondering if they could make still make their money back out of a 'Government Series" if they had been also using black rhino horn for their inlays. ;)

blanket summary: Politics and business alike can be nasty, vile, and corrupt (too much of the time for my liking).

The sordid details on both sides of the argument are there for the finding, and IMO both sides have their points to make. Who do you trust less? Unscrupulous business-types looking to scam a buck, or strong-arm Federal types who use the FBI/IRS to shake down those with whom they may have an ideological axe to grind, using vagaries of the law ? As this case was settled out of court, we'll never really know, but my sense is that there is a lot of BS on both sides going on....and that is what is tragic IMHO.
 
Yeah right... Gibson paid out $350k because they did nothing wrong. That's like saying the financial giants were extorted and did nothing wrong because they paid a settlement that included a clause allowing them to deny blame. They didn't pay $350k out of the goodness of their hearts. They were guilty of something they didn't want to admit publicly.

In the musical instrument industry Gibson is the man. You want to fight the man then buy your guitar from a small local builder.

Juszkiewicz is a donor to Republicans like U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Sen. Lamar Alexander

I in no way support a lot of the rubbish going down ATM, but really, a government sting to strike out at Blackburn and Alexander supporters..!?..?!.. You don't think they could aim a little higher than that? You can't accuse someone of being politically calculating and politically stupid at the same time.

In short Gibson obviously did something wrong. They paid money to be able to deny it like every other big business entity and are now releasing a line of guitars to distract from the fact that they just bought their way out of a ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Danny W.

Experienced
A company I used to work for paid $50k (in 1979) to settle a potential patent suit that we would have won in court, because our attorney's bills would have been twice that. In addition, it allowed us to sell a bunch of product that other wise would have been sidelined during the fight. We calculated that settling saved us us a couple of million dollars, which made the cost a bargain, but it certainly felt like extortion to us at the time we paid it.

I would not ascribe any motives to Gibson's settlement in this case, other than they will make more money because of it. Assuming that a settlement equates to an admission of guilt is simple erroneous.

Danny W.
 
That may be so if it was a civil suit, but this is a suit brought by a federal agency. The Equal Access to Justice Act makes the government liable for legal fees if they lose and can not show they had good reason to bring the suit. They weren't saving legal fees. There was evidence against them. The Justice Department is the one who generally pushes for settlements as they don't have the funding to fight large companies in court who have much larger cash reserves. That's generally the only way they can extract penalties from offending companies without overextending their inadequate budget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

hamrhed1

Inspired
Gibson claims to have spent (I think) 12 million in legal fees. The govt is playing with "our" money so they have unlimited time and (our) money to harass
companies and causes they don't like. So job-one for the justice dept is raiding Gibson, really? LOL

This seems like a smart business decision by Gibson to get the jackboots off their throat. Turning this govt overreach into a unique Les Paul is a stroke
of genius and smells like Capitalism. To call Gibson "the man" here in the face of this swat team seizure of woods would require a suspension of common sense.
This is the same sort of logic that makes mega-successful companies like Apple just-fine while other mega-successful companies in less cool industries are demons.
Don't get it.

IMO all these guys are just trying to make a buck in a tough economy, good for them when they succeed!

I've gotta buy one of these things....:^)
 

funny_polymath

Fractal Fanatic
Or maybe it should be: American Companies still insist on century-old policies of raping the raw materials of the 3rd world, and decimating its ecology, because of corporate greed. Read up on what the Dulles bothers and United Fruit did to Central and South America ostensibly for 'freedom' but really for greed, while yer at it.
Ha, the title should read U.S. Government extorts $350,000 from Gibson over pre cut pieces of dead trees.
 

hamrhed1

Inspired
If a dead tree falls in the (rain)forest and no one is around to hear it...it still sounds like a badass Les Paul.

Sorry guys...I tried to stop...I just couldn't....
 

BigD1977

Power User
IMO all these guys are just trying to make a buck in a tough economy, good for them when they succeed!

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about this seizure or the specifics of the case, but I have to disagree with this general sentiment.

Trying to make a buck is all well and good but if the result of making this buck is the general decline of the place where we live.... well, I find it hard to stomach.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bleeding heart environmentalist. Some environmentalists want to keep everything just as it is when even nature doesn't do that, and I view any sustainable resource as fair game, but laws were set up to try and protect that which is unsustainable. The macro view is that forests are being cut down by the shipload to feed a lumber industry that isn't (largely) replanting, and even though rare guitar tonewoods are a small cause of the problem, they ARE a cause nonetheless, and it's part of the reason that these woods are rare in the first place.

Whatever the reality of the case, I don't think anybody except Gibson's wood suppliers and the investigators know the truth. IMHO (and I MUST stress that I'm coming from a place of relative ignorance regarding the specifics of the case.... as are most people, truth be told) it seems a little cheeky of Gibson to offer a guitar line that profits off the case while not offering a similar line from sustainable wood. (EDIT: A quick search for the term 'sustainable wood' yields 0 results on Gibsons page, but I may be wrong about that. If anybody does know, I would genuinely be glad to eat my words.)

Everything in balance and all of that.
 
Top Bottom