• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Otterbox

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

Recommended Posts

This argument could go on like the one where t models fords can stay in the indy 500.

Was an issue in 1928 but then.....

like sands through the hour glass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt,

 

 

Let me ask a couple of questions: do you agree that the ISAF agreement has an arbitration clause and that this arbitration clause also applies to the builders' agreements? Do you agree that BK should have initiated arbitration proceedings in London instead of suing in Connecticut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt,

 

 

Let me ask a couple of questions: do you agree that the ISAF agreement has an arbitration clause and that this arbitration clause also applies to the builders' agreements? Do you agree that BK should have initiated arbitration proceedings in London instead of suing in Connecticut?

 

 

Ouch!

 

Sounds like Gantt has been hoisted by his own petard.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One party of the lawsuit is a company that builds a trademarked toy

 

The other party is a fellow who says he has s bunch of contracts by which that company must abide

 

 

There is also an issue about whether a consumer's club conspired to help the company ignore the contracts

 

 

In this thread a whole lot of you seem to be confused by the rules of the consumer's club and the law.

 

 

 

 

The term "class legal" has to do with a game the consumers like to play with their toys. The rules of the game have absolutely ZERO to do with laws of the real world ....... Except for the bit about conspiring to cut one guy out of his contracts with the business.

 

 

 

All that matters:

 

A. To us >>>>. Do we have a source of affordable good quality toys for our game

 

B. To Kirby >>>>>> does he continue to own contractual rights

 

C. To LP>>>>> do they have customers and freedom to conduct business as they damn well please

 

D. To the consumers club: can they continue to demand the toys be produced only by the entities who own the trademark that is in their club's name

 

 

 

Have a fun fight!!

I will stop by later to straighten you out as I see fit

 

 

Brilliant!

 

Best summary of the situation in all 3547 posts in this thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For gosh sakes. Where is the angry Texan? Stop this kumbaya stuff. Canntt will never come back.

 

 

Who said "Kirby's design rights were historic"?

 

Historic!

 

his·tor·ic
hiˈstôrik/
adjective
adjective: historic
  1. 1.
    famous or important in history, or potentially so.
    "we are standing on a historic site"
    antonyms: insignificant
    • archaic
      of or concerning history; of the past.
      "eruptions in historic times"
  2. 2.
    Grammar
    (of a tense) used in the narration of past events, especially Latin and Greek imperfect and pluperfect.

Edit to add - Nevermind. He came back. All is right with the world and balance has been restored to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The agreement is very clear, the ISAF Agreement formed part of the builder's agreement in it's entirety. The Licensee specifically agreed to each of the terms and conditions.

 

OK, I'll agree that I was wrong there. My apologies. But I am not sure why we are discussing this. That agreement was between Kirby and the builders: the ICLA wasn't a party to those agreements.

 

Gantt wrote: "I'm so sorry SM123, you seem to have gotten yourself into a tangle. Again, yes I can see the difference, it's very clear to me."

 

Yet, you keep posting as though there is no difference. You keep making the same unsupported claims. Quote the text where I stated that the ISAF agreement gives BK no "design rights".

 

 

When you joined the conversation on June 8, you took one aspect (clause 9.1 of the ISAF Agreement) and SM123, you introduced the concept of ISAF Agreement not being binding to the ILCA.

 

 

I pointed out that only a few clauses are binding on ICLA. I never said that the ISAF did not bind the ICLA in any form. Why are we discussing this? It's just another unsupported claim from you. For example, the ICLA binds the ICLA to keep the construction manual secret.

 

I pointed out that 9.1 is not binding on the ICLA. Do you claim that I am wrong in this statement?

 

Again, you seem to be avoiding the direct question of whether or not you think Bruce Kirby had design rights. I know that you are concerned about that because you disagreed with my description of you when I said: "SM123 who doesn't think the ISAF Agreement gives or gave Bruce Kirby design rights."

 

 

That's because there is no such thing as "design rights". There are copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. To which are you referring?

 

Gantt wrote:

"Elsewhere the ISAF agreement requires a licensed builder, but ICLA did not agree in the ISAF agreement that builders must be licensed.". So I'm asking you directly, do you believe that the ISAF Agreement gives Bruce Kirby design rights?

 

My statement that you quoted above is true. I can't answer your question because you haven't defined "design rights", nor said who you think those rights can be asserted against.

 

The question of against whom those rights can be asserted is very important. As I have been very clear, the ISAF agreement binds ICLA in only a very limited fashion. That's one reason why BK isn't suing ICLA over a claimed violation of the ISAF agreement (plus the fact that such claims need to be arbitrated in London).

 

 

Good to hear that we are getting closer, with us now both agreeing that the ISAF Agreement formed part of the builders contract in it's entirety.

 

Yes you did point out that point 9.1 was not binding on the ILCA. Again, the context is not whether or not the ILCA is 'bound' by clause 9.1, the context was to determine whether or not a clause that prescribed builder's contract content gave Jeff Martin any knowledge of the builder's contract content. Clearly it did.

 

Let's say clause 9.1 was not "binding" for the ILCA - Jeff Martin still had knowledge of builders contract content as a result of the clause. Let's say clause 9.1 was "binding" for the ILCA - Jeff Martin still had knowledge of builders contract content as a result of the clause. So yes, the whole question of whether the clause was binding for the ILCA fails to influence whether or not Jeff Martin had knowledge of builders contract content.

 

You are saying that I am making unsupported claims? I have said exactly why I summarized you as believing that the ISAF Agreement did not give (or gave) Kirby design rights, which was you said that a signatory to the ISAF Agreement didn't agree to Kirby having design rights - in that builders need not be licensed. This is the exact statement you made June 14 again: "Elsewhere the ISAF agreement requires a licensed builder, but ICLA did not agree in the ISAF agreement that builders must be licensed."

 

I agree that while I still think what you said supports my claim - I admit you you are not 100% clear on this point, which is why I asked you (and still ask you) for clarification. Is there a problem answering the question SM123?

 

If you do think that the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights, then I am happy to apologise for making an error in describing your position and withdraw the statement. I can only wonder why you haven't taken that opportunity yet.

 

SM123, you are saying that there are no such thing as "design rights". That is a serious allegation against the ILCA. If you believe this to be true, then you are saying that the ILCA mislead it's membership by talking about something that did not exist to solicit votes to change the fundamental rule in 2011. For me, I'm comfortable with the term "design rights" as referring to the ability of Bruce Kirby to grant builders a license to build lasers as per the ISAF Agreement. The phrase "design rights" was used several times by Jeff Martin and Hieni Wellmann in 2011.

 

The path you are going down is the assertion that because the ILCA was not obligated by the ISAF Agreement to act in specific ways, they had every right to change their fundamental rule. I'm not arguing with you on that point SM123 in relation to the ISAF Agreement, because the ISAF Agreement was not about the ILCA's "rights" to change rules - it was about establishing the rights of its parties, defined who they were, and provided a basis for the builders agreement. But you know what? The question of whether or not the ILCA abided by its own rules, now that it's raised, it's a very good question.

 

Did you know that the ILCA's constitution requires the ILCA to abide by ISAF's General Rules and by laws? There are rules about financial interference with class officials which are interesting to view in light of the threats Farxad Rastegar made in 2010.

 

What that mean;s the ISAF Classes and it's officials must abide by the ISAF's code of ethics, and the ISAF can investigate: http://www.sailing.o...ics-[18157].pdf

 

So again, the context is that the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements. This context and the question of whether or not the ILCA acted properly takes on new weight when looking at the ILCA's obligation to abide by ISAF regulations.
Note that:
  1. The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  2. The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  3. Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  4. In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
Speaking plainly SM123, do you believe:
  1. That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights?
  2. The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt,

 

 

Let me ask a couple of questions: do you agree that the ISAF agreement has an arbitration clause and that this arbitration clause also applies to the builders' agreements? Do you agree that BK should have initiated arbitration proceedings in London instead of suing in Connecticut?

 

Yes, the ISAF clause has an arbitration clause. Yes, the builders are bound by the ISAF Agreement as if they are parties.

 

No, I don't think that Kirby should have taken legal action to the UK.

 

(And this is where your whole argument of obligations comes in which I acknowledge. SM123 you along with several people here appear to be listening in part to IPLore. I'm not a lawyer, but as it turns out I'm pretty good at copyright law and contract law having drafted contracts and written legal disclaimers for international use etc throughout my career. I can say that, because as part of due diligence, lawyers sign off on my work, and often without change. Again, I am not a troll, can demonstrate my decades long passion for Laser sailing and am driven because I care for my sport, and for fair play, particularly when it comes to Kirby.)

 

Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr., is a real verifiable lawyer who has successfully lodged Kirby's legal action in the state of Connecticut.

 

IPLore is a troll who makes mistakes about contract law, puts forward his opinion that entirely biased toward the current legal position of the ILCA, and talks about arbitration instead of the court action. If IPLore is actually a lawyer, he is not a very good one.

 

 

(ii) The ISAF agreement shall be construed under the laws of England. The Ct court lacks jurisdiction to enforce this agreement.

 

(iii) Any dispute under the ISAF agreement needs to be submitted to arbitration. If BKI, GS or Bruce Kirby thought they had any valid claim vs. the ILCA under the ISAF agreement, they would have submitted an arbitration claim which is faster and MUCH CHEAPER than pursuing a claim in the CT court. The reality is that they dont have a claim under the ISAF agreement.

 

It's a shame that you SM123 and Tiller Man appear to be influenced by IPLore.

 

The fundamental disagreement is with Laser Performance breaching their license to make Lasers. Kirby says that the ILCA has interfered with the contract, and the court has ruled there is a case to be heard.

 

So why is this being heard in the state of Connecticut? It's very simple, the builder's contract terms dictates jurisdiction and says in clause 14.6:

 

14.6 The validity, construction and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut, U.S.A.

 

You may see this on page 117 of the following PDF: https://www.docdroid...ndices.pdf.html

 

Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr., has successfully put forward that there is a case to answer that the ILCA interfered with the builder's contract.

 

Current, paid up ILCA members are asking questions about the actions of the ILCA concerning the fundamental rule and the ILCA's apparent intention to defend in court the notion that "a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights".

 

Some of these questions go beyond the court case, and have nothing to do with whether or not the ILCA breached terms of the ISAF Agreement, but have everything to do with Jeff Martin signing the ISAF Agreement on the ILCA's behalf, and whether the ISAF Agreement was current in 2011. (The ISAF thought the ISAF Agreement was (or may have been) current in 2011, or would not have declared that it had ended the contact in 2013.)

 

Maybe Jeff Martin did act in good faith and made genuine mistakes. Maybe Heini Wellmann didn't know about the ISAF Agreement when he said: "ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder."

 

With hindsight, we can now say for sure that the ILCA solicited its membership to vote to change the fundamental rule by making false statements.

 

Pam Newton (Improper course), Alan Downes (long time ILCA measurer), Michael O'Brien (Seattle - now Aero sailor), SimonN and a whole lot of others turned out to be right to question the ILCA.

 

The ILCA does not need to continue down the path it currently chooses to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that you SM123 and Tiller Man appear to be influenced by IPLore.

 

 

 

 

 

The reason I am "influenced" by IPLore is that he puts forward his arguments in a clear and logical fashion that I can understand.

 

You should try it some time, Gantt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that you SM123 and Tiller Man appear to be influenced by IPLore.

 

The reason I am "influenced" by IPLore is that he puts forward his arguments in a clear and logical fashion that I can understand.

 

You should try it some time, Gantt.

 

IPLore is right in that Kirby is not making a claim against ILCA for breech of the ISAF Agreement. He is wrong to inflate it's importance to misdirect people away from issues that question the ILCA.

If you don't like my words, then let me use an ILCA Member's words: "...a class association should not arbitrarily change a rule that protected their boat designer's interests. In the absence of any convincing information at the time that Bruce Kirby had acted dishonorably I felt I should err on the side of supporting him rather than one of the builders"

These are not my words. I have it on good authority that the person who wrote this is a current ILCA Member, as I know his/her real name, and he/she has sailed at many official ILCA events.

What he/she says goes beyond the legal action, and is about the fundamental rule change.

Would you attack that ILCA Member too Tiller Man? Wess and IPLore have disagreed with what that ILCA member said emphatically! How about you Tiller man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a shame that you SM123 and Tiller Man appear to be influenced by IPLore.

 

The reason I am "influenced" by IPLore is that he puts forward his arguments in a clear and logical fashion that I can understand.

 

You should try it some time, Gantt.

 

IPLore is right in that Kirby is not making a claim against ILCA for breech of the ISAF Agreement. He is wrong to inflate it's importance to misdirect people away from issues that question the ILCA.

If you don't like my words, then let me use an ILCA Member's words: "...a class association should not arbitrarily change a rule that protected their boat designer's interests. In the absence of any convincing information at the time that Bruce Kirby had acted dishonorably I felt I should err on the side of supporting him rather than one of the builders"

These are not my words. I have it on good authority that the person who wrote this is a current ILCA Member, as I know his/her real name, and he/she has sailed at many official ILCA events.

What he/she says goes beyond the legal action, and is about the fundamental rule change.

Would you attack that ILCA Member too Tiller Man? Wess and IPLore have disagreed with what that ILCA member said emphatically! How about you Tiller man?

 

 

Nice try my special kind of friend.

 

I may be pushing 70 and I may seem a "special kind of stupid" to young lads like you, Gantt.

 

But my memory is not totally gone yet.

 

Some of us evolve and change our views in the light of new information.

 

You should try it some time, Gantt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's a shame that you SM123 and Tiller Man appear to be influenced by IPLore.

 

The reason I am "influenced" by IPLore is that he puts forward his arguments in a clear and logical fashion that I can understand.

 

You should try it some time, Gantt.

 

IPLore is right in that Kirby is not making a claim against ILCA for breech of the ISAF Agreement. He is wrong to inflate it's importance to misdirect people away from issues that question the ILCA.

If you don't like my words, then let me use an ILCA Member's words: "...a class association should not arbitrarily change a rule that protected their boat designer's interests. In the absence of any convincing information at the time that Bruce Kirby had acted dishonorably I felt I should err on the side of supporting him rather than one of the builders"

These are not my words. I have it on good authority that the person who wrote this is a current ILCA Member, as I know his/her real name, and he/she has sailed at many official ILCA events.

What he/she says goes beyond the legal action, and is about the fundamental rule change.

Would you attack that ILCA Member too Tiller Man? Wess and IPLore have disagreed with what that ILCA member said emphatically! How about you Tiller man?

 

 

Nice try my special kind of friend.

 

I may be pushing 70 and I may seem a "special kind of stupid" to young lads like you, Gantt.

 

But my memory is not totally gone yet.

 

Some of us evolve and change our views in the light of new information.

 

You should try it some time, Gantt.

 

What Tiller Man is alluding to is that he recognizes his own words.

 

Exactly what new information changed your mind Tiller Man?

 

That Kirby did what the ILCA asked and took them to court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Have a fun fight!!

I will stop by later to straighten you out as I see fit

The best part is we can keep on going after the case is resolved in the court since the judge will surely get some of it "wrong"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Have a fun fight!!

I will stop by later to straighten you out as I see fit

The best part is we can keep on going after the case is resolved in the court since the judge will surely get some of it "wrong"

 

 

Agreed that it won't end with the court case.

 

I expect that Rastegar will appeal if the courts finding goes against Laser Performance.

 

If it finds in favor of Kirby, then I wonder if they will accept it, and what changes, if any they will make.

 

If it goes against Kirby, I can't see Kirby appealing. (For me that could only possibly be a technical finding, and nothing to do with what's right.)

 

There are issues that the ILCA needs to resolve with ILCA members who are still talking about the fundamental rule change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sat on my deck with my bride watching the sun set over the bay this evening.

 

Talked about the boats I own and the boats I might like to own.

 

Came dangerously close to deciding that it would make sense for me to sell my one remaining Laser. (I used to own three.)

Thanks Bruce Kirby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sat on my deck with my bride watching the sun set over the bay this evening.

 

Talked about the boats I own and the boats I might like to own.

 

Came dangerously close to deciding that it would make sense for me to sell my one remaining Laser. (I used to own three.)

 

Thanks Bruce Kirby.

 

 

This was written prior to the legal action:

"...a class association should not arbitrarily change a rule that protected their boat designer's interests. In the absence of any convincing information at the time that Bruce Kirby had acted dishonorably I felt I should err on the side of supporting him rather than one of the builders"

 

It's my view, if the ILCA had respected Bruce Kirby's rights, they would not have stepped into the middle of a commercial dispute, and would not have tarnished it's otherwise good name.

 

The Laser community may have needed to find a replacement for Laser Performance, even changed the name of Kirby's boat to get around an uncooperative trademark owner, but Kirby would not have had to go to court.

 

The ILCA's actions surrounding the fundamental rule change were unacceptable. As was Jeff Martin's reaction on behalf of the ILCA when Bruce Kirby tried stop them - telling Bruce Kirby to go to court.

 

So thanks Farzad Rastegar, thanks Bill Crane, and thanks Jeff Martin.

 

_________________________________________________

 

 

At the core of the ILCA's culpability is the following:

 

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • That the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership
Note that:
  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
These two important considerations are core:
  1. That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  2. The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gannt too.

 

Your vicious attacks on the Laser class are making it a lot easier for me to say I have had enough.

 

Why would I want to continue to sail a boat when the designer of my boat despises and attacks my class through the legal system?

 

And shills like Gantt waste hours every day abusing my class and our volunteers and our members?

 

I've just about had enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time when the Laser designer and builder and class worked constructively together to create a thriving community of active Laser sailors.

 

Sadly those days are long gone since Bruce Kirby tried to sell his design rights to the highest bidder and all hell broke loose.

 

Will we ever return to those good old days in the Laser class?

 

Somehow I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression Kirby tried to sell his design rights to someone hevtrustedvto do right with them. He Audi was trying to establish a way to fund his kid's long term needed care.

 

It seems to be apparent the strength of kirby's contracts and the enforcement system ( us legal system) was a combined inadequate to make such a sale possible

 

Now there is an endless fight

 

I am going sailing Saturday anyway

 

 

That was the story that Kirby initially tried to sell.

 

It was later revealed that Kirby had first talked to LaserPerformance about selling them his "rights" but then Global Sailing made him a better offer.

 

I am going sailing Saturday anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was under the impression Kirby tried to sell his design rights to someone hevtrustedvto do right with them. He Audi was trying to establish a way to fund his kid's long term needed care.

 

It seems to be apparent the strength of kirby's contracts and the enforcement system ( us legal system) was a combined inadequate to make such a sale possible

 

Now there is an endless fight

 

I am going sailing Saturday anyway

 

 

That was the story that Kirby initially tried to sell.

 

It was later revealed that Kirby had first talked to LaserPerformance about selling them his "rights" but then Global Sailing made him a better offer.

 

I am going sailing Saturday anyway.

 

Revealed by whom? You may have got your wires crossed Tiller Man. If that actually happened then I'd say LP would have had it in their defense by now with neon lights as it supported their conspiracy theory. What evidence do you have that Bruce Kirby tried to sell his rights to any party other than Global Sailing.

 

According to Farzad Rastegar / Bill Crane / Laser Performance was:

First, Global Sailing and PSA unilaterally tried to get LaserPerformance to give up rights to build, market, distribute and sell Lasers in China in exchange for continued rights in Europe. When that failed, Global Sailing and PSA tried to force LaserPerformance’s parent company to buy them out for the exorbitant sum of $15 million for a business worth no more than $2 million. That tactic was rejected. Then Kirby, BKI, Global Sailing and PSA joined forces to destroy LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon and, with them, the Laser class.

 

The above was part of the counterclaim which was rejected by the courts.

Anyhow, the theory that selling the rights (or trying to) somehow invalidates the contracts is just that - a theory. It's going to be argued in court, is a central point of the dispute, and in my view that is one point which Kirby will win. We will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this "Kirby's suit is one more nail in my Laser enthusiasm's coffin" from Gouv and TM. Wake up and smell the coffee. Here are some facts for you:

 

1.) Internet posting usually bear little or no semblance to reality and if you let it be or impact your reality, life is literally sucked from you!

2.) Kirby has a right to try to make as much money as he can.

3.) The class has a right and obligation to protect its members.

4.) The builder owns a trademark to and makes toys the class wants, to a standard the class holds and cares about.

4.) Some idiots canntt understand how not to lie, cheat, obfuscate, or what the difference is between stepping into and out of the middle of a commercial dispute is.

5.) The judge will make a decision or the case will settle.

6.) Some Texas dude feels burned by past class actions, is passionate about grass roots sailing, and maybe has a little chip on his shoulder...

 

but we get a kick out of him here anyway and even he knows a few other facts:

 

7.) the water is still wet and refreshing, the wind is still blowing, the course and line are (reasonably) square and the game is fair and fun for all, and,

8.) sailing is living, friends are important, we have lots of Laser friends, and

9.) LASER IS STILL AND WILL FOR A LONG TIME BE THE BIGGEST, BEST AND MOST FUN SINGLE-HANDED OD GAME IN (EVERY) TOWN.

 

and finally number ten, last, but not least...

 

10.) THIS KIRBY CASE and internet trolls HAVE MADE, CANNTT MAKE, AND WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO LASER SAILORS/SAILING!

 

so to get to a baker's dozen...

 

11.) have fun here but then shut up and GO SAIL!

12.) Ideally in a Laser fleet because it will be fun.

 

And to complete the baker dozen and just for the guy who canntt

 

13.) It was said that Kirby's Laser rights are historic. To try to illustrate that lets consider his renamed Laser and proposed solution the Torch. There are no Torch contracts with ISAF, or ILCA right? In fact does Kirby hold any patent, trademark, copyright, with regards the Torch (or Laser anymore) at all? No? Oh my. With the Laser he used to but appears not to anymore since they canntt be named. HISTORIC, right?!! It would appear then that he apparently has zero, zilch, no, nada, nothing, none - as in a complete and total lack - of any right to the Torch, right? It would seems just as easy for Canntt, Gouv, you, me the bloke on the corner, ISAF, ILCA, or even Rasty (even easier for Rasty since they already have an ability to build boats to the standard proposed for the Torch) to launch the proposed Torch, right?

 

All in my twisted opinion

 

 

Regards,

 

WWW

 

PS - Sorry for the music TM. Bit rowdy I know. But we got Marines in the house again tonight and for a while (when does TBS start?) and they play this kinda stuff. Loud. Send scotch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was under the impression Kirby tried to sell his design rights to someone hevtrustedvto do right with them. He Audi was trying to establish a way to fund his kid's long term needed care.

 

It seems to be apparent the strength of kirby's contracts and the enforcement system ( us legal system) was a combined inadequate to make such a sale possible

 

Now there is an endless fight

 

I am going sailing Saturday anyway

 

 

That was the story that Kirby initially tried to sell.

 

It was later revealed that Kirby had first talked to LaserPerformance about selling them his "rights" but then Global Sailing made him a better offer.

 

I am going sailing Saturday anyway.

 

Revealed by whom? You may have got your wires crossed Tiller Man. If that actually happened then I'd say LP would have had it in their defense by now with neon lights as it supported their conspiracy theory. What evidence do you have that Bruce Kirby tried to sell his rights to any party other than Global Sailing.

 

According to Farzad Rastegar / Bill Crane / Laser Performance was:

First, Global Sailing
and PSA unilaterally tried to get LaserPerformance to give up rights to build, market, distribute and sell Lasers in China in exchange for continued rights in Europe. When that failed, Global Sailing and PSA tried to force LaserPerformance’s parent company to buy them out for the exorbitant sum of $15 million for a business worth no more than $2 million. That tactic was rejected. Then Kirby, BKI, Global Sailing and PSA joined forces to destroy LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon and, with them, the Laser class.

 

The above was part of the counterclaim which was rejected by the courts.

