Dreadnought

[TDavis]

Collings, Taylor, Bourgeois, Huss & Dalton, Thompson, Breedlove, Gibson, Froggy Bottom, Eastman, Santa Cruz...and many other companies I can’t think of or have just failed to mention all have dreadnought models in their current lineup, with Taylor being an exception only recently with the Grand Pacific models.

It seems like most builders are cloning, or trying to improve on the guitar that Martin is commonly given credit to have invented. How are they able to do that? Does Martin not have a patent on that design that keeps others from building copycat guitars? The same goes with the 000/OM as well?

Is the dreadnought shape/size like those of the Fender Stratocaster and Telecaster that are “open” designs that other companies are able to use with different hardware to make them their own?

Just curious.

[fitness1]

U.S patents only last 20 years from what I understand, so that would be well past it's date in this situation, even if they ever applied for it.

[RP]

A quick Google search showed the following as the only patents that Martin currently holds:

Patents Assigned to C. F. Martin & Company, Inc.

Acoustic guitar having a composite soundboard
Patent number: 6664452
Abstract: An acoustic guitar having a hollow body constructed with a pre-finished graphite soundboard and a pre-finished high pressure laminate backboard and sidewall. The graphite soundboard provides the acoustic guitar with a unique appearance and enhances durability without adversely affecting the tonal qualities of the guitar. A bracing pattern particularly for use with the graphite soundboard is also provided.
Type: Grant
Filed: October 1, 2002
Date of Patent: December 16, 2003
Assignee: C. F. Martin & Company, Inc.
Inventor: Timothy A. Teel

Acoustic guitar assembly
Patent number: 6605766
Abstract: An acoustic guitar having a soundboard and a head-plate made of a sheet of metal, such as a sheet of aluminum. The outward facing surfaces of the soundboard and head-plate are provided with a decorative appearance such as by etching or sanding a pattern thereon. The metal soundboard and head-plate provide the acoustic guitar with a unique appearance and enhance durability without adversely affecting the tonal qualities of the guitar.
Type: Grant
Filed: May 22, 2001
Date of Patent: August 12, 2003
Assignee: C. F. Martin & Company, Inc.
Inventor: Timothy A. Teel

Method of manufacturing a stringed instrument
Patent number: 6034309
Abstract: A method of manufacturing an acoustic guitar having a pre-finished resin laminate soundboard, sidewall and backboard. The contoured sidewall of the guitar is provided by a relatively flexible strip of the laminate material which is formed into a loop-shaped preform before being positioned within a multi-part fixture. The fixture is closed on the preform to conform the shape of the preform into a contoured shape. Subsequently, ribbon linings, a soundboard and a backboard are adhesively secured to the preform to complete the assembly of the hollow body portion of the acoustic guitar. Since he laminate material is pre-finished, numerous time consuming finishing steps typically preformed in known methods are eliminated.
Type: Grant
Filed: May 28, 1999
Date of Patent: March 7, 2000
Assignee: C.F. Martin & Company, Inc.
Inventors: Timothy A. Teel, Frank Finocchio

Acoustic guitar assembly
Patent number: 5952592
Abstract: An acoustic guitar having a resin laminate soundboard with a bracing pattern specifically configured to provide the non-wooden soundboard with qualitites resembling traditional wooden soundboards. The soundboard is made from a relatively inexpensive resin laminate material in order to reduce the manufacturing cost of the acoustic guitar. The bracing pattern located on the underside of the soundboard stiffens the non-wooden soundboard at particular locations in order to permit a required degree of vibration for acoustic purposes while preventing damaging flexure caused by the forces of the tensioned guitar strings.
Type: Grant
Filed: July 6, 1998
Date of Patent: September 14, 1999
Assignee: C.F. Martin & Company, Inc.
Inventor: Timothy A. Teel

Acoustic guitar assembly
Patent number: 5461958
Abstract: An acoustic guitar having a bracing on the underside of the soundboard which interconnects with the headblock and neck joint such that the soundboard is stiffened in cantilever fashion in a manner which resists failure in the region of the soundhole without affecting adversely the tonal qualities of the guitar.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 6, 1995
Date of Patent: October 31, 1995
Assignee: C. F. Martin & Company, Inc.
Inventors: Michael M. Dresdner, Robert K. Headman

In addition to Todd's time theory above, it could also be that another manufacturer is not infringing on patent rights by changing a few construction details. And this is just a guess but I wonder if since the name "dreadnought" came from an existing battleship, then the idea itself was not able to be patented by Martin...

[Bob Womack]

Just to give you an idea of how that impacts things: the patents on all the popular synthesizers of the '70s and '80 have lapsed and various companies have begun reproducing them down to the nth degree, all but their logos.

Bob

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

…Is the dreadnought shape/size like those of the Fender Stratocaster and Telecaster that are “open” designs that other companies are able to use with different hardware to make them their own?

Just curious.

Hi OP

I've played a lot of Dreadnoughts, and owned more than a few (all having different Logos on the headstock).

Unless they are the same 'brand' not one has been identical to the others (in many ways). And the sound is different as well. The exception were my pre-lawsuit Takamine guitars.

And even though my current electrics are both Fenders, I've played a host of other Teles and Strats which were otherwise branded. And they were also different size/shape/pickups etc.

Even my American Strat Plus is a variant from the base design because of options selected when it was ordered, and availability of parts at the factory when it was assembled.

The one company it is at least rumored which was ordered to cease-and-desist for body design were Takamine (by Martin). I owned two pre-cease 12 string models and a six string that were pretty spot-on-copies of Martins.

Custom builders seem to specialize in copying the characteristics and woods of revered old Martin, Gibson…etc models. I don't know if there is any interest in the copied companies limiting them. It's often well-known which original that is being copied…and that is a form of advertising the original design.

Interesting discussion…

[PappyVanWinkle]

This always did interest me - the guitar biz is different than most in terms of what you would call a "copy" or "knockoff". Many (most?) guitars can be traced back to the basic design of a few classics.

Take Eastman for example - pick a classic Martin and find an analog in the lineup. My BR-140A is a "clone" of a golden era D-18. But, I guess the nature of a wooden guitar means even a "clone", "copy", "knockoff" won't be any of those things, and it will be different every time. Maybe it's more different makers' takes on a handful of classic guitar configurations.

If this were most other things, I don't think it would be very successful. A copied, nearly identical clone of a Ferrari probably wouldn't be viewed as a great car in its own right, maybe because of the lack of originality if nothing else. But, I guess a guitar is a product of living trees and craftsmanship more than synthetic materials and precision machining. Maybe that's what gets it off the hook.

Anyway, I guess my bottom line is that I flip back and forth on the sentiment. Is my Blueridge a knockoff Martin? Or, is it just a Blueridge BR-140a?

[Twin Six]

The dreadnought was named after the Royal Navy battleship Dreadnought, which was a game-changer, making all previous battleships basically obsolete. There's no way Martin could have copyrighted that name from the outset.

[Alan Carruth]

The British 'Dreadnought' battleship was the first 'all big gun' ship, and the largest warship of it's day (1905 or thereabouts. It was not the first ship to bear that name: there's a traditional song about an American made clipper ship of that name that 'feared not the sea'.) The name was applied to a Martin design that was also bigger than most guitars of it's time. 'Jumbo' was a large elephant, and the name got used for Gibson's largest guitar shape. And so it goes. The guitar makers could not patent or trademark the name.

[Pura Vida]

Originally Posted by PappyVanWinkle

...Is my Blueridge a knockoff Martin? Or, is it just a Blueridge BR-140a?

It's just a BR-140A b/c of this.

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi OP

I've played a lot of Dreadnoughts, and owned more than a few (all having different Logos on the headstock).

Unless they are the same 'brand' not one has been identical to the others (in many ways). And the sound is different as well. The exception were my pre-lawsuit Takamine guitars.

And even though my current electrics are both Fenders, I've played a host of other Teles and Strats which were otherwise branded. And they were also different size/shape/pickups etc.

Even my American Strat Plus is a variant from the base design because of options selected when it was ordered, and availability of parts at the factory when it was assembled.

The one company it is at least rumored which was ordered to cease-and-desist for body design were Takamine (by Martin). I owned two pre-cease 12 string models and a six string that were pretty spot-on-copies of Martins.

Custom builders seem to specialize in copying the characteristics and woods of revered old Martin, Gibson…etc models. I don't know if there is any interest in the copied companies limiting them. It's often well-known which original that is being copied…and that is a form of advertising the original design.

Interesting discussion…