FWIW I think if it is true they also sent a letter to Ibanez — presumably about the AZES, which is the only thing really close — then that is where it gets interesting.

Because the AZES is clearly a double-cutaway S-type guitar shape, but it is just different enough to spot. And that then raises the question of whether Fender's own variations are as noticeable, because one of theirs has an AZES-type top cutaway.

This is when the penny dropped for me on that first point — when I read last week they had sent a letter to Ibanez.

Fender's weird CEO did say it's "not about all double cutaway" guitars. But if it is about a PRS and it is about an Ibanez, they are going to have to get somewhat specific about what they are claiming.

Yep. Brutal.

ETA: I reckon Fender will fold, because I think the second point is entirely possible. If CBS could have stopped Leo Fender selling S- and T-type body shapes entirely on the basis of what they owned, why did they only secure what amounts to a non-compete agreement?

The big risk for FMIC is in discovery on this point, I reckon. It will do a lot of harm to their reputation if it turns out they have been properly advised they have no claim and they've gone ahead anyway.

That is effectively what Fender are claiming they now have in Europe (off the back of a case that was not even argued because the vendor didn't turn up).

One key thing here is that the Stratocaster did have a design patent attached, and when your design patent expires, that's it; none of that is protected.

But the guitar was designed in 1954 (and indeed the body shape in 1951, fundamentally, because the Fender Precision bass guitar looked like that first). So the design patent was gone by 1970.

At the time, US copyright did not apply to functional shapes, and most of the core aspects of the Strat shape are actually functional — cutaways and sculpting.

Manufacturers like Schecter were making guitars with an S body shape by 1979. So this isn't new, and it is weird.

> that doesn't affect the sound

That would be the whole shape.

72 years later?

> But, for example, are those horns (?) necessary for ergonomics?

More or less, yes.

If you "fill" the cutways on a Strat you have a typical guitar shape.

You want the upper horn there or somewhere near it because the upper strap lug needs to be about there for balance, but some players (especially those with bigger hands) will want their thumb to be free from being blocked by the top of the guitar while they are playing the higher frets, so there's a cutaway. You then want the lower horn to have some of the classic shape below it if you want the guitar to be playable sitting down.

The slope across the top corner of the Strat beyond the bridge is there so that players (in particular guitarists who wear their guitars a bit higher with the fretboard pointing more upwards) don't have the upper arm of their right hand leaning uncomfortably across the edge of the guitar.

Some of these elements were protected by Leo Fender's original design patent, I think, but I can't remember which.

[flagged]

The argument has nothing to do with the sound. A strat style guitar is characterized by:

- Flat top

- Solid body, typically softer/lighter woods

- Bolt-on neck (as opposed to set or through-body)

- Double cutout (as opposed to single/no cutout, V, or other irregular shaped necks) with a longer cutout on top compared to the bottom

- Carved cavity in the top of the body

- "Loaded" pickguard (electronics mounted to it, instead of the body)

- Straight jack mounted into the pickguard

- "Tummy tuck" carved in the back

- Fat/flat shaped bottom of the body like a tele, as opposed to rounded like an LP.

All of these are functional properties of the guitar that have tradeoffs and benefits compared to other designs.

You can have two strats sound completely different but look identical to the untrained eye and the reason for preferring the style has a lot to do with the weight of the instrument and how that weight is distributed when playing standing, and how the body fits in your hands/arms and against your body. There's an argument to be made that the strat is near optimal for comfort in playing.

If you look at competing designs that (PRS McCarty, Ibanez, Schecter, Gretsch - basically anyone) the specific curves may be different but they all look like a Strat because it's genuinely hard to design a different body that feels the same.

The St Vincent signature is one style that I think needs to get more popular but it's not for everyone.

OTH people who want to buy strat would prefer to buy "strat with all inherited problems already fixed", be it PRS silver sky, or any boutique brand like LSL / Sandberg / Suhr / Tom Anderson.

> would prefer to buy a Fender strat

I don't think that's true at all. A strat ("strat style" or "s-style") is a shape and configuration. Many of the non-Fender strats are perfectly fine guitars (I have one) from major manufacturers like Ibanez, ESR, Jackson, and others. See forex: https://www.sweetwater.com/c589--S_style--Electric_Guitars

A lot of it is also the history associated with all the strat cats from the 1950s onwards and really good marketing by fender, you're buying a real strat because you want to be in that company (Buddy Holly to Gilmour etc). I recall only wanting a strat when i was in my wannabe-yngwie phase. nothing else would fit.

Fender makes a whole series of Strats at different price points. The challenge is even at the high end Fender has inconsistent QA, so the 'knockoffs' are sometimes way better quality/consistency. See this video for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU7RUpkXsV0

I'm looking at buying one now and as far as I can tell Fender seems to make shoddy quality instruments these days. I see a lot of recommendations for PRS and others.