Gibson sues Guitar Hero

[HaRuMaN]

CNN video

[Ed_McCarron]

I hear that next they are going after anyone that air-guitars.

[Dartful Dodger]

Didn't Guitar Hero sue some companies for making controllers that worked with Guitar Hero.  And on the ps3 Activision doesn't allow Guitar Hero's controllers work with Rockband.




What goes around comes around.

[NiN^_^NiN]

They will be fine Gibson's patent if for a device simulating a guitar for leaning and lets face it pushing buttons on a guitar shaped controller isn't anywhere neer the scope of the patent.

[shmokes]

The lamest part of it all is that Guitar Hero hasn't just been around for years, it's been around and Gibson's been collecting royalties for the licensed use of the Gibson axe it comes with.  They didn't bring the suit until Activision recently decided not to renew the Gibson license for the next Guitar Hero (I guess they'll use a different guitar).  What a bunch of cry babies.

[shmokes]

I doubt it.  They were paying royalties cos the design of the guitar that comes with the game (and the guitars used by the in-game characters) are based on Gibson guitars.  They were never paying royalties for the concept of Guitar Hero.  Gibson's had nothing remotely like Guitar Hero in mind when it filed that patent.  Also, keep in mind that Activision only had its hand in Guitar Hero III.  I and II were published by Red Octane, IIRC.  At any rate, whoever published the first two was purchased by Activision (though they only bought publisher to get the Guitar Hero name, the developer of Guitar Hero I and II hooked up with MTV and made Rock Band).

Doesn't it seem a bit strange for Gibson to say, "Oh . . . you stole our idea?  No hard feelings.  Here, how about we license our guitar designs to you." 

Gibson just doesn't want to see this revenue source dry up.  Lame.

[ChadTower]

They were paying royalties because the name Gibson is in the game 7500 times.  The design probably doesn't matter nearly as much as actually saying Gibson over and over and over.

[shmokes]

Well . . . sure.  It's a combination.  Of course guitarists, though, are going to look at the guitars and say, "Wha?  That's not a Gibson," unless they actually look like Gibsons.  And non-guitarists won't just look at the guitar and say, "Oh, look, a Les Paul," but may very well recognize the name Gibson.  They're obviously paying royalties for both, and using either would violate Gibson's trademarks without a licensing agreement.

My point was just that they weren't paying Gibson royalties to use Gibson's patented idea or technology.

[ChadTower]

The best guitars in there are the made up ones anyway.     I love the Fat Elvis' guitar.