Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Steinway has acquired Renner。

I heard that Renner wasn't very well lately, but it looked more "guessinformation" than inside information, coming from various contacts between some techs and Renner.

I don't think Steinway will stop to sell Renner actions to others, it wouldn't be a smart move. My own conjecture was more on the "too big to fail" side of Renner : nowadays Steinway is even more too big to fail, every other piano company that actually uses Renner parts need Steinway to operate well.

But it could also be a Fat-Man strategy.

Interesting idea on the Fat Man strategy...though I highly doubt it. (I had never heard of it before so I looked it up). SS could say no to any potential buyer. I don't think there is any chance (esp in the piano making business) of any hostile takeover. I am far more inclined toward the TBTF and therefore secure your supply line way of thinking (makes more sense to me). I agree that it would create a better profit picture, but esp a better package to offer to a willing buyer.

I don't see it as a stupid move, but rather a smart one.

Pwg

Keep in mind the decal situation....

What's to stop Steinway/Renner from no longer selling parts to rebuilders. They could still supply actions and parts to manufacturers.

Decals are protected by trademark. Service parts are not. Restricting the sale of parts would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Big time!

Pwg

In the rebuilding market wouldn't it benefit them to be able to assert that only pianos rebuilt by Steinway had Steinway or Renner parts?

The backlash they would face by taking a clearly "restraint of trade" position would definitely land them in court over the matter and would be ridiculously costly and time consuming. A seriously bad economic move...not one that any prudent money manager would likely make, esp in unstable economic times.

I would be highly surprised at such a decision.

Could be good for WN&G though.

Pwg

Restraint of trade or protecting the brand.

After all, it is Steinway's position that its brand is damaged by rebuilders who don't us all Steinway parts.

That may be their position but the law is not 100% on their side.

It has already been established legally that a manufacturer cannot require repair shops to use OEM parts. Otherwise auto parts stores would not exist and you'd be buying all your car parts from whoever made your car...no matter how old it is or who you bought it from.

Pwg

What Steinway is claiming in "The Letter" and in the "Decal Affidavit" is they alone have the right to determine if a used Steinway can be sold as a Steinway. They assert their brand is injured by poor quality rebuilds. There is no evidence for this in the market.

I don't think their copyright claim on old style decals has any validity. So far no one has been sued by them that I know of and there are plenty of used piano dealers with rebuilt Steinway's on the floor. Most have the current decal, and Steinway may have a valid claim on exclusivity for that. Still they need to prove deception by the seller that what they are offering is an official, new Steinway.

Steinway does not have a copyright claim on their decals; they have a trademark. The laws concerning trademarks are quite different from copyright laws.

As for determining whether a used Steinway can be sold as a Steinway, they have the same right to determine that as anyone else does.

It makes sense to think that Renner might have been struggling financially, because how many pianos are being made in Europe and the USA these days, and fitted with Renner actions? Compared to the vast quantity of pianos being manufactured in China (and maybe Indonesia) and probably fitted with Chinese-made actions.

As Ed says, SS has not taken anyone to court over the matter (as they threatened in "The Letter). This is a strong indication that they have no intention to follow through, plus the fact that they refuse to publish clarification of their position is further evidence of their intentions...nothing.

You see, they did not come right out and say: 'No one can rebuild SS pianos except us...' No, they said: ' You can do it, but only within certain parameters and limitations...' But their stated guidelines are vague and subject to interpretation and they have thus far refused to give clarification on the matter. If they were truly serious about it they would state what can and can't be done, what parts can or cannot be used, etc. They won't answer any questions regarding this. Why? Because it was all a big bluff right from the start. A nothing burger. A threat, and nothing more. A seemingly valid reason to take back control over the decals, but in today's world of YouTube videos teaching people how to make anything in their basement, it amounts to nothing.

So business continues as usual despite SS claim to exclusivity. And will continue. Don't expect them to do anything legally. It would be a huge quagmire for them and they know it.

Pwg

If you sell a used Steinway as a used Steinway, does the Steinway company have a right to say you can't do that?
If you sell a rebuilt Steinway as a rebuilt Steinway, does the Steinway company have a right to say that you can't?

I strongly suspect that the original purchaser of the Steinway piano purchased it free of restriction, i.e., they didn't sign a binding agreement that stipulated what they could or couldn't do with the piano. By the time a piano gets rebuilt it is surely old, and most often has had more than one previous owner, all but the first of whom purchased the piano on the used market, free of restriction.
If you purchase a used Toyota, just as an example, and the previous owner had body work done on it that included replacing the company logo that is often placed somewhere on the back of the car, has the body shop violated the trademark of the car's original manufacturer? Is replacement of a trademarked logo that was destroyed or damaged or missing on a used item considered trademark infringement? What if Toyota didn't have replacement logos for sale, or refused to sell them? What if the body shop replaced body panels not manufactured by Toyota (a common practice for all brands of cars). Can the repaired car be sold as a Toyota even though it has non-Toyota parts?
Is putting a new Steinway logo on an old Steinway piano whose logo was damaged an attempt to deceive, or simply a repair?

I'm not a lawyer and don't have answers to all these question, but I'm pretty sure that the Steinway company can't restrict anyone from selling a used Steinway as a Steinway. One wonders--what else would it be?

Suppose a Steinway was rebuilt with a WNG action.

Steinway would have us believe that it is no longer a Steinway and that they have the right to protect their brand.

I too am not a lawyer, but think they would have an arguable case.

Only if deception was involved. If you state: "For sale, Steinway with WNG retrofitted action", you are fine. It's truthful and there is no conflict. For anyone who wants a Steinway with a WNG action, it's helpful. The only thing required is transparency.

OK. Let me try another scenario...

Suppose a rebuilder uses Renner hammers, shanks and flanges, instead of Steinway.

Would they need to reveal, casting doubt in the mind of shoppers?

How about just the hammers...?

Well, at least in the USA, the First Amendment says that they do have those rights.

My, oh my.
What for all the hate toward Steinway, one would think this forum belonged to their competitors LOL

I see a great many techs in here who were so blindly enraged at S&S over a simple decal episode, who are now faced with REALITY-- S&S is not on the brink as a business. Indeed, they are expanding their horizon by one of the best business moves a piano firm could make.

Highly reputable action-maker to be a subsidiary to a highly reputable piano mfg. - this is a perfect match. Congrats to S&S for closing such a deal!


Unfortunately, now those certain techs will focus their attention on bad-mouthing not only S&S, but Renner too... Some people choose to live in blindness to the reality that is in front of them.

NOW we all must endure how COMPOSITE is FAR superior than standard anyway...and, THIS is a SURE sign that S&S will soon be based out of CHINA! LOL

Whatever. Enjoy your world.

* By the way, I had basically quit posting in here due to such biased rules against Christian faith- but I could not restrain myself this one response to such enjoyable news.

According to SS "position" you must disclose this to any potential buyer. But this is really a no brainer. This should be SOP for any shop selling any piano, anywhere, anytime. No matter what the make, they should be transparent about what has been done to the instrument. Anyone who wanted to conceal this would obviously attempting to manipulate the buyer.

Even if the customer does not ask, the wise seller would be wise to disclose fully what was done and what parts were used, and why. I do not see how or why this would create doubt in the mind of the shopper. If the piano sounds and plays great and they like it, they buy it.

What SS is subtly trying to do is in fact CREATE that doubt that the piano is now worth less than if OEM parts were used. It is a backdoor tactic to steer repair, rebuilding, and sales to themselves. They have some very clever people in their marketing dept. They took a cute advertising slogan and turned it into a "legal" position. How smart is that?

However, notice the fact that SS is not enforcing their "position" now almost a year old. Why? Because they know that they would be countered with a massive restraint of trade lawsuit, and everyone would jump on the bandwagon against them, including consumers. So, they quietly engage in a form of mind control through the use of idle legal threats (which every lawyer on the planet knows how and why to use). There's no beef in the burger.

SS broke no law in sending out "the Letter". They also took no legal action in doing so. Many are confused on this issue. NO LEGAL ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN. Only a threat...period. This does not constitute legal action any more than if you paid your lawyer to write a nasty letter to your neighbor informing them that they have no right to set foot on your property, and if they do you will sue them. The Letter is not legal action but simply a threat. It certainly tells your neighbor how you feel about them and instills fear and trepidation into them, but it is nothing more than a lawyers trick to bend them to your will. It means nothing until you actually follow through and take them to court to press your "issue".

A lawyer's letter is nothing more than a legal fart. It has no substance beyond fear.

That is what SS did...they farted, and they're counting on the smell to go their way.

Pwg