Talk about out of touch

Something for them to keep busy with while they wait for the Feds to give them back their wood...
 
(You DID know about the Feds seizing their wood, ya?)

Watched an interview with the CEO of Gibson on TV last night. The government, being unable to point to an applicable law that had been broken, basically said "never mind, go about your business". This after the company had spent $2M on lawyers. And the wood still hasn't been returned.

In many cases it is simply a business decision to cop a plea, work out a deal, and pay the fine rather than fighting it. Even though they are innocent, and followed all the laws, the feds are a force to be reckoned with. They could have gone the distance and would have likely spent millions more to prove they were innocent and get the wood back..... but at what cost? On the other hand, a jury is an unknown factor and could just as easily have ruled against them and that could have bankrupted the company. 

Smart business decision most likely to settle it like they did. 

here's a link to a brief story on the settlement


http://www.npr.org/2012/0...-last-word-in-business

 
as I was making my comment above I was just guessing ....... but.....it was as I described..settled as a business decision. 

Gives a whole new meaning to the line "Got wood?"

slartabartfast


Yes, just a business decision. Totally without honor or integrity. Just as the decision to source materials illegally, rather than finding legitimate more expensive sources in order to increase profits was a business decision. One reason we suffer under an immense mass of laws and regulations, is that the business community seems to see no reason to do the right (good not correct) thing, or avoid doing the wrong (evil not erroneous) thing, and malignantly justifies (excuses not makes just) all action based on whether the company prospers, and the executives receive bonuses. When the basis of your ethics is anything that is not against the law is good, you can expect your neighbors to start passing a lot of laws to keep you from pissing all over them.

I disrespect Gibson for caving under pressure if they believe they were in the right. But they never were, and they never thought they were. This was not principled civil disobedience to protest an application of extraterratorial law, it was just a cheap sleazy unethical (does that even apply to a business decision?) cheat. This is the same kind of business decision that justifies a pimp beating up a prostitute because it would cost too much to pay her, or a restaurant cooking stolen meat into the stew. Of course Gibson was in the wrong. They certainly thought that they were committing a crime, and they admitted as much. Now they want us to believe that they were good people, they just can't afford to prove it in our expensive courts. There is no injustice here, unless you believe that individuals who use their companies to commit crimes, or commit crimes in furtherance of their business, should personally suffer consequences.

Excellent post!

"why did Michelle Obama buy a Gibson guitar to give as a present"

There is no better way to patronize labor than to buy domestic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf61M3lBraY Not an endorsement of anything but just some of what went on further afterwards~!

 If Gibson was willingly involved in illegal actions then being left off the hook with no recourse is not a good idea. 

 There are two sides to the cat and mouse between govt. and companies. There are greedy unyielding companies but the govt' also has a choke hold on anyone who is making money and therefore helping our economy through gross over regulation. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Well, it seems my ignorance is deeper than first thought. I had no idea Gibson was having problems with its wood. I hear there are ways to fix that with minimal side effects these days. I of course would not know, as my wood is fine. Maple is always good and... errr.... I'll get me coat.

Then cheap China knock-offs should not be coming here either, since there are videos showing them also on u-tube b various people. Their $200 knock-off copied made China guitar!

mike_mccue
I can't find any common ground with a corporation that steals from people and then wages a publicity campaign to make their crime seem ok. 

So you'll be dumping all your Gibson products right down to the last case, chord and guitar straps provided?


I won't tell anyone if you keep the allen wrenches. Those are standard.

I'm a western consumer therefore I demand to have ivory keys on my new piano.

There's plenty of Elephants left I've seen 'em in the zoo, and my rights are far more important than those that live near Elephants, no?

btw there's nothing to say you can't own antique ivory, for those trying to compare a finished guitar to a manufacturer illegally sourcing 'new' materials.

What I had been following up to this point was that it had come down to interpretation of India's law.  It was legal wood if Indian workers had worked on it.  They did not have an issue with the wood being harvested, but rather who was providing the labor on the wood.  Maybe there was more info on this since then, but I have not seen it.


Fox News:

Gibson Guitar Corp. is claiming the Obama administration wants more of its woodwork done overseas, as a bizarre battle heats up between the government and one of the country's most renowned guitar makers. 
The dispute started in 2009, when federal agents raided the company over suspect wood shipments from Madagascar. Gibson took that case to court but has denounced the administration with a vengeance after agents returned late last month to raid several Gibson factories -- this time out of concern that Indian export laws had been violated. 
Though some reports on the dispute have cited environmental concerns, court documents suggest the latest battle boils down to a simple, non-environmental question -- which country is working on the wood? 
Gibson's CEO has said repeatedly that the only reason his company is in trouble is because U.S. workers are completing work on guitar fingerboards in the United States. In an interview earlier this week, CEO Henry Juszkiewicz claimed that the U.S. government even suggested Gibson's troubles would disappear if the company used foreign labor. 
The Justice Department is hamstrung from talking about the case because it's an ongoing investigation. Justice spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle told FoxNews.com only that agents were looking for evidence of "possible violations" of a law governing imports of plants and wildlife. 
Hornbuckle also confirmed that no charges have yet been filed in either of the two cases. 
Court documents help explain the root of the tree dispute. According to search warrants associated with the latest raid, federal agents in June intercepted a shipment of Indian ebony apparently bound for Gibson in Tennessee. The documents noted that Indian law "prohibits the export of sawn wood," which can be used for fingerboards -- but does not prohibit the export of "veneers," which are sheets of woods that have already been worked on. 
The search warrants alleged that the intercepted shipment was "falsely declared" as veneer, something that would have been legal. However, the documents said the ebony was in fact unfinished "sawn wood," supposedly illegal. 
This led to the raid on Gibson facilities late last month. 
Juszkiewicz said in a statement that the U.S. government has effectively suggested "that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department's interpretation of a law in India." 
A representative at the Indian Embassy in Washington could not be reached for comment. 
But Juszkiewicz has since claimed that his company's wood exports do in fact comply with Indian law, even if American workers are doing some of the work. 
In an interview on the company website, Juszkiewicz said Gibson "for decades" has purchased fingerboard wood that is two-thirds finished. 
"The fact that American workers are completing the work in the United States makes it illegal," he said, citing the government's position. 
Juszkiewicz maintains Gibson is still complying with the law.


Read more: [link=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/02/gibson-feds-want-guitar-woodwork-done-by-foreign-labor/#ixzz23ityii7O]http://www.foxnews.com/po...n-labor/#ixzz23ityii7O[/link]

http://weeklyworldnews.co...-all-acoustic-guitars/

http://www.examiner.com/a...certs-to-seize-guitars

Personally, I have not heard of any individuals having instruments seized at customs crossings. I think if I understood correctly in one of the stories, that has been corrected by a Senator. 

quote>>> The threat was enough to send U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., quickly leaping into action to make sure the government is prevented from seizing guitars made with forbidden wood provided they were manufactured prior to 2008. A law passed 112 years ago in order to regulate bird feathers used in hats was amended in 2008 to protect wood in "protected forests."

It was in the original intent of this law to seize guitars in this manner. I did understand that the feds did, however, seize guitars already made at the Gibson factory and I do not recall the details if this included any that were back to the factory for repairs that fit that category.