Anyhow, the theory that selling the rights (or trying to) somehow invalidates the contracts is just that - a theory. It's going to be argued in court, is a central point of the dispute, and in my view that is one point which Kirby will win. We will see.

 

 

 

Sorry Gantt, I don't remember where I read that Kirby was in negotiation with LP to sell them his rights before eventually selling them to Global Sailing. If I come across it again I will post a link here.

 

I am going sailing Saturday anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this "Kirby's suit is one more nail in my Laser enthusiasm's coffin" from Gouv and TM. Wake up and smell the coffee. Here are some facts for you:

 

1.) Internet posting usually bear little or no semblance to reality and if you let it be or impact your reality, life is literally sucked from you!

2.) Kirby has a right to try to make as much money as he can.

3.) The class has a right and obligation to protect its members.

4.) The builder owns a trademark to and makes toys the class wants, to a standard the class holds and cares about.

4.) Some idiots canntt understand how not to lie, cheat, obfuscate, or what the difference is between stepping into and out of the middle of a commercial dispute is.

5.) The judge will make a decision or the case will settle.

6.) Some Texas dude feels burned by past class actions, is passionate about grass roots sailing, and maybe has a little chip on his shoulder...

 

but we get a kick out of him here anyway and even he knows a few other facts:

 

7.) the water is still wet and refreshing, the wind is still blowing, the course and line are (reasonably) square and the game is fair and fun for all, and,

8.) sailing is living, friends are important, we have lots of Laser friends, and

9.) LASER IS STILL AND WILL FOR A LONG TIME BE THE BIGGEST, BEST AND MOST FUN SINGLE-HANDED OD GAME IN (EVERY) TOWN.

 

and finally number ten, last, but not least...

 

10.) THIS KIRBY CASE and internet trolls HAVE MADE, CANNTT MAKE, AND WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO LASER SAILORS/SAILING!

 

so to get to a baker's dozen...

 

11.) have fun here but then shut up and GO SAIL!

12.) Ideally in a Laser fleet because it will be fun.

 

And to complete the baker dozen and just for the guy who canntt

 

13.) It was said that Kirby's Laser rights are historic. To try to illustrate that lets consider his renamed Laser and proposed solution the Torch. There are no Torch contracts with ISAF, or ILCA right? In fact does Kirby hold any patent, trademark, copyright, with regards the Torch (or Laser anymore) at all? No? Oh my. With the Laser he used to but appears not to anymore since they canntt be named. HISTORIC, right?!! It would appear then that he apparently has zero, zilch, no, nada, nothing, none - as in a complete and total lack - of any right to the Torch, right? It would seems just as easy for Canntt, Gouv, you, me the bloke on the corner, ISAF, ILCA, or even Rasty (even easier for Rasty since they already have an ability to build boats to the standard proposed for the Torch) to launch the proposed Torch, right?

 

All in my twisted opinion

 

 

Regards,

 

WWW

 

PS - Sorry for the music TM. Bit rowdy I know. But we got Marines in the house again tonight and for a while (when does TBS start?) and they play this kinda stuff. Loud. Send scotch.

 

 

Once again, you are so right Wess.

 

I was beginning to let this thread distort my view of reality.

 

Being reminded daily how the Spencers and Rastegar and Kirby are squabbling over how to split the money we give them for our toys can be depressing after a while - until you stop and realize that, thanks to the Laser class and a wise move by our leaders five years ago, Laser sailing is still alive and thriving.

 

Thanks to Wess and IPLore and Gouvernail for their sane and realistic assessments of the situation. Without them this thread would suck even more than it already does.

 

The water is still wet. Friends are still friends. I am going sailing.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has certainly taken us down The Long and Winding Road. The discussion really isn't Getting Better and nobody seems willing to just Let it Be. Never in My Life have I seen something drag on like this. I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, but You Won't See Me jumping into this rabbit hole. Maybe it will be all settled When I'm Sixty-Four. In the meantime, it is a great idea for us all to Get Back in our boats and have some fun. I think I'll Drive My Car to the lake tomorrow, because I've Got a Feeling there is going to be some breeze. Don't Ask Me Why, but Something Tells Me it will all Come Together and I will have a great sail. I will be Fixing a Hole in my boat for about an hour, then All I've Got To Do is launch and go - It won't take Any Time at All. And even if I can't Carry That Weight launching, I am sure I can manage With a Little Help From My Friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tillerman -

 

Did you see that? That dude Bill rode that one wave down the entire leeward leg and went around with at least a 20 boat length lead. He killed us! Hats off to him. Very good, Bill. I see what you did there and I am not worthy!

 

Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tillerman -

 

Did you see that? That dude Bill rode that one wave down the entire leeward leg and went around with at least a 20 boat length lead. He killed us! Hats off to him. Very good, Bill. I see what you did there and I am not worthy!

 

Wess

 

 

Yes Wess. bill4 is my new hero.

 

Meanwhile where is my special kind of friend? Is he still sailing around in circles calling for wiggle room?

 

Sorry to hear about the doctor canceling your trip Gouvernail.

 

But what's wrong with walking like a 90-year-old? I run like a 90-year-old and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has certainly taken us down The Long and Winding Road. The discussion really isn't Getting Better and nobody seems willing to just Let it Be. Never in My Life have I seen something drag on like this. I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, but You Won't See Me jumping into this rabbit hole. Maybe it will be all settled When I'm Sixty-Four. In the meantime, it is a great idea for us all to Get Back in our boats and have some fun. I think I'll Drive My Car to the lake tomorrow, because I've Got a Feeling there is going to be some breeze. Don't Ask Me Why, but Something Tells Me it will all Come Together and I will have a great sail. I will be Fixing a Hole in my boat for about an hour, then All I've Got To Do is launch and go - It won't take Any Time at All. And even if I can't Carry That Weight launching, I am sure I can manage With a Little Help From My Friends.

Bill,

 

So in a last ditch effort to be worthy I goggled "Beatle amalgamation song video." This is what I got:

 

 

Yea, I typed beetle.

 

You win. TM is going to be very disappointed in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blaming Bruce Kirby for 'losing' his design rights is not right morally, nor is it supported by the evidence. The idea that the 'Kirby contracts" are real, valid contracts, which bind the parties is supported by evidence. They have met the minimum standards set by the courts of Connecticut, and in this sense have already proven not to be 'historic'. Jeff Martin put forward the idea that Kirby's contracts were no longer valid when soliciting votes for the fundamental rule change.

Posting attacks on Bruce Kirby, or those who support him, posting defenses of the ILCA's indefensible actions - then saying that we should forget about all this and go sailing (as if posting here prevents anyone going sailing) is absurd, and for me, I will continue to post here so that such posts do not obfuscate real issues about Kirby, Jeff Martin and the ILCA, Laser Performance etc.

Yes, reading (or writing) a seemingly endless amount of information on this subject appears to be for some, without purpose or gain. For me, I have made this process of posting into one that has kept me motivated to check and recheck information about the main players. I am continuing to learn new information which so far has almost universally strengthened Bruce Kirby's position, and raised further questions about the ILCA, the latest being whether or not the ILCA adhered to it's obligations to meet ISAF standard of ethics and procedures etc. There are new developments with Laser Performance this year as they appear to have completely abandoned Laser production in North America, and I have been told by someone whom I trust that their moulds have been shipped to Shanghai, China.

_________________________________________________

When I was a kid and first sailed a local junior class called the P Class, I came dead last quite a few times. I was the kid that never gave up, who finished every race unless prevented by equipment failure. Eventually I got to win a few sailboat races - first on handicap, then later was first over the line - and I loved it. Mostly, I got to enjoy the battle against myself, to constantly strive to do better with the resources I had.

I admit that I am attacking the ILCA, however not in the way that Wess / Tiller Man and others are putting forward - I don't 'hate; the ILCA executive. Rather, I am attacking a set of decisions by ILCA which support Laser Performance (and therefore Farzad Rastegar) over Bruce Kirby's contracted rights to receive royalties. In this regard, I shall continue to pose robust questions about Jeff Martin's role, irrespective of his many decades of contribution to the success of the Laser sailing.

_________________________________________________

(Note for Tiller Man, I'm using 'executive' as an adjective, not a noun, so I'm not referring to one specific person.)

_________________________________________________

Regarding the ILCA, I am satisfied that the following are facts:

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • In so doing, the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership.
The ILCA has constitutional obligations to meet the ethical and procedural standards set by the ISAF.
Note that:
  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann in 2010.
  • The fundamental rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011 amongst controversy.
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
These two important considerations are core:
  1. That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  2. The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

_________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody remind me if the great grey hair that Gannt worships sued ISAF?

 

Oh, he did...

 

Then can somebody remind me what happened?

 

Oh, he lost...

 

Canntt, the sun "does not have to continue" to rise in the east...

 

But I am betting it will...

 

 

And I bet I will be sailing, tonight, tomorrow and Sunday!

 

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Gantt's claiming his use of the word "executive" is an adjective in his note for Tiller Man in #3582. Wrong. An adjective describes a noun. In this case the use of the word executive it is still a noun. You would have to say something like "executive committee" to make the word an adjective. Just sayin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point bill4.

 

In any case I have never heard the word "executive"used to describe the group of leaders of the Laser Class. They are the World Council.

 

Executive as an adjective is used to refer to the Executive Secretary (Eric Faust) or the Executive Secretary Emeritus (Jeff Martin.)

 

So when executive is used as an adjective by the ILCA it is referring to a specific person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about former ecutives??

I asked the Marines. They recommended hazard pay (back paid) and silver star for all current and former ILCA leaders and volunteers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point bill4.

 

In any case I have never heard the word "executive"used to describe the group of leaders of the Laser Class. They are the World Council.

 

Executive as an adjective is used to refer to the Executive Secretary (Eric Faust) or the Executive Secretary Emeritus (Jeff Martin.)

 

So when executive is used as an adjective by the ILCA it is referring to a specific person.

 

Bill4 is absolutely correct in his description. It follows that either:

  1. I don't know that difference between an adjective and a noun (Hint: I have worked as an editor and a writer)

     

    or

  2. Tiller Man has missed times when I am yanking his chain and as a result is rereading all of my posts.

Here's the definition of executive from dictionary.com:

noun

1. a person or group of persons having administrative or supervisory authority in an organization.

2. the person or persons in whom the supreme executive power of a government is vested.

3. the executive branch of a government.

adjective

4. of, relating to, or suited for carrying out plans, duties, etc.:

executive ability.

5. pertaining to or charged with the execution of laws and policies or the administration of public affairs:

executive appointments; executive committees.

6. designed for, used by, or suitable for executives:

an executive suite.

When I usually use the word executive as a noun in reference to the ILCA, I am referring to not just the World Council, but others who execute the administrative functions etc of the ILCA - this includes Sherri and Alan D. - and a long list of persons beyond the World Council. There is a big difference between 'hating' a person (where one consistently makes disparaging remarks about an individual - like what Wess does with Bruce Kirby), and vigorously questioning a person's actions (like what I do with Jeff Martin and his actions surrounding the fundamental rule change - while pointing out that he deserves a medal for the positive work he has done for the ILCA and sailing in general).

 

Finally, I am under no illusions that Tiller Man deliberately makes false statements. The alternative is to actually think that Tiller Man genuinely doesn't believe that "executive" as I used it refers to more than one person, or that he genuinely thinks that Jeff Martin is my father. These are examples of Tiller Man yanking my chain. Perhaps some may wish to rethink their interpretation of what "a special kind of stupid" can mean.

 

_________________________________________________

Regarding the ILCA, I am satisfied that the following are facts:

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • In so doing, the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership.
The ILCA has constitutional obligations to meet the ethical and procedural standards set by the ISAF.
Note that:
  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann in 2010.
  • The fundamental rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011 amongst controversy.
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
These two important considerations are core:
  1. That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  2. The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

_________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

_________________________________________________

Regarding the ILCA, I am satisfied that the following are facts:

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • In so doing, the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership.
The ILCA has constitutional obligations to meet the ethical and procedural standards set by the ISAF.
Note that:
  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann in 2010.
  • The fundamental rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011 amongst controversy.
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
These two important considerations are core:
  1. That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  2. The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

_________________________________________________

 

 

 

Is there an echo in here?

I am sure I keep seeing the same false accusations and pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo in the exact same words over and over again in multiple posts.

Has Gantt finally run out of new things to say?

We can only live in hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

_________________________________________________

Regarding the ILCA, I am satisfied that the following are facts:

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • In so doing, the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership.
The ILCA has constitutional obligations to meet the ethical and procedural standards set by the ISAF.
Note that:
  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann in 2010.
  • The fundamental rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011 amongst controversy.
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
These two important considerations are core:
  1. That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  2. The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

_________________________________________________

 

 

 

Is there an echo in here?

I am sure I keep seeing the same false accusations and pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo in the exact same words over and over again in multiple posts.

Has Gantt finally run out of new things to say?

We can only live in hope.

 

 

Thank you for your questions Tiller Man. I admit to have repeated the same post once in error. Otherwise, this summary statement has evolved a little with each posting.

 

Attempting to label the above as an 'accusation' or describing it as 'pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo' is a thoughtless misapplication, an irrelevant copy of an earlier statement you made. It does not challenge any of what I said above in any meaningful way. I am satisfied the above are established facts. I welcome challenges to the above as I am keen to to ensure above represents the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gannt - I canntt understand how but it seems there was a perfect song written just for your views and posts. Please come back. I implore you...

 

Dear Mister Fantasy play us a tune

something to make us all happy...


Do anything, take us out of this gloom.

Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy.


You are the one who can make us all laugh.

Doing this, you break down in tears.

Please don`t be sad. If it was a straight life you had,

none of us would`ve known you all the years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tracy Usher's contributions to this debate have always been sensible and constructive.

Not according to Gannt.

 

I'm breaking my silence to point out that IPLore's statement above is false.

 

I agree with you Tiller Man, Tracy Usher has made excellent contributions to this discussion and I have said so previously.

 

 

 

 

Does Gannt agree with Tracy Usher's excellent contribution?

 

"The important point here is that throughout the history of the dispute both the ILCA and ISAF have made every effort to take a neutral position in what is, at its core, a contractual dispute between two commercial interests."

 

"Recently, with the threat of a disruption in the supply of boats and equipment to nearly 80% of Laser sailors worldwide, ISAF approved the change to the ILCA Fundamental Rule previously approved by the class membership"

 

"In addition to taking a neutral stance, both ILCA and ISAF have worked hard to try to prevent the sailors from being impacted by the commercial dispute and subsequent lawsuit."

 

Tracy Usher

 

Because it seems to me that Tiller Man has taken a similar position as Tracy and made the same contribution to the debate. Namely, that the Class have striven to be neutral and that the rule change was to prevent disruption to the supply of boats.

 

Interestingly, Tiller did not vote in favor of the rule change but has respected the democratic process and supported his class thereafter. I dont know Tiller but he strikes me as a sort of honorable chap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SM123 you along with several people here appear to be listening in part to IPLore. I'm not a lawyer, but as it turns out I'm pretty good at copyright law and contract law

 

If IPLore is actually a lawyer, he is not a very good one.

 

 

(ii) The ISAF agreement shall be construed under the laws of England. The Ct court lacks jurisdiction to enforce this agreement.

 

(iii) Any dispute under the ISAF agreement needs to be submitted to arbitration. If BKI, GS or Bruce Kirby thought they had any valid claim vs. the ILCA under the ISAF agreement, they would have submitted an arbitration claim which is faster and MUCH CHEAPER than pursuing a claim in the CT court. The reality is that they dont have a claim under the ISAF agreement.

 

 

 

:D Classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

SM123 you along with several people here appear to be listening in part to IPLore. I'm not a lawyer, but as it turns out I'm pretty good at copyright law and contract law

 

If IPLore is actually a lawyer, he is not a very good one.

 

 

(ii) The ISAF agreement shall be construed under the laws of England. The Ct court lacks jurisdiction to enforce this agreement.

 

(iii) Any dispute under the ISAF agreement needs to be submitted to arbitration. If BKI, GS or Bruce Kirby thought they had any valid claim vs. the ILCA under the ISAF agreement, they would have submitted an arbitration claim which is faster and MUCH CHEAPER than pursuing a claim in the CT court. The reality is that they dont have a claim under the ISAF agreement.

 

 

 

:D Classic.

 

 

You do realise IPLore that you are repeating this same point again, an excellent example of an IPLore attempt at misdirection. I agree that the legal action is not making a claim that the ISAF breach was made.

 

So what if a hypothetical arbitration claim is faster and cheaper? Kirby is making the claim against the builder. It is being heard in a Connecticut court because that's the jurisdiction of the builder's agreement. He also has made a case to be heard that the ILCA interfered with his licensing of a builder. You raised this in response to a discussion of the ILCA's actions concerning the fundamental rule change, prior to the legal action.

 

So what exactly is classic? Your failure to understand the insignificance of your own point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tracy Usher's contributions to this debate have always been sensible and constructive.

Not according to Gannt.

 

I'm breaking my silence to point out that IPLore's statement above is false.

 

I agree with you Tiller Man, Tracy Usher has made excellent contributions to this discussion and I have said so previously.

 

 

 

 

Does Gannt agree with Tracy Usher's excellent contribution?

 

"The important point here is that throughout the history of the dispute both the ILCA and ISAF have made every effort to take a neutral position in what is, at its core, a contractual dispute between two commercial interests."

 

"Recently, with the threat of a disruption in the supply of boats and equipment to nearly 80% of Laser sailors worldwide, ISAF approved the change to the ILCA Fundamental Rule previously approved by the class membership"

 

"In addition to taking a neutral stance, both ILCA and ISAF have worked hard to try to prevent the sailors from being impacted by the commercial dispute and subsequent lawsuit."

 

Tracy Usher

 

Because it seems to me that Tiller Man has taken a similar position as Tracy and made the same contribution to the debate. Namely, that the Class have striven to be neutral and that the rule change was to prevent disruption to the supply of boats.

 

Interestingly, Tiller did not vote in favor of the rule change but has respected the democratic process and supported his class thereafter. I dont know Tiller but he strikes me as a sort of honorable chap.

 

I agree with some of what Tracy Usher has said and disagree with other points he has made. I disagree with the current position of the ILCA, as does Kirby.

 

It's a fact that the ILCA made false statements at the time of the fundamental rule change. It's clear where Tracy and I agreed and disagreed because of what we posted. Your question is not genuine. You are an anonymous troll IPLore, trying to 'catch me out' and score points. (For the record, Tiller Man is not a troll and I haven't a clue what Wess is - but happy 10th anniversary as profiles on Sailing Anarchy to them both).

 

Having said that, the challenge is to make good from IPLore's trolling.

 

So let's explore this question of preventing disruption to the supply of boats which the ILCA put forward as one of several reasons to make the rule change. It's likely that if the ILCA were genuine in being neutral, then they would already have completed this exercise.

 

Fortunately, we have access to a couple of experts who read this forum on the topic - Gouv being one. Gouv - if you had to build Kirby's one design boat, how long would it take for you start delivering rebranded boats at say 50 per week? (This is far higher than current production, but likely to be close to peak production). Please answer two ways:

 

1) If you had access to all of the tooling and moulds from Laser Performance.

2) If you did not have access to the tooling and the moulds from Laser Performance.

 

There's a good chance that you have not seen the construction manual; there could be 1970s production practices which must be adhered to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tracy Usher's contributions to this debate have always been sensible and constructive.

Not according to Gannt.

 

I'm breaking my silence to point out that IPLore's statement above is false.

 

I agree with you Tiller Man, Tracy Usher has made excellent contributions to this discussion and I have said so previously.

 

 

 

 

Does Gannt agree with Tracy Usher's excellent contribution?

 

"The important point here is that throughout the history of the dispute both the ILCA and ISAF have made every effort to take a neutral position in what is, at its core, a contractual dispute between two commercial interests."

 

"Recently, with the threat of a disruption in the supply of boats and equipment to nearly 80% of Laser sailors worldwide, ISAF approved the change to the ILCA Fundamental Rule previously approved by the class membership"

 

"In addition to taking a neutral stance, both ILCA and ISAF have worked hard to try to prevent the sailors from being impacted by the commercial dispute and subsequent lawsuit."

 

Tracy Usher

 

Because it seems to me that Tiller Man has taken a similar position as Tracy and made the same contribution to the debate. Namely, that the Class have striven to be neutral and that the rule change was to prevent disruption to the supply of boats.

 

Interestingly, Tiller did not vote in favor of the rule change but has respected the democratic process and supported his class thereafter. I dont know Tiller but he strikes me as a sort of honorable chap.

 

 

 

Thanks IPLore for that kind comment.

 

I do respect the majority view of the members of my class.

 

But I have also evolved in my own views as I discovered that Kirby was not totally open with us about his motivations for selling his "rights" to Global Sailing.

 

And when he sued us - the class - he totally lost my support. He did not need to attack his most loyal customers, the ones who have been paying him royalties year after year as we bought new boats.

 

I still think the leaders of our class were and are doing their best to look after our interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Tracy Usher's contributions to this debate have always been sensible and constructive.

Not according to Gannt.

 

I'm breaking my silence to point out that IPLore's statement above is false.

 

I agree with you Tiller Man, Tracy Usher has made excellent contributions to this discussion and I have said so previously.

 

 

 

 

Does Gannt agree with Tracy Usher's excellent contribution?

 

"The important point here is that throughout the history of the dispute both the ILCA and ISAF have made every effort to take a neutral position in what is, at its core, a contractual dispute between two commercial interests."

 

"Recently, with the threat of a disruption in the supply of boats and equipment to nearly 80% of Laser sailors worldwide, ISAF approved the change to the ILCA Fundamental Rule previously approved by the class membership"

 

"In addition to taking a neutral stance, both ILCA and ISAF have worked hard to try to prevent the sailors from being impacted by the commercial dispute and subsequent lawsuit."

 

Tracy Usher

 

Because it seems to me that Tiller Man has taken a similar position as Tracy and made the same contribution to the debate. Namely, that the Class have striven to be neutral and that the rule change was to prevent disruption to the supply of boats.

 

Interestingly, Tiller did not vote in favor of the rule change but has respected the democratic process and supported his class thereafter. I dont know Tiller but he strikes me as a sort of honorable chap.

 

 

 

Thanks IPLore for that kind comment.

 

I do respect the majority view of the members of my class.

 

But I have also evolved in my own views as I discovered that Kirby was not totally open with us about his motivations for selling his "rights" to Global Sailing.

 

And when he sued us - the class - he totally lost my support. He did not need to attack his most loyal customers, the ones who have been paying him royalties year after year as we bought new boats.

 

I still think the leaders of our class were and are doing their best to look after our interests.

 

Tiller Man, I'd like to add the facts you have about Kirby's motivations for "selling" his rights to Global Sailing to a list I have compiled. (Currently got it under "unsubstantiated rumours").

 

Clearly, you have something about Kirby's motivations over and above Kirby's stated reason: his desire to retire - from memory the words he used were "estate planning".

 

Note that the transfer of these rights that are controlled by ISAF Agreement terms, and agreed to by Kirby, ISAF, ILCA, the trademark holder and the builders.

 

What facts do you have? (I can't find any relating to Kirby's motivations other than what he said publicly. Specifically anything to support your mentioning earlier that you had 'heard' that Kirby had tried to sell his rights to Rastegar.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 per week??

It absolutely depends on the funding.

If there were a distributor who could guarantee purchase of 50 per week for five years

We could be up and running by the end of the Summer or in a few weeks depending on the up front guaranteed funding.

However

If someone had the pockets to do such I thing I would want that entity to produce a toy that sails as similarly as possible to a laser, offers the same level of tuning challenges, weighs about three to five kilos less, and is designed so absolutely every part of the boat remains competitive for at least a dozen years of not forever ( unless it is smashed or seriously a used)

Maybe I should let you take a stab at the quantity (you probably know better than me anyhow) - I figure that during the high season plus a contest the max production rate would be about 50 a week, low season would be about 10 a week. The annual world production of recent years seems to be about 3200, with a small percentage (around 10%??) made by the other two builders.

 

Care to have a stab at an actual time? Is it more 3 weeks or closer to 6 weeks? Assume that the finance is not a consideration (it would be handled separately.) Just the physical procurement of materials and the setting up of the moulds. All the parts other than the hulls are outsourced, though assembly is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were a distributor who could guarantee purchase of 50 per week for five years

... designed so absolutely every part of the boat remains competitive for at least a dozen years of not forever ( unless it is smashed or seriously a used)

 

But how are you going to sell 50 per week if no-one needs to replace any part of the boat for a dozen years? There's a good argument that suggests that part of the Laser's success is that the deterioration rate is just right: fast enough that the bleeding edge want to buy new boats regularly, but slow enough that their discards are worth having. A number of the open builder classes which now have very long lived boats struggle because there are no second hand boats available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPLore is a troll who again and again with his low level legal understandings of UK contract law

 

Note that when I wrote:

"Let's say you buy a house and you get a loan from a bank. Let's say you break the conditions of the loan, by say not having life insurance......

 

​There was no retort of substance, rather IPLore has so far fallen largely silent on this matter.

 

 

I did not respond to your nonsense for two reasons:

 

1, Nobody has bought or sold a house in this dispute or obtained a loan on a house!

2. The prospect of trying to explain to you the concept of "material breach of contract" or "material provisions" was daunting and it was doubtful that you would listen or care.

 

The bottom line is that, ISAF (as then was) issued notice that Bruce is in breach of contract (The ISAF Agreement) and approved the change in the class rules. (Note that ISAF provided opportunities for the parties to mediate which was declined by BKI) If Bruce's or BKI's lawyers wanted to dispute this notice or if they believed that the Laser Class Association had somehow broken the ISAF Agreement they would have filed for arbitration. BKI has not filed for arbitration because the Class Association has NOT broken the ISAF Agreement.....but Bruce Kirby is in breach of the ISAF Agreement and has been notified that his breach is material.

 

 

Let me spell out four things to the you, which hopefully can lay this to rest.

 

1. BKI's entitlement to any fees under the builders agreements are not dependent on the ISAF agreement. If the Laser Class stopped being an Olympic Class or a World Sailing International class, the obligations under the Builders contract to pay a fee to BKI are not affected.

2. The Laser Class Association has not broken the ISAF Agreement. The parties to the case in CT have not suggested that The Class Association broke the ISAF agreement.

3. BK has broken the ISAF agreement and has been notified by World sailing that the breach was material.

4. The ISAF agreement does not provide evidence as you claim that the officers of the Laser Class Association made materially misleading statements during the class vote.

 

Yes, the ISAF agreement is relevant and important to Bruce Kirby's case but not in the manner in which you describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there were a distributor who could guarantee purchase of 50 per week for five years

... designed so absolutely every part of the boat remains competitive for at least a dozen years of not forever ( unless it is smashed or seriously a used)

 

But how are you going to sell 50 per week if no-one needs to replace any part of the boat for a dozen years? There's a good argument that suggests that part of the Laser's success is that the deterioration rate is just right: fast enough that the bleeding edge want to buy new boats regularly, but slow enough that their discards are worth having. A number of the open builder classes which now have very long lived boats struggle because there are no second hand boats available.

 

 

 

Great point JimC. I wonder if boat manufacturers actually consider this when designing and launching a new class. Let's make it just durable enough that we don't get too many complaints - but not too durable that anybody who buys one will never want to buy a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPLore is a troll who again and again with his low level legal understandings of UK contract law

 

Note that when I wrote:

"Let's say you buy a house and you get a loan from a bank. Let's say you break the conditions of the loan, by say not having life insurance......

 

​There was no retort of substance, rather IPLore has so far fallen largely silent on this matter.

 

 

I did not respond to your nonsense for two reasons:

 

1, Nobody has bought or sold a house in this dispute or obtained a loan on a house!

2. The prospect of trying to explain to you the concept of "material breach of contract" or "material provisions" was daunting and it was doubtful that you would listen or care.

 

The bottom line is that, ISAF (as then was) issued notice that Bruce is in breach of contract (The ISAF Agreement) and approved the change in the class rules. (Note that ISAF provided opportunities for the parties to mediate which was declined by BKI) If Bruce's or BKI's lawyers wanted to dispute this notice or if they believed that the Laser Class Association had somehow broken the ISAF Agreement they would have filed for arbitration. BKI has not filed for arbitration because the Class Association has NOT broken the ISAF Agreement.....but Bruce Kirby is in breach of the ISAF Agreement and has been notified that his breach is material.

 

 

Let me spell out four things to the you, which hopefully can lay this to rest.

 

1. BKI's entitlement to any fees under the builders agreements are not dependent on the ISAF agreement. If the Laser Class stopped being an Olympic Class or a World Sailing International class, the obligations under the Builders contract to pay a fee to BKI are not affected.

2. The Laser Class Association has not broken the ISAF Agreement. The parties to the case in CT have not suggested that The Class Association broke the ISAF agreement.

3. BK has broken the ISAF agreement and has been notified by World sailing that the breach was material.

4. The ISAF agreement does not provide evidence as you claim that the officers of the Laser Class Association made materially misleading statements during the class vote.

 

Yes, the ISAF agreement is relevant and important to Bruce Kirby's case but not in the manner in which you describe.

 

 

 

Thanks IPLore for putting that one to rest.

 

I was getting very tired of hearing all those misleading claims about the significance of the ISAF agreement over and over again from my very special kind of friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Tracy Usher's contributions to this debate have always been sensible and constructive.

Not according to Gannt.

 

I'm breaking my silence to point out that IPLore's statement above is false.

 

I agree with you Tiller Man, Tracy Usher has made excellent contributions to this discussion and I have said so previously.

 

 

 

 

Does Gannt agree with Tracy Usher's excellent contribution?

 

"The important point here is that throughout the history of the dispute both the ILCA and ISAF have made every effort to take a neutral position in what is, at its core, a contractual dispute between two commercial interests."

 

"Recently, with the threat of a disruption in the supply of boats and equipment to nearly 80% of Laser sailors worldwide, ISAF approved the change to the ILCA Fundamental Rule previously approved by the class membership"

 

"In addition to taking a neutral stance, both ILCA and ISAF have worked hard to try to prevent the sailors from being impacted by the commercial dispute and subsequent lawsuit."

 

Tracy Usher

 

Because it seems to me that Tiller Man has taken a similar position as Tracy and made the same contribution to the debate. Namely, that the Class have striven to be neutral and that the rule change was to prevent disruption to the supply of boats.

 

Interestingly, Tiller did not vote in favor of the rule change but has respected the democratic process and supported his class thereafter. I dont know Tiller but he strikes me as a sort of honorable chap.

 

I agree with some of what Tracy Usher has said and disagree with other points he has made. I disagree with the current position of the ILCA, as does Kirby.

 

Which parts of Tracy's article do you agree and which do you disagree with? Specifically which of Tracy's key statements to you agree or disagree with?

1) Throughout the history of the dispute, the Laser Class has made every effort to take a neutral position.

2) At its core, this is a contractual dispute between two commercial interests.

3) ICLA worked hard to prevent sailors being affected by the dispute

4) The reason for the rule change was to prevent a disruption in the supply of boats and equipment to Laser sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiller Man, I'd like to add the facts you have about Kirby's motivations for "selling" his rights to Global Sailing to a list I have compiled. (Currently got it under "unsubstantiated rumours").

Clearly, you have something about Kirby's motivations over and above Kirby's stated reason: his desire to retire - from memory the words he used were "estate planning".

 

Note that the transfer of these rights that are controlled by ISAF Agreement terms, and agreed to by Kirby, ISAF, ILCA, the trademark holder and the builders.

 

What facts do you have? (I can't find any relating to Kirby's motivations other than what he said publicly. Specifically anything to support your mentioning earlier that you had 'heard' that Kirby had tried to sell his rights to Rastegar.)

.

 

 

 

 

As I have said before Gantt I can't remember where I read about LaserPerformance offering to buy Kirby's rights before Global Sailing made a higher bid. If I do find it again I will obviously post a link.

 

You are probably right to classify it as an "unsubstantiated rumor" in the meantime.

 

I admit I do the same for many of the things you post in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I implore iplure to stop posting facts.

 

Gannt cantt handle facts and has to resort to posting the same repetitive desperate plea and conclusion that is only marginally connected to the case... The class does not have to continue on this path... Duh, yea but its a nice path that protects the members and lets the commercial parties resolve their dispute in court where it belongs.

 

Love your second #1 in 3602. He clearly does not (want to) understand that. BK deserves a better shrill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GanntTiller Man, I'd like to add the facts you have about Kirby's motivations for "selling" his rights to Global Sailing to a list I have compiled. (Currently got it under "unsubstantiated rumours").

 

Clearly, you have something about Kirby's motivations over and above Kirby's stated reason: his desire to retire - from memory the words he used were "estate planning".

 

Note that the transfer of these rights that are controlled by ISAF Agreement terms, and agreed to by Kirby, ISAF, ILCA, the trademark holder and the builders.

 

What facts do you have? (I can't find any relating to Kirby's motivations other than what he said publicly. Specifically anything to support your mentioning earlier that you had 'heard' that Kirby had tried to sell his rights to Rastegar.)

 

 

Here, we have a rare example of a point of agreement between IPLore and Gannt.

 

I have seen nothing in the documents that cause me to doubt that Bruce Kirby was being entirely honest about his motivation for the sale. It was about Estate Planning. He wished to sell the royalty/fee stream for a lump sum. It is a sensible thing to do. Many designers and inventors do this. There are literally hundreds of similar transactions a year.

 

We have read in many places that Bruce received an offer from Laser Performance and subsequently a higher offer from Global Sailing.I have no reason to doubt that Bruce approached both of the trademark holders in order to ensure receiving the best price. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

There have been rumors that Bruce and LP were very close to a deal but LP revised down the price after due diligence (Sorry, cannot remember where I saw that, but it is not really relevant)

 

I have offered my personal opinion (and it is no more than that) very early in this thread that the price paid by Global Sailing for the royalty stream was surprisingly high/good for Bruce. But if Global sailing thought it was worth a lot of money.....then good for Bruce....and caveat emptor for the buyer.

 

My stance re Bruce's financial entitlements is that I think Bruce should be entitled to keep the consideration that he recieved from Global sailing......but we dont know all the facts. If GS gave notice of termination to LP (as LP claimed in their counter claim).....then GS should eat the loss not Bruce Kirby. I have also suggested that one possible course to settlement is that LP share some but not all of this loss.

 

 

For example:

If GS paid $2 million to Bruce Kirby I would propose as follows:

 

1. BK keeps the $2 million.

2. LP recommences paying a 2% construction fee but this is paid the ILCA not BKI. ILCA distributes half of the fee to GS until GS has recieved $1million (or 0.8 of whatever LP were prepared to buy BKI for). The remaining construction fees are paid into an ILCA account devoted solely to promoting the class .

 

But that would probably be too sensible a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I implore iplure to stop posting facts.

 

Gannt cantt handle facts and has to resort to posting the same repetitive desperate plea and conclusion that is only marginally connected to the case... The class does not have to continue on this path... Duh, yea but its a nice path that protects the members and lets the commercial parties resolve their dispute in court where it belongs.

 

Love your second #1 in 3602. He clearly does not (want to) understand that. BK deserves a better shrill.

 

 

I keep coming back to the same thing.

 

Whether or not LP have to pay BK royalties is determined by the contract between LP and BK. Pure and simple.

 

If ISAF and the ILCA wound themselves up and went out of existence tomorrow, that would still be true.

 

What the rules of the Laser class are about is what toys are eligible to play in our game. For a while - historic reasons - we said that we would only allow toys built by companies who had a contract with BK or BKI. That didn't affect whether BK could collect royalties from LP one way or the other. It just defined what toys we allowed to play in our game.

 

When BK and LP started fighting each other, the Laser class wisely got rid of that historic rule. That did nothing to affect the validity of the contract between BK and LP. It just allowed Laser sailors to continue to buy toys that could play in our game.

 

It took me a while to understand this, which is why I originally voted not to change the rule. But when it comes to sailing, I am notoriously slow.

 

The other slow kid at the back of the fleet will get there soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We have read in many places that Bruce received an offer from Laser Performance and subsequently a higher offer from Global Sailing.I have no reason to doubt that Bruce approached both of the trademark holders in order to ensure receiving the best price. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

There have been rumors that Bruce and LP were very close to a deal but LP revised down the price after due diligence (Sorry, cannot remember where I saw that, but it is not really relevant)

 

 

 

Thanks for confirming that I am not the only one who read that Kirby offered to sell his rights to LaserPerformance first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that although ILCA talked a lot about neutral positions, the only action they took that was publicly visible was decidedly non neutral, and the way they presented the whole fundamental rule vote was decidedly slanted and misleading. So the only actual facts visible to a neutral observer were ILCA taking a very non-neutral position and apparently doing their best to mislead their electorate. I expect they thought they were doing the best thing by their members, but there's a suspicion that if they hadn't intervened the whole mess would have come to a head and been over by now, whereas, thanks to your dysfunctional US legal system, it looks well set to drag on for another umpteen years leaving all parties in something of a state of uncertainty, which is probably unhealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I implore iplure to stop posting facts.

 

Gannt cantt handle facts and has to resort to posting the same repetitive desperate plea and conclusion that is only marginally connected to the case... The class does not have to continue on this path... Duh, yea but its a nice path that protects the members and lets the commercial parties resolve their dispute in court where it belongs.

 

Love your second #1 in 3602. He clearly does not (want to) understand that. BK deserves a better shrill.

 

 

I keep coming back to the same thing.

 

Whether or not LP have to pay BK royalties is determined by the contract between LP and BK. Pure and simple.

 

If ISAF and the ILCA wound themselves up and went out of existence tomorrow, that would still be true.

 

What the rules of the Laser class are about is what toys are eligible to play in our game. For a while - historic reasons - we said that we would only allow toys built by companies who had a contract with BK or BKI. That didn't affect whether BK could collect royalties from LP one way or the other. It just defined what toys we allowed to play in our game.

 

When BK GS and LP started fighting each other, the Laser class wisely got rid of that historic rule. That did nothing to affect the validity of the contract between BK and LP. It just allowed Laser sailors to continue to buy toys that could play in our game.

 

It took me a while to understand this, which is why I originally voted not to change the rule. But when it comes to sailing, I am notoriously slow.

 

The other slow kid at the back of the fleet will get there soon.

 

 

The fight originally started between Global Sailing and Laser Performance. To be fair to Bruce , the man, (Rather than BKI, the company). When Bruce owned BKI the process of contractual fees/royalties was running relatively smoothly. The problems only really started after GS had purchased BKI from Bruce.

 

Its a bit of a mystery why Bruce became involved again. He had been paid for his royalties. The subsequent fight between GS and LP was not his responsibility. There seems to have been some territorial friction between LP and Performance Sailing (owned by the same family who own Global sailing) but we certainly dont know enough to judge between LP and PS who was in the right and wrong of that dispute. All we know is that at some date after GS acquired BKI, LP stopped paying fees to BKI.

 

One hopes on Bruce's behalf that he somehow hasn't been screwed by GS on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that although ILCA talked a lot about neutral positions, the only action they took that was publicly visible was decidedly non neutral, and the way they presented the whole fundamental rule vote was decidedly slanted and misleading. So the only actual facts visible to a neutral observer were ILCA taking a very non-neutral position and apparently doing their best to mislead their electorate. I expect they thought they were doing the best thing by their members, but there's a suspicion that if they hadn't intervened the whole mess would have come to a head and been over by now, whereas, thanks to your dysfunctional US legal system, it looks well set to drag on for another umpteen years leaving all parties in something of a state of uncertainty, which is probably unhealthy.

 

Jim....I think that as bystanders we agree to disagree whether the Class took the least damaging, most neutral position that they could.

 

To my thinking, the Class took the best route that it could on behalf of members. The Class owes a duty of care to its members, not to any of the commercial parties.

 

Both of the builders were threatening to prevent the supply of class legal boats to Europe. LP claimed that PS could not supply class legal boats to Europe because they could not use the Trademark in Europe. PS claimed that LP could not supply class legal boats to Europe because GS and LP had terminated the agreement between LP and BKI (owned by GS at the time) . Unless the Class changed the Class rules one way or another, Class legal boats would not be available in Europe until the dispute was resolved.

 

The Class and ISAF encouraged the commercial parties to sit down together and resolve their dispute. They declined to do this, so the class changed the class rules with the least impact to the status quo. Each builder has continued to supply new boats within their designated territories and the disputing parties have taken their dispute to court .....which is the right place for the dispute!

 

I have voiced my opinion several times that the commercial parties were dumb not to take advantage of several opportunities to mediate and settle the dispute...but I also note that the mediation process endorsed by the court was not successful, so I dont think the Class Association stood much chance in encouraging an amicable solution.

 

I think the Class did the right thing here by simply preserving the status quo in terms of territory and the supply of boats and letting the commercial parties do their thing in court.

 

The very fact that the case has been going on for so long reinforces my belief that the Class Association did the right thing. Most Laser sailors are relatively unaffected. They can continue to buy boats and parts. It is a very small group who even bother to follow the case or this thread.

 

That said....Jim.....this is my personal opinion about what was the "right thing" for the Class to do at the time. My opinion is no more valid than yours and I respect yours.

 

I can comment objectively on the legality on some of the various aspects of this story, but what was the "right thing" for the class to do on behalf of its members when confronted with a dispute between builders is a subjective point of view and we are each entitled to our opinions and hopefully respect each others opinions.

 

The Class Association rightfully put it to a vote.

 

 

I guess I object to Gannt's position because he is leveling accusations at Class volunteers, Class employees, Class officers and Class members where he accuses them of consciously making material false statements and deliberately not acting in the best interest of the Class. This is all accompanied by hostile and semi incoherent rhetoric when anyone tries to speak up in favor of the Class (Tiller) or contribute some legal perspective to the debate (IPL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gantt,

 

all I can say is that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Can you not understand that there is a difference between "gives no rights to Kirby" and "the agreement doesn't bind ICLA"?

 

Yes SM123, I can make that distinction.

 

To be clear, you are not explicitly saying that the ISAF agreement gives (or gave) Bruce Kirby design rights. In fact, it's reasonable to say that given what you have posted previously here on this forum, that you don't believe the ISAF Agreement gives Bruce Kirby or BKI design rights.

 

 

Speaking plainly SM123, do you believe:

  1. That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights?
  2. The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011?

 

 

If I was asked, I would answer

 

1. No

2. Yes.

 

But then I would be answering in a strictly legal fashion.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IPLore is a troll who again and again with his low level legal understandings of UK contract law

 

Note that when I wrote:

"Let's say you buy a house and you get a loan from a bank. Let's say you break the conditions of the loan, by say not having life insurance......

 

​There was no retort of substance, rather IPLore has so far fallen largely silent on this matter.

I did not respond to your nonsense for two reasons:

 

1, Nobody has bought or sold a house in this dispute or obtained a loan on a house!

2. The prospect of trying to explain to you the concept of "material breach of contract" or "material provisions" was daunting and it was doubtful that you would listen or care.

 

The bottom line is that, ISAF (as then was) issued notice that Bruce is in breach of contract (The ISAF Agreement) and approved the change in the class rules. (Note that ISAF provided opportunities for the parties to mediate which was declined by BKI) If Bruce's or BKI's lawyers wanted to dispute this notice or if they believed that the Laser Class Association had somehow broken the ISAF Agreement they would have filed for arbitration. BKI has not filed for arbitration because the Class Association has NOT broken the ISAF Agreement.....but Bruce Kirby is in breach of the ISAF Agreement and has been notified that his breach is material.

 

 

Let me spell out four things to the you, which hopefully can lay this to rest.

 

1. BKI's entitlement to any fees under the builders agreements are not dependent on the ISAF agreement. If the Laser Class stopped being an Olympic Class or a World Sailing International class, the obligations under the Builders contract to pay a fee to BKI are not affected.

2. The Laser Class Association has not broken the ISAF Agreement. The parties to the case in CT have not suggested that The Class Association broke the ISAF agreement.

3. BK has broken the ISAF agreement and has been notified by World sailing that the breach was material.

4. The ISAF agreement does not provide evidence as you claim that the officers of the Laser Class Association made materially misleading statements during the class vote.

 

Yes, the ISAF agreement is relevant and important to Bruce Kirby's case but not in the manner in which you describe.

 

 

Again, none of what you have said, even if it was all 100% true alter the facts I have put forward. Some of what you are saying is contestable, and I have taken that into consideration when presenting my summary of facts. A lot of what IPLore is putting forward is muddling up the fundamental rule change with the legal action, then bizarrely talking about arbitration for some hypothetical action. In spite of IPLore wanting to trump up the differences that don't matter, I'm glad IPLore agrees (conceded?) that the ISAF Agreement was current in 2011.

 

It's important to note that World Sailing said that they 'exercised their right to cancel their agreement' with Kirby in 2013, the ILCA vote for the fundamental rule change was in 2011.

 

IPLore's statement "The ISAF agreement does not provide evidence as you claim that the officers of the Laser Class Association made materially misleading statements during the class vote." can be easily tested and in itself is misleading. It comes close to being relevant, however is deliberately worded to grasp at IPLore's warped sense of being right.

 

First, let's repeat what I am claiming: that Heini Wellmann said that the ILCA had no knowledge of the builder's contract content.

 

I have quoted his exact words and where he made that statement, providing a link - so I cannot be accused of misleading anyone of the context, the source or the timing. Wellmann made that statement in December 2011 Laser World, after the vote, which I have also said explicitly. Wellmann's claim of no knowledge could not be true because Jeff Martin signed the ISAF agreement on behalf of the ILCA, which contained clauses that prescribed content in the builder's agreement. IPLore is trying to make out that one point is more central to my argument than it actually is - it never was central to the ILCA misleading it's membership at the time members cast their vote - because the statement was made after voting was completed. Attention to these facts expose IPLore's posts as either incompetent or he's trolling - take your pick - in the end they are examples of both.

 

The key to IPLore's statement is his use of the phrase "materially misleading". Wellmann's statement raised the unanswered question as to whether or not Wellmann himself knew the content of the ISAF Agreement - and was never put forward by me as materially misleading prior to the fundamental vote's conclusion.

 

What was materially misleading during the time votes were cast for the fundamental rule change included the statement by Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann: "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements."

 

Specifically:

  • There are two types of agreements, the builder's agreement and the ISAF Agreement. The ILCA is party to the ISAF Agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement forms part of each of the Builder's Agreements - and even if that fact was discovered in hindsight, it still makes the above 2011 statement materially misleading.

For now, I'll not bother with Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann's misleading statement about patents. It was covered very well by Pam in her Improper Course blog here: http://www.impropercourse.com/2012/05/kirby-sailboat.html

 

Here's my summary of facts repeated, which I believe IPLore is trying to negate:

_________________________________________________

 

Regarding the ILCA, I am satisfied that the following are facts:

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • In so doing, the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership.

The ILCA has constitutional obligations to meet the ethical and procedural standards set by the ISAF.

 

Note that:

  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann in 2010.
  • The fundamental rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011 amongst controversy.
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.

These two important considerations are core:

  • That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  • The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

_________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

 

Same old, same old.

Is there a name for someone who keeps repeating a losing argument over and over again in the hope that repetition makes it more convincing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

GanntTiller Man, I'd like to add the facts you have about Kirby's motivations for "selling" his rights to Global Sailing to a list I have compiled. (Currently got it under "unsubstantiated rumours").

 

Clearly, you have something about Kirby's motivations over and above Kirby's stated reason: his desire to retire - from memory the words he used were "estate planning".

 

Note that the transfer of these rights that are controlled by ISAF Agreement terms, and agreed to by Kirby, ISAF, ILCA, the trademark holder and the builders.

 

What facts do you have? (I can't find any relating to Kirby's motivations other than what he said publicly. Specifically anything to support your mentioning earlier that you had 'heard' that Kirby had tried to sell his rights to Rastegar.)

 

 

Here, we have a rare example of a point of agreement between IPLore and Gannt.

 

I have seen nothing in the documents that cause me to doubt that Bruce Kirby was being entirely honest about his motivation for the sale. It was about Estate Planning. He wished to sell the royalty/fee stream for a lump sum. It is a sensible thing to do. Many designers and inventors do this. There are literally hundreds of similar transactions a year.

 

We have read in many places that Bruce received an offer from Laser Performance and subsequently a higher offer from Global Sailing.I have no reason to doubt that Bruce approached both of the trademark holders in order to ensure receiving the best price. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

There have been rumors that Bruce and LP were very close to a deal but LP revised down the price after due diligence (Sorry, cannot remember where I saw that, but it is not really relevant)

 

I have offered my personal opinion (and it is no more than that) very early in this thread that the price paid by Global Sailing for the royalty stream was surprisingly high/good for Bruce. But if Global sailing thought it was worth a lot of money.....then good for Bruce....and caveat emptor for the buyer.

 

My stance re Bruce's financial entitlements is that I think Bruce should be entitled to keep the consideration that he recieved from Global sailing......but we dont know all the facts. If GS gave notice of termination to LP (as LP claimed in their counter claim).....then GS should eat the loss not Bruce Kirby. I have also suggested that one possible course to settlement is that LP share some but not all of this loss.

 

 

For example:

If GS paid $2 million to Bruce Kirby I would propose as follows:

 

1. BK keeps the $2 million.

2. LP recommences paying a 2% construction fee but this is paid the ILCA not BKI. ILCA distributes half of the fee to GS until GS has recieved $1million (or 0.8 of whatever LP were prepared to buy BKI for). The remaining construction fees are paid into an ILCA account devoted solely to promoting the class .

 

But that would probably be too sensible a solution.

 

Agreement is good.

 

Bruce Kirby was surprised by the reaction of the ILCA/ISAF. The sale was not approved.

 

The ILCA took into consideration Farzad Rastegar's assertion that Kirby and the Spencers were in a conspiracy together - the same conspiracy that was later thrown out by the Connecticut courts for having insufficient supporting evidence to even hear the counterclaim. The ILCA may have acted at the time in good faith, however, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that to give weight to Laser Perfomance's position as if it were an equal dispute was a judgement that the ILCA made in error.

 

Bruce Kirby admitted that mistakes were made:

 

"There were a lot of mistakes and misunderstandings surrounding my attempt to transfer the 40-year-old design rights to Global Sailing in New Zealand (one of three ILCA builders)," explained Kirby, "And it became obvious that the best way to solve the dilemma was for me to resume ownership of these design rights and builder contracts. With the cooperation of all parties, the class should be able to continue its long history as the premier sailboat racing organization and mainstay of Olympic sailing."

 

As of the 26 September the ILSA [sic] website still contains the exhortation for members to vote Yes to the removal of the requirement for builders to be licensed by the design rights holder - and if they NO "the Class in its current set-up will soon cease to exist."

Source = sailweb, 28 September, 2011.

 

What Bruce Kirby said needs to be qualified - the sale of his rights to GS were not completed as per the terms of the ISAF Agreement. Global Sailing were not one of the builder - their ownership was similar to PSA.

 

Sailweb report supports that the ILCA were subscribing it's membership to make the change. The ILCA were highly motivated to remove Bruce Kirby's design rights, putting forward the notion that "the Class in its current set-up will soon cease to exist." The irony here that by changing the fundamental rule, the ILCA changed the way current class was set-up.

 

IPLore puts forward another solution, there were clearly more options than what the ILCA did. The relationship between the ILCA broke down - in 2012, the ILCA told Kirby in relation to the plaques to take the matter to court. In my view, Kirby was treated very badly.

 

Bottom line: the ILCA does not have to continue to hold it's current position that appears to defend the notion that the ISAF Agreement is history in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I implore iplure to stop posting facts.

 

Gannt cantt handle facts and has to resort to posting the same repetitive desperate plea and conclusion that is only marginally connected to the case... The class does not have to continue on this path... Duh, yea but its a nice path that protects the members and lets the commercial parties resolve their dispute in court where it belongs.

 

Love your second #1 in 3602. He clearly does not (want to) understand that. BK deserves a better shrill.

 

 

I keep coming back to the same thing.

 

Whether or not LP have to pay BK royalties is determined by the contract between LP and BK. Pure and simple.

 

If ISAF and the ILCA wound themselves up and went out of existence tomorrow, that would still be true.

 

What the rules of the Laser class are about is what toys are eligible to play in our game. For a while - historic reasons - we said that we would only allow toys built by companies who had a contract with BK or BKI. That didn't affect whether BK could collect royalties from LP one way or the other. It just defined what toys we allowed to play in our game.

 

When BK GS and LP started fighting each other, the Laser class wisely got rid of that historic rule. That did nothing to affect the validity of the contract between BK and LP. It just allowed Laser sailors to continue to buy toys that could play in our game.

 

It took me a while to understand this, which is why I originally voted not to change the rule. But when it comes to sailing, I am notoriously slow.

 

The other slow kid at the back of the fleet will get there soon.

 

 

The fight originally started between Global Sailing and Laser Performance. To be fair to Bruce , the man, (Rather than BKI, the company). When Bruce owned BKI the process of contractual fees/royalties was running relatively smoothly. The problems only really started after GS had purchased BKI from Bruce.

 

Its a bit of a mystery why Bruce became involved again. He had been paid for his royalties. The subsequent fight between GS and LP was not his responsibility. There seems to have been some territorial friction between LP and Performance Sailing (owned by the same family who own Global sailing) but we certainly dont know enough to judge between LP and PS who was in the right and wrong of that dispute. All we know is that at some date after GS acquired BKI, LP stopped paying fees to BKI.

 

One hopes on Bruce's behalf that he somehow hasn't been screwed by GS on this.

 

 

I think the above might be a denial that the ILCA screwed Kirby. Stating over and over the Kirby screwed himself does not negate that the ILCA acted improperly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

GanntTiller Man, I'd like to add the facts you have about Kirby's motivations for "selling" his rights to Global Sailing to a list I have compiled. (Currently got it under "unsubstantiated rumours").

 

Clearly, you have something about Kirby's motivations over and above Kirby's stated reason: his desire to retire - from memory the words he used were "estate planning".

 

Note that the transfer of these rights that are controlled by ISAF Agreement terms, and agreed to by Kirby, ISAF, ILCA, the trademark holder and the builders.

 

What facts do you have? (I can't find any relating to Kirby's motivations other than what he said publicly. Specifically anything to support your mentioning earlier that you had 'heard' that Kirby had tried to sell his rights to Rastegar.)

 

 

Here, we have a rare example of a point of agreement between IPLore and Gannt.

 

I have seen nothing in the documents that cause me to doubt that Bruce Kirby was being entirely honest about his motivation for the sale. It was about Estate Planning. He wished to sell the royalty/fee stream for a lump sum. It is a sensible thing to do. Many designers and inventors do this. There are literally hundreds of similar transactions a year.

 

We have read in many places that Bruce received an offer from Laser Performance and subsequently a higher offer from Global Sailing.I have no reason to doubt that Bruce approached both of the trademark holders in order to ensure receiving the best price. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

There have been rumors that Bruce and LP were very close to a deal but LP revised down the price after due diligence (Sorry, cannot remember where I saw that, but it is not really relevant)

 

I have offered my personal opinion (and it is no more than that) very early in this thread that the price paid by Global Sailing for the royalty stream was surprisingly high/good for Bruce. But if Global sailing thought it was worth a lot of money.....then good for Bruce....and caveat emptor for the buyer.

 

My stance re Bruce's financial entitlements is that I think Bruce should be entitled to keep the consideration that he recieved from Global sailing......but we dont know all the facts. If GS gave notice of termination to LP (as LP claimed in their counter claim).....then GS should eat the loss not Bruce Kirby. I have also suggested that one possible course to settlement is that LP share some but not all of this loss.

 

 

For example:

If GS paid $2 million to Bruce Kirby I would propose as follows:

 

1. BK keeps the $2 million.

2. LP recommences paying a 2% construction fee but this is paid the ILCA not BKI. ILCA distributes half of the fee to GS until GS has recieved $1million (or 0.8 of whatever LP were prepared to buy BKI for). The remaining construction fees are paid into an ILCA account devoted solely to promoting the class .

 

But that would probably be too sensible a solution.

 

Agreement is good.

 

Bruce Kirby was surprised by the reaction of the ILCA/ISAF. The sale was not approved.

 

The ILCA took into consideration Farzad Rastegar's assertion that Kirby and the Spencers were in a conspiracy together - the same conspiracy that was later thrown out by the Connecticut courts for having insufficient supporting evidence to even hear the counterclaim. The ILCA may have acted at the time in good faith, however, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that to give weight to Laser Perfomance's position as if it were an equal dispute was a judgement that the ILCA made in error.

 

Bruce Kirby admitted that mistakes were made:

 

"There were a lot of mistakes and misunderstandings surrounding my attempt to transfer the 40-year-old design rights to Global Sailing in New Zealand (one of three ILCA builders)," explained Kirby, "And it became obvious that the best way to solve the dilemma was for me to resume ownership of these design rights and builder contracts. With the cooperation of all parties, the class should be able to continue its long history as the premier sailboat racing organization and mainstay of Olympic sailing."

 

As of the 26 September the ILSA [sic] website still contains the exhortation for members to vote Yes to the removal of the requirement for builders to be licensed by the design rights holder - and if they NO "the Class in its current set-up will soon cease to exist."

Source = sailweb, 28 September, 2011.

 

What Bruce Kirby said needs to be qualified - the sale of his rights to GS were not completed as per the terms of the ISAF Agreement. Global Sailing were not one of the builder - their ownership was similar to PSA.

 

Sailweb report supports that the ILCA were subscribing it's membership to make the change. The ILCA were highly motivated to remove Bruce Kirby's design rights, putting forward the notion that "the Class in its current set-up will soon cease to exist." The irony here that by changing the fundamental rule, the ILCA changed the way current class was set-up.

 

IPLore puts forward another solution, there were clearly more options than what the ILCA did. The relationship between the ILCA broke down - in 2012, the ILCA told Kirby in relation to the plaques to take the matter to court. In my view, Kirby was treated very badly.

 

Bottom line: the ILCA does not have to continue to hold it's current position that appears to defend the notion that the ISAF Agreement is history in court.

 

OMG as my kids would say. On the on hand you suggest you are talking to the parties but then deny it while writing here that you had knowledge to how Bruce felt ("surprised") and even empowered to correct Bruce's own statements. The quote was "the best way to solve the dilemma was for me to resume ownership of these design rights and builder contracts." RESUME. Look it up. He was in the middle of a legal dispute. You said he has great counsel. Great counsel would ensure his clients quotes in the middle of a legal dispute were accurate. But you are compelled to say that "What Bruce Kirby said needs to be qualified." Really. By you?!!? Since when and by whom exactly are you empowered to qualify Bruce Kirby's remarks.

 

Kirby deserves a much better advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The trouble is that although ILCA talked a lot about neutral positions, the only action they took that was publicly visible was decidedly non neutral, and the way they presented the whole fundamental rule vote was decidedly slanted and misleading. So the only actual facts visible to a neutral observer were ILCA taking a very non-neutral position and apparently doing their best to mislead their electorate. I expect they thought they were doing the best thing by their members, but there's a suspicion that if they hadn't intervened the whole mess would have come to a head and been over by now, whereas, thanks to your dysfunctional US legal system, it looks well set to drag on for another umpteen years leaving all parties in something of a state of uncertainty, which is probably unhealthy.

 

Jim....I think that as bystanders we agree to disagree whether the Class took the least damaging, most neutral position that they could.

 

To my thinking, the Class took the best route that it could on behalf of members. The Class owes a duty of care to its members, not to any of the commercial parties.

 

Both of the builders were threatening to prevent the supply of class legal boats to Europe. LP claimed that PS could not supply class legal boats to Europe because they could not use the Trademark in Europe. PS claimed that LP could not supply class legal boats to Europe because GS and LP had terminated the agreement between LP and BKI (owned by GS at the time) . Unless the Class changed the Class rules one way or another, Class legal boats would not be available in Europe until the dispute was resolved.

 

The Class and ISAF encouraged the commercial parties to sit down together and resolve their dispute. They declined to do this, so the class changed the class rules with the least impact to the status quo. Each builder has continued to supply new boats within their designated territories and the disputing parties have taken their dispute to court .....which is the right place for the dispute!

 

I have voiced my opinion several times that the commercial parties were dumb not to take advantage of several opportunities to mediate and settle the dispute...but I also note that the mediation process endorsed by the court was not successful, so I dont think the Class Association stood much chance in encouraging an amicable solution.

 

I think the Class did the right thing here by simply preserving the status quo in terms of territory and the supply of boats and letting the commercial parties do their thing in court.

 

The very fact that the case has been going on for so long reinforces my belief that the Class Association did the right thing. Most Laser sailors are relatively unaffected. They can continue to buy boats and parts. It is a very small group who even bother to follow the case or this thread.

 

That said....Jim.....this is my personal opinion about what was the "right thing" for the Class to do at the time. My opinion is no more valid than yours and I respect yours.

 

I can comment objectively on the legality on some of the various aspects of this story, but what was the "right thing" for the class to do on behalf of its members when confronted with a dispute between builders is a subjective point of view and we are each entitled to our opinions and hopefully respect each others opinions.

 

The Class Association rightfully put it to a vote.

 

 

I guess I object to Gannt's position because he is leveling accusations at Class volunteers, Class employees, Class officers and Class members where he accuses them of consciously making material false statements and deliberately not acting in the best interest of the Class. This is all accompanied by hostile and semi incoherent rhetoric when anyone tries to speak up in favor of the Class (Tiller) or contribute some legal perspective to the debate (IPL).

 

 

Again, IPLore is embellishing my position with emotive language, as if I am attacking people personally rather than questioning their actions.

 

Tiller Man is stating that my position is a losing one, that I'm stating legal mumbo jumbo. Both have been unable to contradict what I have presented as being satisfied as facts, rather.

 

It's important to repeat the words that they are responding to, rather than rely on IPLore's misinterpretations and selective quoting, or on Tiller Man's baseless determination that I'm somehow presenting a "losing argument".

 

As we get clearer on the facts as more details emerge, the issue is less whether or not anyone believes the ILCA did the right thing in 2011, it's more about the consequences now - and whether or not the ILCA is continuing to do the right thing. IPLore wants readers to believe that I am saying more than I am in relation to acting in the best interests of the ILCA. I firmly believe that the making of false statements - whether intended or not - is not in the best interests of its membership.

 

Here it is again, with a small addition on how the ILCA's statements were false:

_________________________________________________

 

Regarding the ILCA, I am satisfied that the following are facts:

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • In so doing, the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership.

Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann stated in the notice given to ILCA Members for the fundamental rule change: "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements." http://www.laserinternational.org/info/2011rulechangesvotingended23rdseptember2011

 

How that statement is false:

  • There are two types of agreements, the builder's agreement and the ISAF Agreement. The ILCA is party to the ISAF Agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement forms part of each of the Builder's Agreements - and even if that fact was discovered in hindsight, it still makes the above 2011 statement materially misleading.

Note that:

  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann in 2010.
  • The fundamental rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011 amongst controversy.
  • The ILCA has constitutional obligations to meet the ethical and procedural standards set by the ISAF.
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.

These two important considerations are core:

  • That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  • The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

_________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that although ILCA talked a lot about neutral positions, the only action they took that was publicly visible was decidedly non neutral, and the way they presented the whole fundamental rule vote was decidedly slanted and misleading. So the only actual facts visible to a neutral observer were ILCA taking a very non-neutral position and apparently doing their best to mislead their electorate. I expect they thought they were doing the best thing by their members, but there's a suspicion that if they hadn't intervened the whole mess would have come to a head and been over by now, whereas, thanks to your dysfunctional US legal system, it looks well set to drag on for another umpteen years leaving all parties in something of a state of uncertainty, which is probably unhealthy.

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The trouble is that although ILCA talked a lot about neutral positions, the only action they took that was publicly visible was decidedly non neutral, and the way they presented the whole fundamental rule vote was decidedly slanted and misleading. So the only actual facts visible to a neutral observer were ILCA taking a very non-neutral position and apparently doing their best to mislead their electorate. I expect they thought they were doing the best thing by their members, but there's a suspicion that if they hadn't intervened the whole mess would have come to a head and been over by now, whereas, thanks to your dysfunctional US legal system, it looks well set to drag on for another umpteen years leaving all parties in something of a state of uncertainty, which is probably unhealthy.

 

Jim....I think that as bystanders we agree to disagree whether the Class took the least damaging, most neutral position that they could.

 

To my thinking, the Class took the best route that it could on behalf of members. The Class owes a duty of care to its members, not to any of the commercial parties.

 

Both of the builders were threatening to prevent the supply of class legal boats to Europe. LP claimed that PS could not supply class legal boats to Europe because they could not use the Trademark in Europe. PS claimed that LP could not supply class legal boats to Europe because GS and LP had terminated the agreement between LP and BKI (owned by GS at the time) . Unless the Class changed the Class rules one way or another, Class legal boats would not be available in Europe until the dispute was resolved.

 

The Class and ISAF encouraged the commercial parties to sit down together and resolve their dispute. They declined to do this, so the class changed the class rules with the least impact to the status quo. Each builder has continued to supply new boats within their designated territories and the disputing parties have taken their dispute to court .....which is the right place for the dispute!

 

I have voiced my opinion several times that the commercial parties were dumb not to take advantage of several opportunities to mediate and settle the dispute...but I also note that the mediation process endorsed by the court was not successful, so I dont think the Class Association stood much chance in encouraging an amicable solution.

 

I think the Class did the right thing here by simply preserving the status quo in terms of territory and the supply of boats and letting the commercial parties do their thing in court.

 

The very fact that the case has been going on for so long reinforces my belief that the Class Association did the right thing. Most Laser sailors are relatively unaffected. They can continue to buy boats and parts. It is a very small group who even bother to follow the case or this thread.

 

That said....Jim.....this is my personal opinion about what was the "right thing" for the Class to do at the time. My opinion is no more valid than yours and I respect yours.

 

I can comment objectively on the legality on some of the various aspects of this story, but what was the "right thing" for the class to do on behalf of its members when confronted with a dispute between builders is a subjective point of view and we are each entitled to our opinions and hopefully respect each others opinions.

 

The Class Association rightfully put it to a vote.

 

 

I guess I object to Gannt's position because he is leveling accusations at Class volunteers, Class employees, Class officers and Class members where he accuses them of consciously making material false statements and deliberately not acting in the best interest of the Class. This is all accompanied by hostile and semi incoherent rhetoric when anyone tries to speak up in favor of the Class (Tiller) or contribute some legal perspective to the debate (IPL).

 

 

Again, IPLore is embellishing my position with emotive language, as if I am attacking people personally rather than questioning their actions.

 

Tiller Man is stating that my position is a losing one, that I'm stating legal mumbo jumbo. Both have been unable to contradict what I have presented as being satisfied as facts, rather.

 

It's important to repeat the words that they are responding to, rather than rely on IPLore's misinterpretations and selective quoting, or on Tiller Man's baseless determination that I'm somehow presenting a "losing argument".

 

As we get clearer on the facts as more details emerge, the issue is less whether or not anyone believes the ILCA did the right thing in 2011, it's more about the consequences now - and whether or not the ILCA is continuing to do the right thing. IPLore wants readers to believe that I am saying more than I am in relation to acting in the best interests of the ILCA. I firmly believe that the making of false statements - whether intended or not - is not in the best interests of its membership.

 

Here it is again, with a small addition on how the ILCA's statements were false:

_________________________________________________

 

Regarding the ILCA, I am satisfied that the following are facts:

  • That the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
  • In so doing, the ILCA did not act in the best interests of its membership.

Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann stated in the notice given to ILCA Members for the fundamental rule change: "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements." http://www.laserinternational.org/info/2011rulechangesvotingended23rdseptember2011

 

How that statement is false:

  • There are two types of agreements, the builder's agreement and the ISAF Agreement. The ILCA is party to the ISAF Agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement forms part of each of the Builder's Agreements - and even if that fact was discovered in hindsight, it still makes the above 2011 statement materially misleading.

Note that:

  • The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
  • The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
  • Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
  • Farzad Rastegar threatened the ILCA in an email to then president Heini Wellmann in 2010.
  • The fundamental rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011 amongst controversy.
  • The ILCA has constitutional obligations to meet the ethical and procedural standards set by the ISAF.
  • In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.

These two important considerations are core:

  • That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights
  • The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011

The ILCA still does not have to continue down the path it has chosen.

_________________________________________________

 

Nope your statements are still wrong. You have to try something other than cut and pasting them over and over for them to be right.

 

Is it that you don't know they are wrong or that repetitive cut and pasting is all you got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you do about the slow kid at the back of the fleet?

 

Most of us try to help him and encourage him and give him advice and tell him how to correct his mistakes.

 

But if he persists in saying nonsense like, "I push the tiller right to turn the boat to the right," or "Port tack has right of way over starboard," what do you do?

 

After a while, I think I would just ignore him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you do about the slow kid at the back of the fleet?

 

Most of us try to help him and encourage him and give him advice and tell him how to correct his mistakes.

 

But if he persists in saying nonsense like, "I push the tiller right to turn the boat to the right," or "Port tack has right of way over starboard," what do you do?

 

After a while, I think I would just ignore him.

 

I already am ignoring him.

 

Encouragement and telling him how to correct mistakes is great. Some of the adults believe they are helping - but in fact are just yelling unhelpful things like 'Is there a name for someone who keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again in the hope that repetition makes it better' - or worse - they can't see that their own advice is bad.

 

I get it Tiller Man, you are saying that my statement "The ILCA solicited votes for the fundamental rule change by making false statements." is accusational and is false, yet have not put forward anything based on fact to contradict that statement. I am am open to and even encourage challenges - and at this time am treating that statement as a fact.

When the slow kid at the back says "Nope your statements are still wrong" - it's like the adult who never learnt how to sail properly doesn't even know that they don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still wrong. Even BK abandoned and is not walking the path Canntt is on. That might be informative for some... or not...

 

Cut and paste...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that you're all going round in circles making statements on very little evidence. Nothing's going to change unless your dilatory judge extracts digits from whatever orifices they are located in and the case moves on a bit and we maybe get to see some more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that you're all going round in circles making statements on very little evidence. Nothing's going to change unless your dilatory judge extracts digits from whatever orifices they are located in and the case moves on a bit and we maybe get to see some more information.

JimC - Actually I would politely disagree this. For all the joking w Gannt, if you follow closely he has shifted his argument considerably and its now focused largely outside of the scope of the actual legal case. That is to say Gannt is making claims that even BK is not pursuing in the litigation. Nothing wrong with that but he does not need the judges help. He is imploring the class to reconsider the course they are on and to change paths. So far the class does not seem inclined to follow in jumping off that cliff. But still he asks that we turn back...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JimC - Actually I would politely disagree this. For all the joking w Gannt, if you follow closely he has shifted his argument considerably and its now focused largely outside of the scope of the actual legal case. That is to say Gannt is making claims that even BK is not pursuing in the litigation. Nothing wrong with that but he does not need the judges help. He is imploring the class to reconsider the course they are on and to change paths. So far the class does not seem inclined to follow in jumping off that cliff. But still he asks that we turn back...

 

 

 

Quite right Wess. There is no way the class is going to drive off that cliff, however much my special kind of friend cuts and pastes, cuts and pastes, cuts and pastes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites