Otterbox

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

Recommended Posts

 

Minutes of last November's ISAF Executive Committee meeting.

 

 

© Secretary General’s Report
i) International Laser Class Association
An update was given on the relationship between Laser Performance and the design rights holder.
Decision
ISAF will obtain advice from lawyers on the sale of ISAF plaques.

 

Interesting item a few lines below about suspending MNAs "who were threatening the autonomy of our sport" which I think may be a clue how this is headed. You've got all these committees trying to protect a variety of interest, none of which have to do with how I race my boat locally on weekends. They are absolutely incapable of making a wise decision.

 

I'm assuming that BK and his new builders have actually been making their plans for some time, and that new boats will start appearing this year. Once that happens, the national-level class associations will sign on very quickly to a hybrid Torch/Laser class association and bypass the ILCA/ISAF. There are simply not enough class officers or regatta organizers to support two or three class associations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was Performance Sailcraft Australia (the owner of the Laser trademark in Australia), and was serious about working with Bruce Kirby to change the name of the Laser class to the Torch, the first thing I would do is register the Torch trademark in Australia.

 

However, a quick search of the Australian trademark database at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au shows nothing. Searching for PSA finds all the Laser trademarks they own but there is no sign of a Torch trademark, registered or pending, owned by anyone.

 

So have they forgotten to do this, leaving the opportunity for someone else to register it themselves and potentially onsell it later for a wad of cash?

 

Or is it an indication that the whole suggestion to rename the class as the Torch just a legal gambit from Kirby, with no real intention to follow through?

 

Or is it just that the process in Australia is slow and the trademark isn't in the database yet?

 

Also interesting is that Bruce Kirby Inc submitted an application in the US for the Laser Trademark (text and symbol) last month, even though these are already registered to Karaya (Jersey) Pty Ltd (i.e. Rastegar). Now why would BK do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe they would have overlooked that kind of detail, especially as that's one of the major problems that brought all this nonsense up anyway. Probably just not in the system yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big meeting this weekend on your end of the pond on the subject; working on details.

 

Another teaser from Clean!

 

By "your end of the pond" I'm guessing he meant somewhere east of the Scillies.

 

It's almost a week later. Anyone heard anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was Performance Sailcraft Australia (the owner of the Laser trademark in Australia), and was serious about working with Bruce Kirby to change the name of the Laser class to the Torch, the first thing I would do is register the Torch trademark in Australia.

 

However, a quick search of the Australian trademark database at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au shows nothing. Searching for PSA finds all the Laser trademarks they own but there is no sign of a Torch trademark, registered or pending, owned by anyone.

 

So have they forgotten to do this, leaving the opportunity for someone else to register it themselves and potentially onsell it later for a wad of cash?

 

Or is it an indication that the whole suggestion to rename the class as the Torch just a legal gambit from Kirby, with no real intention to follow through?

 

Or is it just that the process in Australia is slow and the trademark isn't in the database yet?

 

Also interesting is that Bruce Kirby Inc submitted an application in the US for the Laser Trademark (text and symbol) last month, even though these are already registered to Karaya (Jersey) Pty Ltd (i.e. Rastegar). Now why would BK do that?

Nows your chance! Go register the Torch Redstar! (And the domain name for all the countries while you're at it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the ILCA appears to have a policy of not communicating with the members who pay their wages at all, so we wouldn't expect to hear anything from any meeting they might have had.

 

If I were a party I don't think I'd do anything very much until I saw the LPE response to Kirby's lawsuit, which isn't due until early June. At that point there'll be some kind of idea what the basis for LPE's actions are. You never know, they might come up with something which gives as all a different viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a party I don't think I'd do anything very much until I saw the LPE response to Kirby's lawsuit, which isn't due until early June. At that point there'll be some kind of idea what the basis for LPE's actions are. You never know, they might come up with something which gives as all a different viewpoint.

 

couldn't agree more*, best keep the powder dry. Besides that could be the first of several extensions couldn't it? (US law commentator???)

 

*Expect maybe I'm less inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt over 'something significant' being in existence that would give me a different perspective on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odds are this will never reach a court. 90%+ of suits are settled. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005549432&Trial_vs_Settlement&slreturn=20130318081954

 

1 Less than 5% of the cases filed are actually tried. See: Folberg, "Use of ADR in California Courts: Findings and Proposals," 26 U.S.F. L. Rev. 343, 351 n. 23 (1992); John M. Seitman, Inaugural Address, The State Bar of California 4 (Sept. 15, 1991) ("more than 90 percent of all cases filed in California are settled before they get to trial-but settlement often comes after vast amounts of time and money have been expended on pre-trial proceedings and trial preparation").

See also: President's Council on Competitiveness, Agenda for Civil Justice Reform in America: A Report 7 (1991) ("More than 92 percent of all civil lawsuits are settled or otherwise disposed of prior to trial"); Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the Director (1985) (95% of cases filed settle or are otherwise disposed of before trial); McMunigal, "The Cost of Settlement: The Impact of Scarcity of Adjudication on Litigating Lawyers," 37 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 833, 838 n. 15 (1990) ("In 1988, only 5.3% of the civil cases terminated in the federal courts ending in trial").

 

 

Well, the ILCA appears to have a policy of not communicating with the members who pay their wages at all, so we wouldn't expect to hear anything from any meeting they might have had.

 

If they are smart, they are negotiating, and if they are negotiating, they'd do well not to give a running commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's all going down the shit now... ISAF pick Rastegar.

 

http://www.sailing.org/news/34222.php

 

----------------------

On 23 April 2013 ISAF approved a proposed amendment to the Laser Class Rules which was approved by ILCA members in 2012. The amended rule permits ISAF and ILCA to approve builders of the Laser who have the right to use the Laser trademark.

 

The requirements for new classes to obtain designation as an ISAF Class are defined in ISAF Regulation 10. ISAF Regulation 23 defines how an ISAF Class can be selected as equipment for the Olympic Sailing Competition.

 

ISAF remains committed to working with all the parties to the dispute in order to negotiate a settlement. Our primary concern is for the sailors around the world and we will continue to work towards a resolution.

-----------------------------

 

WOW.....nothing like taking a stand!!! :blink: :blink:

.......it's hard to see how the 3rd paragraph quoted above is in accord with the previous two :huh:

 

.....seems like the old man of Falmouth still has some friends :mellow:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......I'm guessing ISAF realized it HAD to act when it realized Gouv was angling for the torch job :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that certainly changes things up. So who enforces everything now? Previously it was supposedly Kirby who oversaw that everything was according to spec, is some other entity going to take over that responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the full ISAF Statement.............

 

On 22 March the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) published a statement concerning the Laser Class dispute and proceedings filed by attorneys acting for Bruce Kirby.
Since then, Bruce Kirby Inc. published information regarding the launch of the "Kirby Torch" boat. The legal situation is on-going but ISAF can confirm that:
  • ISAF has been named a co-defendant in the legal proceedings filed in the US District Court by attorneys acting for Bruce Kirby.
  • ISAF strongly denies the allegations made against it in the proceedings.
  • The International Laser Class Association (ILCA) is recognized by ISAF as responsible for the organization and administration of Laser dinghy activities worldwide.
  • The Laser dinghy has been selected by ISAF as the equipment for the Men's and Women's One Person Dinghy events at the 2016 Olympic Sailing Competition (with corresponding contractual arrangements in place).

ISAF regards the recent announcement of the Kirby Torch dinghy as a fundamental breach of contractual arrangements between the parties concerned with the Laser class. ISAF has therefore exercised its right to end those arrangements and will negotiate new arrangements directly with the ILCA.

On 23 April 2013 ISAF approved a proposed amendment to the Laser Class Rules which was approved by ILCA members in 2012. The amended rule permits ISAF and ILCA to approve builders of the Laser who have the right to use the Laser trademark.

The requirements for new classes to obtain designation as an ISAF Class are defined in ISAF Regulation 10. ISAF Regulation 23 defines how an ISAF Class can be selected as equipment for the Olympic Sailing Competition.

ISAF remains committed to working with all the parties to the dispute in order to negotiate a settlement. Our primary concern is for the sailors around the world and we will continue to work towards a resolution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

.....today's announcement is stated clearly as a reflex to kirby's announcement of the 'torch' class within what,the last couple of weeks??!

...never in the history of sailing beaurocracy has an organization like ISAF,,,or the ever so secretive Laser Class moved so quickly!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the full ISAF Statement.............

 

  • The International Laser Class Association (ILCA) is recognized by ISAF as responsible for the organization and administration of Laser dinghy activities worldwide.

ISAF regards the recent announcement of the Kirby Torch dinghy as a fundamental breach of contractual arrangements between the parties concerned with the Laser class. ISAF has therefore exercised its right to end those arrangements and will negotiate new arrangements directly with the ILCA.

On 23 April 2013 ISAF approved a proposed amendment to the Laser Class Rules which was approved by ILCA members in 2012.

 

.....today's announcement is stated clearly as a reflex to kirby's announcement of the 'torch' class within what,the last couple of weeks??!

...never in the history of sailing beaurocracy has an organization like ISAF,,,or the ever so secretive Laser Class moved so quickly!!!

Well that makes it a little clearer. I guess the contract said that nobody else could use the design? Otherwise, where did he breach contract, there are plenty of companies who build identical items and market them under different names, assuming they both have permission to use any copyrighted/trademark/whatever material.

 

That was an exceptionally slow knee-jerk response from ISAF, but I guess it's to be expected when lawyers and courts are involved. Basically telling Kirby that he's welcome to the Torch class at the cost of being excluded from Lasers, oh and have fun trying to become an approved class. I guess this is the way for the least change from an outsider's perspective and as long as ISAF can keep its nose above water the laser will survive until the next mess comes along. I guess now Kirby can actively go after those "illegal" boats he was being so nice about without being the bad guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....exceptionally slow???....Reht,,how long has the 'torch' idea been brewing??.....I was thinking not very long!

 

 

 

 

 

....these organizations are reminding me of monty python's knight,,,who despite losing all limbs is still fighting for some sort of status quo of personal interest,,,in spite of what might be good for the whole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....exceptionally slow???....Reht,,how long has the 'torch' idea been brewing??.....I was thinking not very long!

 

 

 

 

 

....these organizations are reminding me of monty python's knight,,,who despite losing all limbs is still fighting for some sort of status quo of personal interest,,,in spite of what might be good for the whole!

My comment being based on the fact that I assumed they took into consideration that Kirby could/would try to make his own class and that ISAF would prepare to have a statement out quickly. If they didn't then they should be asking themselves why they didn't see it coming.

 

I figure your analogy isn't too far from truth, there's plenty of self-interest involved and as far as I can tell (from an outside sailor's perspective) there's little to no consultation with the sailors...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.....exceptionally slow???....Reht,,how long has the 'torch' idea been brewing??.....I was thinking not very long!

 

 

 

 

 

....these organizations are reminding me of monty python's knight,,,who despite losing all limbs is still fighting for some sort of status quo of personal interest,,,in spite of what might be good for the whole!

My comment being based on the fact that I assumed they took into consideration that Kirby could/would try to make his own class and that ISAF would prepare to have a statement out quickly. If they didn't then they should be asking themselves why they didn't see it coming.

 

.....for all the 'brains' on the payroll,,,I don't give them as much credit as you to being -smart- and actually -anticipating- something,,

,,,,or they (isaf) would have supported the Laser(lack of)Class with their first motion! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that one consequence of the launch of the "Torch" is that BK has opened the door a little wider for any builder to start building boats identical to the Laser as long as they are not called Lasers.

 

The only surviving intellectual property (because the design rights have long since expired) is the trade mark. The existing builders of the Laser paid cash for the Laser trade mark so they are the only entities who can build boats called Lasers.

 

Anyone, including BK can build an identical boat to the Laser but cannot call it a Laser. The quality, cost effective dinghy builders have stayed away from this mess for all sorts of reasons. Bruce has effectively removed one of these reasons by endorsing the concept of building a Laser but calling it something else. Its now okay by Bruce. Its going to be hard for him to criticize if someone like Melges, RS, Rondar, Zim, Nacra, Precision Boatworks, Schock, Hobie etc builds a Laser-Like. Appointing Hans Fogh (great bloke but 75 years old and no factory) as the NA builder of the Torch is not going to as credible as one of the established dinghy builders coming to a junior program or club and offering a fleet deal on Laser-identical sailboats at a great price and consistent quality.

 

The only organization that can prevent the Laser-Identical boats from racing on the circuit will be ICLA. But if Gouv's Easter regatta is going to include anything that measures to a Laser (it will be hard to somehow favor a Hans Fogh Canadian built Laser-identical over a US built Laser-identical) and other regional regattas followed suit. Then, like the 420 and the club 420, dominant new builders will gradually emerge due to competition favoring the best blend of service, quality and price.

 

ICLA was the gatekeeper and Bruce just sued them and ISAF. It seems a curious tactic at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.laserinternational.org/info/statementfromtheinternationallaserclassassociation

Statement from the International Laser Class Association

23 April 2013
The International Laser Class Association (ILCA) is aware that over the past few weeks various web postings by persons unaffiliated with ILCA may have caused some members to become confused about the current status and the future of the class. After close cooperation and direct consultation with the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) ILCA can announce the following:
ISAF and ILCA have taken steps to assure the uninterrupted supply of class legal Laser brand sailboats around the world. This includes making newly designed ISAF plaques available to all the current ISAF and ILCA approved manufacturers of the Laser dinghy in accordance with the ILCA class rules. These plaques indicate that all required fees have been paid to both ISAF and ILCA. In order to receive ISAF plaques, manufacturers must continue to adhere to the strict building specifications and one-design standards required by ISAF and ILCA.
For the avoidance of doubt, ILCA is not changing its name or taking on the management of a class association for any new brand of sailboat. Class legal Laser brand sailboats will continue to be available through ISAF and ILCA approved manufacturers and their existing dealers.
ILCA assures its members that all scheduled World and Continental Championships will be held as planned. We are excited about our upcoming regatta schedule and do not anticipate any disruption to the necessary supply of class legal Laser brand sailboats for any of our future events.
ISAF has confirmed that the Laser brand dinghy remains Olympic equipment and will be used for both the men’s and women’s one-person dinghy events at the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil and remains the core equipment through the 2020 Olympics. ISAF informs us that supply contracts for the provision of the equipment for the 2016 Olympics were signed in 2012.
ISAF has approved two changes to Part One of the ILCA Class Rules. These changes have been approved in accordance with the provisions of the ILCA Constitution and the ILCA Class Rules. All necessary votes and approvals have been conducted and are officially recorded. In the case of the member vote, votes were verified for membership validity by each District or Regional authority. The results were then audited by an independent audit firm, which reported 1017 ‘yes’ votes (89.3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10.7%), showing that over two-thirds of the voting members approved the rule change as required by the ILCA Class Rules, Part Five, article 30©.
The reasons for these rule changes have been well documented and more information on this subject can be found here: http://www.laserinternational.org/info/2011rulechangesvotingended23rdseptember2011
The new wording for Part One of the ILCA Class Rules is effective immediately and can be found here: http://www.laserinternational.org/rules/classrules/partone
ISAF has today made a public statement regarding this situation, which can be found here: http://www.sailing.org/news/34222.php
ILCA has been named as a co-defendant in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and has been recently notified of the plaintiff’s intention to formally serve ILCA with the complaint. ILCA intends to vigorously defend itself if necessary, but our primary focus continues to be facilitating a meaningful settlement dialog between the parties in the hopes of reaching an amicable resolution. ILCA has always favoured a negotiated resolution to this dispute.
To be clear, ILCA is not a judge or a court of law and takes no position on the relative merits of the claims made by either of the commercial entities involved in the law suit. ILCA has always maintained that this dispute is based on contracts to which it is not a party and has repeatedly encouraged and requested the commercial parties to these contracts to voluntarily engage in meaningful settlement negotiations. ILCA once again urges the real parties to this dispute to settle their differences and avoid unnecessary expense and damage to the reputation of our sport.
With over 15,000 members organized in over 100 countries, ILCA is committed to protecting the investments made by its members and the interests of sailors on all levels – from the local club racer to those who aspire to represent their countries in the Olympic Games. ILCA cannot allow a commercial dispute to disrupt 40 years of work fostering the sport of sailing and developing the most successful youth and adult racing class in history.
ILCA is optimistic about the future of the Laser class and confident about its leading position in the sport of sailing. We remain dedicated to organizing great regattas around the world and protecting the organisation and strict one-design principles that have served as the cornerstone of our class.
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine we will see court action very soon. This leaves BK with no option but to seek an injunction against ISAF, ILCA and LPE. The other interesting thing is that the other builders had supported BK. What will they do now? Does this mean that the "Laser" only has 1 class builder? I think this thread needs to be entitled "ISAF - applying the blow torch".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, ISAF is using Kirby's forming of the Torch Class with identical boats to the Laser as a breach of contract by Kirby. ISAF has positioned itself to lay the responsibility for issuing plaques that bear the Bruce Kirby trademark squarely on the ILCA. LP will do the same saying that they did not violate the Kirby trade mark, the ILCA did. All they did was build boats with the Laser Trademark, which they own the rights to. ILCA said they were approved to race in the Laser Class and issued the plaques which they required LP to apply.

 

So........ Ultimately the members are stuck with a builder who provides poor service, and a questionable product. ILCA has a big legal bill and Rastagar laughs all the way to the bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new plaques will have Bruce Kirbys signature removed from them and will only have approval from ISAF AND ILCA on them.

 

The class members voted 1017 to 122 to remove all traces of Bruce Kirbys name from the constitution and class rule book and to exclude him totally from the Laser class.

 

The boat he designed and introduced was effectively stolen from him by this vote.

By getting the members to vote in the way they did they have left the class open to litigation that will cost all members a fortune.

 

This new statement from ILCA is a shameful day for the Laser class.

 

All of the 122 members who voted against the motion, and I was one, can be justifiably angry at this recent move by ILCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ILCA has always maintained that this dispute is based on contracts to which it is not a party

 

 

You are indeed a party to it.

 

When ILCA and ISAF issued plaques with Kirbys signature on them which were applied to boats that had not been paid for you were a party.

 

When you removed all obligations under the rules to pay Kirby anything at all you were a party.

 

Now that you have removed his signature that was on the plaque from all future boats that will ever be constructed you are most certainly a party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By endorsing ILCA's stance, ISAF have reinforced this Mexican standoff. Certainly it's a blow to Kirby's cause.

 

I see the key to this as Kirby's original licensing agreement. He maintains it still prevails. But not the defendants.

 

The burden for Kirby has just increased. If he proceeds and loses and the defendants are awarded costs, he's looking at a whopping bill.

 

Morally, he's a clear winner. But its gonna take some mighty cojones to make a principled stand on the legalities. I hope he pulls it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the kirbytorch.com website:

 

The ISAF announcement confirms what we feared. It would appear ISAF has been complicit all along in the efforts of Laser Performance and ILCA to steal the Kirby Sailboat design by refusing to pay royalties, issuing plaques to terminated builders, and now using a flimsy pretext to the alter the Laser class rules and purport to allow builders to make the Kirby Sailboat without Bruce Kirby's authorization.

The only path forward that does not require a Court Order is the Kirby Torch. We remain available to negotiate with ISAF and/or ILCA if either or both of them is willing to meet.

 

 


http://www.kirbytorch.com/news/kirbyresponsetoisafannouncement

 

Pretty disgusting behaviour on the part of ILCA and ISAF.

 

If you are a Laser sailor make the effort to join the Torch class on the following page:

 

http://www.kirbytorch.com/members

 

 

As I said in a much earlier post, there are a lot of people riding this gravy train and they would rather see it run off the tracks to its own destruction than steer an honourable and decent course.

 

One would have thought that the class would have stood behind the sailors and the designer on this issue. To remove all trace of the boat designer and founder of the class whilst smirking to each other over their cleverness like little school boys is certainly a sight to behold.

 

Laser sailors around the world should be stunned at the exclusion of the designer of this boat from the class. If I was Kirby I would be enraged over this theft, as Kirby himself describes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the kirbytorch.com website:

 

 

 

The ISAF announcement confirms what we feared. It would appear ISAF has been complicit all along in the efforts of Laser Performance and ILCA to steal the Kirby Sailboat design by refusing to pay royalties, issuing plaques to terminated builders, and now using a flimsy pretext to the alter the Laser class rules and purport to allow builders to make the Kirby Sailboat without Bruce Kirby's authorization.

The only path forward that does not require a Court Order is the Kirby Torch. We remain available to negotiate with ISAF and/or ILCA if either or both of them is willing to meet.

 

 

http://www.kirbytorch.com/news/kirbyresponsetoisafannouncement

 

Pretty disgusting behaviour on the part of ILCA and ISAF.

 

If you are a Laser sailor make the effort to join the Torch class on the following page:

 

http://www.kirbytorch.com/members

 

 

As I said in a much earlier post, there are a lot of people riding this gravy train and they would rather see it run off the tracks to its own destruction than steer an honourable and decent course.

 

One would have thought that the class would have stood behind the sailors and the designer on this issue. To remove all trace of the boat designer and founder of the class whilst smirking to each other over their cleverness like little school boys is certainly a sight to behold.

 

Laser sailors around the world should be stunned at the exclusion of the designer of this boat from the class. If I was Kirby I would be enraged over this theft, as Kirby himself describes it.

Beutifully written +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv, any chance you'd be willing to run a second unofficial vote to re-instate Kirby. On line petitions don't work because people get hit with spam after giving up personal details. If you were the cheerleader and collector of such information (by email), I bet you could get a more accurate vote and it would certainly help Kirby in court and send a message to the ILCA that they did not act in accordance with the members wishes but instead mislead the members into voting on something they didn't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep forgetting that at some point BK sold his rights to the New Zealand company "Global Sailing" and then reacquired them. ILCA has been saying from the start that, with this move, Kirby effectively 'removed' himself from the original agreement. I think this will be strong argument in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep forgetting that at some point BK sold his rights to the New Zealand company "Global Sailing" and then reacquired them. ILCA has been saying from the start that, with this move, Kirby effectively 'removed' himself from the original agreement. I think this will be strong argument in court.

My guess is that will be the biggie. Not much talk of that from Kirby or his supporters. If this all goes Kirby's way I would bet that deal would be back on. I doubt that Kirby wins in court on any point and we can look forward to more statements like the one posted above from the Blow Torch (much more fitting name:) website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread needs to be entitled "ISAF - applying the blow torch".

 

I think you mean "ISAF—blowing out the Torch".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a builder just anybody who claims to be one?? Or is a builder defined by certain rules??

 

According to the new rule (my emphasis):

 

A Builder is a manufacturer that has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as a Laser Builder by each of the International Sailing Federation and the International Laser Class Association

 

So who will write this new construction manual? There is no doubt that Kirby Inc. owns the copyright on the old one, so whoever writes the new one will need to reverse–engineer the design from an existing boat. Any use of the existing manual will be in breech.

 

Can you complain ( effectively) that you are now going to ignore a contract because the other party to the contract pointed out you were ignoring the contract and attempted to go on with life??

 

Apparently, in some universe. I don't think ISAF are thinking clearly, or they are taking some very bad advice.

 

This get weirder and weirder. Where's that popcorn cart when you need it…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Kirby suing ISAF, who had previously been reining in ILCA's love-in with Rashegar, wasn't a great tactic.

 

Maybe launching the Torch at the same time as pursuing a breach of contract action wasn't a great tactic.

 

SimonN had an analysis whereby provided ISAF supported Kirby, it was game over for Rashegar. But that hasn't happened and one can only speculate as to why ISAF has come firmly off the fence and in the direction it has. At a guess, they didn't like what they were hearing from Kirby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That didn't have anything to do with it dogwatch; ILCA and ISAF lawyers took the weeks to do the research, and more or less figured out what many of those here have: Other than the copyrighted manual, there's just nothing for Kirby to own or to collect license fees or royalties for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That didn't have anything to do with it dogwatch; ILCA and ISAF lawyers took the weeks to do the research, and more or less figured out what many of those here have: Other than the copyrighted manual, there's just nothing for Kirby to own or to collect license fees or royalties for.

Ah, but there-in lies the problem they've stepped in. How do they guarantee that the new boats are built identical to the old ones when the old ones were built to a manual they no longer have (therefore can't guarantee the exactitude of their build) and they can't copy as that would be a breach of copyright law (which even they are most likely aware of).

 

That manual, if Kirby has any legal claim to it, is going to be a strong ace up his sleeve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of options if the ILCA and membership wants Rastegar's group building boats: They can rewrite the manual so it doesn't infringe, they can build a new manual based on existing construction techniques, etc. No biggie.

 

That being said, there is a mountain of back story and it seems more than a little dirty laundry on all sides here, and I have a feeling a lot of it is going to come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....until the Laser(lack of)Class is run by people who resemble members who actually sail,,,rather than self interested,,lifetimer stuff-shirts,,I don't expect anything bright to come <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of options if the ILCA and membership wants Rastegar's group building boats: They can rewrite the manual so it doesn't infringe, they can build a new manual based on existing construction techniques, etc. No biggie.

 

That being said, there is a mountain of back story and it seems more than a little dirty laundry on all sides here, and I have a feeling a lot of it is going to come out.

I'm sure you will have a ball. We can already see inklings of what's hidden and nobody's even seen a court house yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That didn't have anything to do with it dogwatch; ILCA and ISAF lawyers took the weeks to do the research, and more or less figured out what many of those here have: Other than the copyrighted manual, there's just nothing for Kirby to own or to collect license fees or royalties for.

As you say, that's long been figured out. But the same could be said of LP - other than a trademark that's hardly an essential and some easily replicable moulds, what do they own? Therefore (sentiment aside), why side with one or the other? There has to be a reason that ISAF has been long leaning one way but finally jumped the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trademark is a pretty powerful thing dog. Especially when your trademark is also the most recognizable boat in all of sailing. Trademarked names are bought and sold for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. That being said, I'm sure there is a process for changing a class name under ISAF rules...

 

Thing is, this is a potentially pretty big case, and their statement's confidence likely means they just don't think the case has much chance of success. Let's hope it's not some kind of continental arrogance that's pumping them up; that didn't go too well for the last major European sailor to defend himself in a US court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

One thing that has puzzled me is that the complaint is directed against Rashegar personally as well as the cluster of companies he controls. That would not make sense in the UK where companies have a distinct legal personality and owners/directors are not normally defendants when a company is sued. Any comments on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you guys here are way off track. As I see it, ISAF and ILCA don't really have many options at the moment. In fact, their reaction might very well be the only option presently.

 

ISAF depends on class associations to define class legal boats. ISAF is no class ass. and doesn't aspire to become one, let alone a head ass. for all sailing classes worldwide. Therefore they need to work with what the class ass.define as a class legal boat if they want to accept or keep a class in the ISAF game.

 

Presently the ILCA's rule book defines a class legal boat as, among other things, having been built by a Laser trademark holder.

 

The ILCA-reps, like most of us, probably did not expect this dispute and the way it developed. Anyway, the class rules are the the way they are. They cannot be changed in a wink because you need to ask and inform 15.000 members worldwide and get an approval from the ISAF (the information prior to the vote on the change of the fundamental rule was less than ideal, but it's the rule and proposals for changes that matter here).

 

Therefore, presently, if the reps ILCA want to ensure the supply of boats and parts in NA and Europe, including charter boats at certain championships, for the near future in order to enabe ILCA members to exercise the sport, i.e. if they want to fulfil their basic job description, they are pretty much stuck with the builder who owns the rights to the Laser trademark for NA and Europe for the moment, aren't they?

 

Whether the trade mark actually is a right that grants exclusice use of the name and logo and a right that could effectively be defended in court is another story. The ILCA reps can hardly act against the present class rules and define Torches as class legal starting from day X whithout changing the fundamental rule again, regardless of their personal feeling and relationship with Rastegar and his companies' reps. Or can they?

 

The ILCA reps probably did the only thing sensible in view of BK's legal action and proposed a rule change that should ensure that the supply of boats is not interrupted even if the agreement between BK and LP - whatever it says - is terminated (which seems to be what happened): they proposed a rule change that should limit the effect of the LP-BK dispute on class events. I believe they served me as a member well.

 

Now, I think they should go one step further and abolish the phrase in the definition of a class legal builder about the Laser trademark too, thereby creating the option to negiotate a builder agreement with LP, BK, BK licensed companies or whoever, one that serves the class members best and not the needs of BK, BK Inc, the Australian builder, Rastegar or whoever. The reference to the construction manual and the approval by both ILCA and ISAF should ensure that the ILCA can still control the adherence to the strict OD principle.

 

Anyway, all you people pissing at the ILCA and ISAF reps: where is your solution to the current clusterfuck? When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies? If see a viable option for class, spell it out.

 

I am in no way associated with any of the parties involved except that I sail a Laser, and am, through my nat'l Laser class ass, an ILCA member. Also, I don't really care whether the Laser remains an Olympic class. This is simply about trying to do the ILCA and ISAF reps some justice in this fucked up matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies?

The old situation tied up all the parties in a mesh of contracts in which everyone had some rights and some responsibilities, and no-one could rock the boat without creating a mess in which everyone would lose. That's why it worked reasonably well for so long. For example because the companies held the trademarks they couldn't be **** on by ILCA and ISAF, and could make secure investments in the class etc.

 

What we have now is a situation where one party has decided to rock the boat and create the mess for whatever reason, and as one would expect chaos has descended and everyone is losing... I don't think its any great surprise that the resulting nonsense is a nightmare to sort out: so many variable very hard for anyone to predict anything once irrationality kicked in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to come down to whether there are contracts or merely a Class Rule that specify that BK is on the plaque. The ILCA and ISAF can change a class rule (although the vote was surely unconstitutional in the manner it was presented?) but that vote can not change any contractual obligations between the designer and the builder.

 

One thing that does come out of this to me, is that Class Associations should have no say in commercial matters. They are essentially just a fan club, and should have no more say on what a Laser looks like or is called than the Britney Spears Fan Club has a say on her hairstyle or name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are more than a fan club- they control the aspects of the specific game - one design racing in universal equipment, the game itself being controlled at macro level by ISAF. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's a highly valued part of our game, it even has an Olympic slot given its (relative) low cost of entry - one I personally would like to see continue going forward.

 

That is something I understand Kirby is interested in protecting, even at the cost of the name 'Laser'.

 

If you want the fan club, run by the manufacturer, please see this and this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you guys here are way off track. As I see it, ISAF and ILCA don't really have many options at the moment. In fact, their reaction might very well be the only option presently.

 

ISAF depends on class associations to define class legal boats. ISAF is no class ass. and doesn't aspire to become one, let alone a head ass. for all sailing classes worldwide. Therefore they need to work with what the class ass.define as a class legal boat if they want to accept or keep a class in the ISAF game.

 

Presently the ILCA's rule book defines a class legal boat as, among other things, having been built by a Laser trademark holder.

 

The ILCA-reps, like most of us, probably did not expect this dispute and the way it developed. Anyway, the class rules are the the way they are. They cannot be changed in a wink because you need to ask and inform 15.000 members worldwide and get an approval from the ISAF (the information prior to the vote on the change of the fundamental rule was less than ideal, but it's the rule and proposals for changes that matter here).

 

Therefore, presently, if the reps ILCA want to ensure the supply of boats and parts in NA and Europe, including charter boats at certain championships, for the near future in order to enabe ILCA members to exercise the sport, i.e. if they want to fulfil their basic job description, they are pretty much stuck with the builder who owns the rights to the Laser trademark for NA and Europe for the moment, aren't they?

 

Whether the trade mark actually is a right that grants exclusice use of the name and logo and a right that could effectively be defended in court is another story. The ILCA reps can hardly act against the present class rules and define Torches as class legal starting from day X whithout changing the fundamental rule again, regardless of their personal feeling and relationship with Rastegar and his companies' reps. Or can they?

 

The ILCA reps probably did the only thing sensible in view of BK's legal action and proposed a rule change that should ensure that the supply of boats is not interrupted even if the agreement between BK and LP - whatever it says - is terminated (which seems to be what happened): they proposed a rule change that should limit the effect of the LP-BK dispute on class events. I believe they served me as a member well.

 

Now, I think they should go one step further and abolish the phrase in the definition of a class legal builder about the Laser trademark too, thereby creating the option to negiotate a builder agreement with LP, BK, BK licensed companies or whoever, one that serves the class members best and not the needs of BK, BK Inc, the Australian builder, Rastegar or whoever. The reference to the construction manual and the approval by both ILCA and ISAF should ensure that the ILCA can still control the adherence to the strict OD principle.

 

Anyway, all you people pissing at the ILCA and ISAF reps: where is your solution to the current clusterfuck? When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies? If see a viable option for class, spell it out.

 

I am in no way associated with any of the parties involved except that I sail a Laser, and am, through my nat'l Laser class ass, an ILCA member. Also, I don't really care whether the Laser remains an Olympic class. This is simply about trying to do the ILCA and ISAF reps some justice in this fucked up matter.

 

This is absolutely spot on.

 

The best outcome for the sailors is that the sailors control the class. This action gets us one step closer to that dream. We are still beholden to the trademark owner, at least for as long as we are tied to the Laser name. Give up the Laser name and the class dies - we would be completely insane to give up the most recognised brand in the sailing world.

 

Having said that, I do believe that the sailors have an ongoing moral debt to Kirby. The most frustrating thing in this whole saga is that everything is painted as either pro-Kirby or anti-Kirby. It doesn't have to be so absolute. I would have no objection to a new class rule that, while allowing the class to choose the builder, requires that builder to pay a due of some sort to Kirby. I don't know that too many class members would object to maintaining the current 2% royalty charge under the new arrangements. A win win for all perhaps?

 

One other point ... to those who keep bagging the ILCA - if you don't like it, get involved and make a positive difference. Many of the world council do still sail - Tracy obviously, and Ken is tireless at the grassroots level getting new kids into the class, giving up every single saturday to give them free training, etc. I don't know everyone on the World Council, but I can guarantee that the ones I do know would be doing their absolute best to deliver the best possible outcomes for the sailors, for you and me. Give them a break and back them up - they're on your side and they're involved because they love the class and the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CA's are a self serving entity. In a SMOD design they should have no say in what the manufacturer wants to do with his product. Sure, they can have an opinion, and attempt to influence, but to grant them specific powers in the manufacture of equipment is crazy. It is different in other, traditional, classes which run on a different model with free design/build options (Merlins, 14s etc) but the Laser is a consumer product and just as the Coca Cola fan club can't decide who makes Coke, or what the ingredients are the same should be true of the Laser.

 

In a sensible world, the design rights holder would be free to choose who he wants to build his boats, and not have the CA dictate this to him. We appear to be in a situation where possibly there is no 'design rights holder' so anyone can make a boat that looks like a Laser, but only Rastegar (in Europe and NA) can call it a laser.

 

If the owners of the laser trademark in other terratories decide they don't want to play with Rastegar, what then? He has no rights to sell Lasers in Oz or Asia (unless that is challenged as well). It is entirely conceivable that the only person allowed to make Lasers in Australia may choose not to. He may prefer to build Torches for Kirby whilst sitting on the Laser name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a SMOD design they should have no say in what the manufacturer wants to do with his product.

That's naive. In a successful racing class, the class association and manufacturer need a close relationship where each listens to what the other has to say, including at times commercial questions that can't be discussed in detail with the wider membership. The manufacturer wants to sell more boats and needs an energetic class association to help them to do that. Racing sailors don't just buy a boat - they buy into a class. The class association needs the technical and financial resources of the manufacturer. Btw I helped run a SMOD class association for several years, including administration of rule changes.

 

The Laser isn't a consumer product like Coca-Cola. It's bought because of the class racing. Otherwise it would have been replaced by more modern, better and cheaper products long ago. Think about sporting goods like skis where there are new models every season. That's what a consumer market looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the owners of the laser trademark in other terratories decide they don't want to play with Rastegar, what then? He has no rights to sell Lasers in Oz or Asia (unless that is challenged as well). It is entirely conceivable that the only person allowed to make Lasers in Australia may choose not to. He may prefer to build Torches for Kirby whilst sitting on the Laser name.

 

and export (or co-locate production) of torches in direct competition with Rastegar into EMEA, APAC and the American continents.

 

Of course, unless the ILCA open up the territory to LPE, this would force anzac sailors who want to buy a Laser Laser to grey import one from (probably) another APAC nation.

 

If sold EXW from a factory in China, would it breach TM legislation covered under the GS / ILCA / Kirby agreement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, good question.

 

Dogwatch - Of course you should listen to your customers, but to give them authority rather than merely an opinion is not sensible. Tail wagging the dog and all that.

 

The fleet racing aspect is but one reason for the Laser’s success. It is easy to buy, easy to look after, easy to sail. As a consequence of this consumer focused design, fleets built.

 

Why not start a Lazer association which grandfathers Lasers, Kirbys and Chinese ex-works boats? If you offer membership at $1, you could soon have enough members to meet ISAF standards for becoming an International Class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think at the beginning of this saga:

LP had the Laser trademark but no agreement with Kirby and decided not to pay him royalties any more,

The Aust Builder had an agreement with Kirby but no trademark rights, but paid the royalties.

The rules used to require builders to have both the trademark rights and an agreement with Kirby, but ISAF and ILCA let both builders operate without both.

 

Then when Kirby put pressure on LP and they started failing to deliver product, the Nth Hemi Laser people decided to change the rule so builders no longer need to have the agreement with Kirby.

 

The ILCA members agreed and voted for the rule change last year, and today ISAF approved the change.

 

So now LP can build Lasers without any agreement with Kirby,

 

BUT it must now also mean that the Australian Builder can no longer build Lasers without buying trademark rights from LP, and this may well be unlikely as they have been adversaries right through this whole issue.

 

So does it mean that ILCA and ISAF have backed the Nth Hemi builder to ensure that the Nth Hemi can get a better supply of boats but that the Sth Hemi builder can no longer legally make Lasers to supply the Sth Hemi Laser sailors.

 

Too complicated, Lawyers will get richer, sailors will suffer, our sport of sailing will suffer as a consequence.

 

Glad I sail a class which is run by the sailors not the builders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus one more. Its about time ILCA and ISAF took this step. Frankly surprised it took ISAF this long but in my opinion its the right thing to do and am glad they did it.

 

Some of you guys here are way off track. As I see it, ISAF and ILCA don't really have many options at the moment. In fact, their reaction might very well be the only option presently.

 

ISAF depends on class associations to define class legal boats. ISAF is no class ass. and doesn't aspire to become one, let alone a head ass. for all sailing classes worldwide. Therefore they need to work with what the class ass.define as a class legal boat if they want to accept or keep a class in the ISAF game.

 

Presently the ILCA's rule book defines a class legal boat as, among other things, having been built by a Laser trademark holder.

 

The ILCA-reps, like most of us, probably did not expect this dispute and the way it developed. Anyway, the class rules are the the way they are. They cannot be changed in a wink because you need to ask and inform 15.000 members worldwide and get an approval from the ISAF (the information prior to the vote on the change of the fundamental rule was less than ideal, but it's the rule and proposals for changes that matter here).

 

Therefore, presently, if the reps ILCA want to ensure the supply of boats and parts in NA and Europe, including charter boats at certain championships, for the near future in order to enabe ILCA members to exercise the sport, i.e. if they want to fulfil their basic job description, they are pretty much stuck with the builder who owns the rights to the Laser trademark for NA and Europe for the moment, aren't they?

 

Whether the trade mark actually is a right that grants exclusice use of the name and logo and a right that could effectively be defended in court is another story. The ILCA reps can hardly act against the present class rules and define Torches as class legal starting from day X whithout changing the fundamental rule again, regardless of their personal feeling and relationship with Rastegar and his companies' reps. Or can they?

 

The ILCA reps probably did the only thing sensible in view of BK's legal action and proposed a rule change that should ensure that the supply of boats is not interrupted even if the agreement between BK and LP - whatever it says - is terminated (which seems to be what happened): they proposed a rule change that should limit the effect of the LP-BK dispute on class events. I believe they served me as a member well.

 

Now, I think they should go one step further and abolish the phrase in the definition of a class legal builder about the Laser trademark too, thereby creating the option to negiotate a builder agreement with LP, BK, BK licensed companies or whoever, one that serves the class members best and not the needs of BK, BK Inc, the Australian builder, Rastegar or whoever. The reference to the construction manual and the approval by both ILCA and ISAF should ensure that the ILCA can still control the adherence to the strict OD principle.

 

Anyway, all you people pissing at the ILCA and ISAF reps: where is your solution to the current clusterfuck? When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies? If see a viable option for class, spell it out.

 

I am in no way associated with any of the parties involved except that I sail a Laser, and am, through my nat'l Laser class ass, an ILCA member. Also, I don't really care whether the Laser remains an Olympic class. This is simply about trying to do the ILCA and ISAF reps some justice in this fucked up matter.

 

This is absolutely spot on.

 

The best outcome for the sailors is that the sailors control the class. This action gets us one step closer to that dream. We are still beholden to the trademark owner, at least for as long as we are tied to the Laser name. Give up the Laser name and the class dies - we would be completely insane to give up the most recognised brand in the sailing world.

 

Having said that, I do believe that the sailors have an ongoing moral debt to Kirby. The most frustrating thing in this whole saga is that everything is painted as either pro-Kirby or anti-Kirby. It doesn't have to be so absolute. I would have no objection to a new class rule that, while allowing the class to choose the builder, requires that builder to pay a due of some sort to Kirby. I don't know that too many class members would object to maintaining the current 2% royalty charge under the new arrangements. A win win for all perhaps?

 

One other point ... to those who keep bagging the ILCA - if you don't like it, get involved and make a positive difference. Many of the world council do still sail - Tracy obviously, and Ken is tireless at the grassroots level getting new kids into the class, giving up every single saturday to give them free training, etc. I don't know everyone on the World Council, but I can guarantee that the ones I do know would be doing their absolute best to deliver the best possible outcomes for the sailors, for you and me. Give them a break and back them up - they're on your side and they're involved because they love the class and the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think at the beginning of this saga:

LP had the Laser trademark but no agreement with Kirby and decided not to pay him royalties any more,

The Aust Builder had an agreement with Kirby but no trademark rights, but paid the royalties.

The rules used to require builders to have both the trademark rights and an agreement with Kirby, but ISAF and ILCA let both builders operate without both.

 

Then when Kirby put pressure on LP and they started failing to deliver product, the Nth Hemi Laser people decided to change the rule so builders no longer need to have the agreement with Kirby.

 

The ILCA members agreed and voted for the rule change last year, and today ISAF approved the change.

 

So now LP can build Lasers without any agreement with Kirby,

 

BUT it must now also mean that the Australian Builder can no longer build Lasers without buying trademark rights from LP, and this may well be unlikely as they have been adversaries right through this whole issue.

 

So does it mean that ILCA and ISAF have backed the Nth Hemi builder to ensure that the Nth Hemi can get a better supply of boats but that the Sth Hemi builder can no longer legally make Lasers to supply the Sth Hemi Laser sailors.

 

Too complicated, Lawyers will get richer, sailors will suffer, our sport of sailing will suffer as a consequence.

 

Glad I sail a class which is run by the sailors not the builders.

 

Not quite. The Australian builder owns the trademark in Australia and always has, as well as having licensed building rights from Kirby. This change should make no difference to PSA, or sailors here in Aus. PSA can keep building and selling boats, as long as ISAF and ILCA say they can and PSA keep the trademark.

 

If PSA decide they don't want to sell Lasers any more but hold on to the trademark, well that will be a big problem for ILCA and for all Aus Laser sailors as without the trademark another builder can't be appointed. But isn't there some sort of 'use it or lose it' rule with trademarks? That you can't just register and park them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are right, there is. But they could offer Torches at say $7,000 and Lasers for $12,000. Actually that might not be a bad idea. Pay more if you value having an International and Olympic class, and less if you just want a beach toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are right, there is. But they could offer Torches at say $7,000 and Lasers for $12,000. Actually that might not be a bad idea. Pay more if you value having an International and Olympic class, and less if you just want a beach toy.

 

allowing someone within an extensive business network to dump a container of Chinese LPE/ISAF badged stock at the dock in Auckland... first come, first served. $USD cash only, non-sequential notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer, but seems to me a basic sense of right and wrong would deem that Bruce Kirby should get some kind of license fee for a boat he designed. And that the Laser Performance company is being a bunch of pricks in not paying the man for his design.

 

As far as the "Laser sucks/is great" debate... I owned a Laser and raced it for 6 or 7 years back in my younger days roughly 30 or so years ago. It's a pretty good boat. Are there things that could be changed to improve? Sure. So what. That's one-design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound slike a business opportunity to me, James!

 

PSA currently make the Laser for the Oceania market and hold the Laser trademark for that region. They are also listed on the Kirby Torch website as the Oceania builder for the Torch. So are they currently making both? Can you actually buy a Kirby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound slike a business opportunity to me, James!

 

PSA currently make the Laser for the Oceania market and hold the Laser trademark for that region. They are also listed on the Kirby Torch website as the Oceania builder for the Torch. So are they currently making both? Can you actually buy a Kirby?

 

 

rather you than me :lol:

 

Can you buy a Kirby Torch... yes, any hull will do, then download one of these for a sailmaker to cut out and plonk it on an intensity/rooster sail:

 

http://www.kirbytorch.com/trademarks

 

Can you buy a complete package, new and branded with 'Katie'- from the listed distribution outlets yet... hmm, not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an interested Laser sailor, I've been lurking in these threads for quite some time trying to make my way through the opinions of others and figure out the real facts of what is going on. It seems to me that building a product on a global scale never seems to work perfectly forever. As a result, it's my opinion that we should:

 

1. Move forward abolishing the amended that rule permits ISAF and ILCA to approve builders of the Laser who have the right to use the Laser trademark. They should rewrite this to allow any approved vendors to build boats that are approved by the association regardless of what rights they may or may not hold. As said previously, this would greatly help the sailors as we might actually get some competitors out there that build boats at a more reasonable cost. Rastegar, LPE, LPNA, BK Inc, etc would all be able to compete to give us the best product for the best price.

 

2. Bruce Kirby has provided sailors with the most successful single man one design ever made. In the corinthian spirit of sailing, he deserves to be reasonably rewarded for that. It wouldn't be too unreasonable to consider continuing to provide him a 2% cut ($120 on the sale of a $6000 boat - as the original agreements stated) of all boats made in accordance to the the construction manual he has published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an interested Laser sailor, I've been lurking in these threads for quite some time trying to make my way through the opinions of others and figure out the real facts of what is going on. It seems to me that building a product on a global scale never seems to work perfectly forever. As a result, it's my opinion that we should:

 

1. Move forward abolishing the amended that rule permits ISAF and ILCA to approve builders of the Laser who have the right to use the Laser trademark. They should rewrite this to allow any approved vendors to build boats that are approved by the association regardless of what rights they may or may not hold. As said previously, this would greatly help the sailors as we might actually get some competitors out there that build boats at a more reasonable cost. Rastegar, LPE, LPNA, BK Inc, etc would all be able to compete to give us the best product for the best price.

 

2. Bruce Kirby has provided sailors with the most successful single man one design ever made. In the corinthian spirit of sailing, he deserves to be reasonably rewarded for that. It wouldn't be too unreasonable to consider continuing to provide him a 2% cut ($120 on the sale of a $6000 boat - as the original agreements stated) of all boats made in accordance to the the construction manual he has published.

That being said, has else anyone done any crude math on those royalties? Let's just say that on the 40 year average the boat cost is $2500. At a 2% cut with over 200000 hulls made, that's a little bit over $10 million bucks since conception! I wish I could draw up something on the back of a napkin that I could license to others that would bring in a quarter of a million annually for the next 40 years. Major props to BK for making that work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. ILCA and ISAF have no right to determine that kind of thing. That's exactly why Kirby is suing them. Class associations should liaise with builders, not have the rights to dictate to them, citing dodgy legal and moral grounds. Ditto for ISAF (although they seem to think they rule the world, never mind administrate it). If people want better bang for buck then the class should approach the license holders to ask about how this can be achieved, not just make unilateral decisions for which they are not equipped in a legal or business sense. The idea of opening the builders up to increase competition and reduce price is a good one, but it is a matter for Kirby, not the CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That didn't have anything to do with it dogwatch; ILCA and ISAF lawyers took the weeks to do the research, and more or less figured out what many of those here have: Other than the copyrighted manual, there's just nothing for Kirby to own or to collect license fees or royalties for.

Ah, but there-in lies the problem they've stepped in. How do they guarantee that the new boats are built identical to the old ones when the old ones were built to a manual they no longer have (therefore can't guarantee the exactitude of their build) and they can't copy as that would be a breach of copyright law (which even they are most likely aware of).

 

That manual, if Kirby has any legal claim to it, is going to be a strong ace up his sleeve...

 

Hello Reht and Mr. Clean,

 

This concept that there is a copyright on the construction manual will not have any merit in legal proceedings. Copyright protects the right to reproduce for sale not the right to use. As an analogy, if you own a first edition of Julia Childs cook book you are within your rights to use the recipe to bake cakes and sell those cakes. You are within your rights to sell or give away your copy of that first edition. What you cannot do is start copying the cook book and selling those copies to the general public.

 

Copyright designs, like industrial patents have expiry dates. Everyone who purchases a generic motrin at the drugstore is a beneficiary of the limits on intellectual property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Bruce's boat. Always was. That's the morally correct position, otherwise it's going to subvert the whole design industry. Pity the morons at ISAF can't see that, and that the ILCA feel they can run a sham vote and pretend it holds any merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kirby is alleging speeding on highways, fraud, breach of the roommate agreement, conspiracy, failure to tuck in shirt tails, breach of contract, littering, counterfeiting, farting in public, failure to wash hands before returning to work. double dipping in the queso, failing to bring rolls of duct tape, bad penmanship, forgetting his birthday, tacking too close, disrespecting his mother, and telling bad jokes.

 

It is the large net toss to see what can possibly be caught.

 

Certainly everyone is named individually

 

Funniest post on the thread and perilously close to real life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Bruce's boat. Always was. That's the morally correct position, otherwise it's going to subvert the whole design industry.

 

The design industry is alive and well despite the law and commerce taking a morally different position from yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is potentially opening up a precedent though, regardless of what currently exists in legal terms. What might be alive and well in sailboat design now may not be after this, and ISAF seems to be endorsing that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That didn't have anything to do with it dogwatch; ILCA and ISAF lawyers took the weeks to do the research, and more or less figured out what many of those here have: Other than the copyrighted manual, there's just nothing for Kirby to own or to collect license fees or royalties for.

Ah, but there-in lies the problem they've stepped in. How do they guarantee that the new boats are built identical to the old ones when the old ones were built to a manual they no longer have (therefore can't guarantee the exactitude of their build) and they can't copy as that would be a breach of copyright law (which even they are most likely aware of).

 

That manual, if Kirby has any legal claim to it, is going to be a strong ace up his sleeve...

 

Hello Reht and Mr. Clean,

 

This concept that there is a copyright on the construction manual will not have any merit in legal proceedings. Copyright protects the right to reproduce for sale not the right to use. As an analogy, if you own a first edition of Julia Childs cook book you are within your rights to use the recipe to bake cakes and sell those cakes. You are within your rights to sell or give away your copy of that first edition. What you cannot do is start copying the cook book and selling those copies to the general public.

 

Copyright designs, like industrial patents have expiry dates. Everyone who purchases a generic motrin at the drugstore is a beneficiary of the limits on intellectual property.

IPLore gets it right!

 

This is Bruce's boat. Always was. That's the morally correct position, otherwise it's going to subvert the whole design industry. Pity the morons at ISAF can't see that, and that the ILCA feel they can run a sham vote and pretend it holds any merit.

fdsailor not so much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, 3 issues, right?

 

1. Would be nice for BK to get some benefit for being the designer.

2. Legal protections for boat designs seem to be on less than solid legal ground

3. Rastegar seems to be a guy who likes to take advantage of complex and weak parts of the law to make money.

 

I used to own at least 3 Mclaren strollers, and I believe Rastegar currently owns the company that bought the old Mclaren company, which I think went bankrupt due to a series of lawsuits about kids fingers getting crushed in strollers that they were sitting in when their parents folded them up. I am pretty sure the people who own the new ones and who have jobs building the new ones are happy that Rastegar salvaged the company.

 

It seems to me that he did a similar thing for the lasers.

 

Perhaps you can call him a vulture, or a hero. Or a hero vulture...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Bruce's boat. Always was. That's the morally correct position, otherwise it's going to subvert the whole design industry.

He's had 40-odd years of revenue and by a plausible calculation here made north of $10M over that period. "Subvert the whole design industry" is being a touch dramatic, don't you think?

 

By the way, do you think patents last for ever? That would be 14-20 years in the USA. Design copyright? 10 years in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rastegar has been involved with Maclaren for much longer than that - http://daddytypes.com/2012/03/07/a_brief_history_of_maclaren_the_folding_stroller_company.php

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic about the Lasers - LPE seem to be a sinking ship (but then didn't a few other Laser builders go bust in the past?) It's also interesting that the SB20 and shortly afterwards the L2000 classes abandoned that ship (apparently under a non-disclosure agreement) around the same time as Rastegar decided he wasn't going to pay royalties anymore.

 

I'd call him a vulture.There are plenty of other people who have the class's interests at heart who would do a far better job of things, instead of just starting this mess and then turning the whole affair into a business grab. More the 'RS' way, for example. People would still have jobs, only there would be an altogether better feeling about the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is Bruce's boat. Always was. That's the morally correct position, otherwise it's going to subvert the whole design industry.

He's had 40-odd years of revenue and by a plausible calculation here made north of $10M over that period. "Subvert the whole design industry" is being a touch dramatic, don't you think?

 

By the way, do you think patents last for ever? That would be 14-20 years in the USA. Design copyright? 10 years in the USA.

I never said anything about patents. That's a common mis-conception which even the ILCA lawyers fell foul of. And there is no issue on design copyright either. There is an issue on the copyright of the builders manual, which is life plus 70 years in the case of US and UK. Someone mentioned comparing this to selling cakes from a cookbook...well that's just daft. Cakes don't have class associations, you wouldn't eat a boat (hopefully) and cakes are not licensed based on the use of a manual/cookbook and provided with a baker's plaque that uses the name and trademark of the author of the cookbook to help sell those cakes. There also seems to be an issue with contractual obligations. What I was saying is that ISAF supporting a shonky ILCA vote is setting a dangerous precedent which could have ramifications for other designers who deserve to continue to have their work credited. The amount of revenue he has had is a) not known and B) neither here nor there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, 3 issues, right?

 

1. Would be nice for BK to get some benefit for being the designer.

2. Legal protections for boat designs seem to be on less than solid legal ground

3. Rastegar seems to be a guy who likes to take advantage of complex and weak parts of the law to make money.

 

I used to own at least 3 Mclaren strollers, and I believe Rastegar currently owns the company that bought the old Mclaren company, which I think went bankrupt due to a series of lawsuits about kids fingers getting crushed in strollers that they were sitting in when their parents folded them up. I am pretty sure the people who own the new ones and who have jobs building the new ones are happy that Rastegar salvaged the company.

 

It seems to me that he did a similar thing for the lasers.

 

Perhaps you can call him a vulture, or a hero. Or a hero vulture...

 

Not really IMHO.

 

1.) He got his value from the trademark (and a design patent had he so desired) but as it is with everything else in every other field, patents eventually expire and he extracted whatever value he could from the trademark. He is now apparently trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat (or take a second or third bite at the apple as judges sometimes say in cases like this) with a construction manual argument. But there are significant challenges to that as evidenced by all three parties with no common interest (LPE, ILCA, ISAF) agreeing.

 

2.) Not at all. Name me another class where the designer has successfully claimed or even tried to claim compensationn from a design patent, trademark and a construction manual copyright contract. Actually, I forgot one. He apparently also claims compensation based on trademarking his name. Four bites at the apple. Unheard of IMO. The implications of BK's approach carried to other fields would preclude your parents from ever having access to affordable generic drugs.

 

3.) Or he took a failed/failing company and tried to save it.

 

I don't understand you guys. Clearly the class association is not rich. Clearly LPE is not swimming in money. Somebody above calculated BK made in axcess of $10MM on the royalty alone nevermind the sale of the Laser trademark.

 

ILCA and ISAF all agree with LPE. Why on earth do you think that is so? What's in it for them? Easier to just agree w BK and watch the class die. They fight for the class and the sailor here throw them under the bus. They even bitch about an open vote! If they disagreed why didn't they vote the other way? Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps the manual, unlike the cookbook, is not for sale or general distribution. It remains to be seen to what extent Kirby's lawyers can claim the info contained within it to be proprietary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody above calculated BK made in axcess of $10MM on the royalty alone nevermind the sale of the Laser trademark

 

 

ILCA and ISAF all agree with LPE. Why on earth do you think that is so? What's in it for them? Easier to just agree w BK and watch the class die. They fight for the class and the sailor here throw them under the bus. They even bitch about an open vote! If they disagreed why didn't they vote the other way? Wow.

The first sentence is pure conjecture. Nobody knows what the figure is.

The vote was a sham, and I know I'm not alone in that feeling. They should re-run it..

 

Anyways, I've said my piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you say a sham? Was notice not proper or the vote not taken according to bylaws/constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites