• 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

Gantt, you've done more than anyone else to shut down this topic - you've drowned it under mountains of misguided, irrelevant, made up tripe, so there is pretty much nobody left willing to actually engage in a real discussion. As soon as anyone tries to engage you race in and bury them under the weight of your crap.

 

The only people left are those who enjoy a laugh at your expense. And Gouv.

 

Trouble is Redstar, the weight of stuff I have posted is not made up at all. I get that it takes a lot to follow this at time complicated topic. Some even believe the lies of IPLore and Wess - in that I 'hate' the ILCA.

 

Many of my posts use exact quotes and provide references for the source.

 

What's new in the last week is the confirming what I have long suspected - that the ILCA were mislead into thinking that the fundamental rule change was a good idea. This is significant to the legal action. Take the time to read my first post today, to check out my sources. Think it through Redstar.

 

You are welcome to think that I've made stuff up at your own peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really Ganntt, "peril."

 

Oh brother. Put on your big boys pants, man up and answer a question if you want a serious dialogue and people to answer you.

 

Here is the list from this page alone. Go back a few pages and it would be hundreds of questions long.

 

Is Kirby suing for what you write so passionately about earlier?

If yes please briefly state 1.) the entity being sued that is still a party to the litigation, 2.) the specific claim outlined in the filings against said entity, and 3.) the remedy sought by Kirby in the filings from said entity. Please quote directly from the filings.

Can you also please remind me briefly about the court's decision or court status/Kirby's disposition of 1.) Kirby's claims against ISAF and 2.) Kirby's claims re the Laser trademark. Please quote directly from the court documents.

 

Given Kirby wants us to sail them, has Kirby manufactured or sold any Torches?

Has Kirby launched a Torch class; how do I join?

Where can I buy a Torch and get in on all the fun?

Does Kirby have any contracts with the ISAF naming the Torch?

Do you like the new full rig sail?

 

Sorry if your panties are in a bunch but good grief you are a drama queen of epic proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the vast majority of what you say Gouv.

 

About three years back, I checked you out, because i wasn't sure who the heck you were or where you were coming from.

 

It's didn't take long to find the history - the accusations - accusations of foul play levelled against you. I became convinced that someone, somewhere was pulling strings that resulted in you getting kicked out ot the role as ILCA-NA secretary.

 

What I also found was evidence that supported what you said, that membership grew, that you got a large number of things right - and new people came to play the game as a direct result of your efforts.

 

There is a ton of people who get involved with sailing for the love of it, I can name names - our sport is dominated by volunteers - everyone I've met doesn't primarily sail for profit.

 

It's bloody important to make sure that the ILCA has this mess sorted out - and once it is sorted, then the ILCA can move forward and get back to the business of promoting Laser sailing without watching their backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, do you know who Redstar is?

 

My word 'peril' is apt.

 

Those are your bullshit questions Wess. Most of them are rhetorical. All of them have been answered previously except whether or not I like the new sail.

 

What's new is that we now know that the ILCA are obligated to the ISAF to have the ISAF Agreement (or a replacement). Since the ISAF Agreement refers to the issuing of licenses, the ILCA may well be obligated to the ISAF to recognize Kirby as the party who issue builder's licenses for the Laser.

 

What's also new, is that the ILCA's direct relationship with builders as a result of the builders contracts was paramount to the ILCA being more than just a party who was a beneficiary to the builders contract - they had rights - and the builders were obligated to the ILCA - BECAUSE of the builder's agreement.

 

I know you don't want to discuss new stuff. You would rather discuss old stuff then criticize me for posting repeating nonsense.

 

Also, be under no illusion, the ILCA's position is very important to the legal action. For the most part, it does not reflect what most members actually want - for the ILCA to be well run, for the iLCA to be recognized as an international class. As it turns out, the ILCA changing the fundamental rule, may not have served the Laser class at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your answer is "no" you canntt answer any questions. Fair enough. But Gouv does and that is why even though I disagree his methods and accusations re past class leadership I respect him enough to be able to be able to dialogue and even find some common ground. You don't want a dialogue; you want to preach. So people come to laugh and troll you. Sorry Jimbo but thankfully this is not Jonestown. Best of luck to your "flock," LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

And this basic topic ought to be the place where people who are interested can keep up with what, if anything is happening in what is (or would be if you seppos had a functioning legal system) a vital topic.

 

 

JimC, the US legal system is definitely broken. How would this play out in the UK legal system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interested me Wess, was your antipathy to Bruce Kirby, your sustained attempts to get people talking about anything but the ILCA's role. So I have engaged you previously. I'm not going to answer your fucked up and irrelevant questions which are designed to distract people away from the ISAFs requirements to have in place a specific contract - the ISAF Agreement (or a similar one which replaces it).

 

Your bullshit questions are a response to this ISAF regulation:

 

( b ) where a licensed builder system is to be adopted, establish the procedure for granting licences and the control of the licensed builders;

 

That agreement was the ISAF Agreement, which definitely was enacted, the process for granting and controlling licensed builders was the one controlled by Bruce Kirby and definitely in place in 2011.

 

So it follows that the ILCA proposed the fundamental rule that removed that requirement?

 

All I'm saying at this point is that it is an obvious conflict for the ILCA. Maybe the same legal advisors who said the patents expired masterminded the rule change.

 

And your questions are in response to that? You want to know if I like the new sail?

 

Good one Wess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interested me Wess, was your antipathy to Bruce Kirby, your sustained attempts to get people talking about anything but the ILCA's role. So I have engaged you previously. I'm not going to answer your fucked up and irrelevant questions which are designed to distract people away from the ISAFs requirements to have in place a specific contract - the ISAF Agreement (or a similar one which replaces it).

 

Your bullshit questions are a response to this ISAF regulation:

 

( b ) where a licensed builder system is to be adopted, establish the procedure for granting licences and the control of the licensed builders;

 

That process, which definitely was enacted, was the one controlled by Bruce Kirby and definitely in place in 2011.

 

So it follows that the ILCA proposed the fundamental rule that removed that requirement?

 

And your questions are in response to that?

 

Good one Wess.

Have at it Jimbo.

 

The funniest part is even though you will not answer any question you canntt change the fact that even Kirby didn't bring suit and make claims against the crap you post and that should tell you something (but it won't which is funny in and of itself). Kirby did bring suit against ISAF and they are free and clear when the judge found Kirby's claims to be... well you know.

 

But the best idiocy you posted tonight was that what the class has done "does not reflect what most members actually want."

 

I know you canntt answer questions but you may want to ponder:

 

* Have class membership left in droves in response to these revelations (err pile of dog sh*t)?

* Have they even risen up in class meeting asking questions?

* Did they not vote?

* They they rise up and demand a new vote based on new information?

* Have class members demanded new leadership supporting a new course or supported new leadership wanting to stay the course or past leadership?

- Hint: Its the latter.

 

Sorry Canntt but "you fool no one" except yourself.

 

 

You never have and never will.

 

Sorry for the delay but I had to listen to all 18 minutes of that video. And if you could play drums like that I would vote for you and sell my soul for the skill.

 

PS - And yes, do you like the new sail Ganntt.

 

PPS - I swear we are getting to pg 39 tonight Gouv! That mean a bonus payment for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could play the vibes like this you still couldn't sleep in the same hotel where your band just played all night because the southerners were expressing states rights... Really.. They had nothing against colored people.... They just didn't want them sleeping in their hotels or rating in their restaurants or talking to them except to take orders.

Not sure where you are going with that Gouv, but I going with this...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ganntt would like to but canntt manage to perpetuate a "royal scam"

 

 

Read Ganntt. See the glory of the royal scam.

 

Great driving music. Gotta dig this one back out and add it to the list.

 

Get ready there is a cut and paste Cannt post coming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... to shut me (and others) down.

 

And they have failed. In fact, you might say it has royally backfired!

 

 

I wish all four of you would shut up until here's something new to say.

 

Whether you sail Lasers or not, whether you like them or not, the Laser is vitally important to sailing as a whole, being pretty much the only truly International popular class. And this basic topic ought to be the place where people who are interested can keep up with what, if anything is happening in what is (or would be if you seppos had a functioning legal system) a vital topic. But instead you guys are filling it up with page after page of repetitive nonsense and pointless irrelevant stupid bloody videos.

 

If there's nothing new to say for goodness sake shut up.

 

 

 

Jim C you have a good point.

 

This thread was started when Bruce Kirby attacked ISAF and the Laser Class and one of the Laser builders by suing them all. That is the topic of this thread.

 

We really should get back to discussing the merits or otherwise of Bruce Kirby's lawsuits against the class and the builder. (His suit against ISAF has already been dismissed.)

 

I have some sympathy for the swipes you make against the Connecticut legal system in every post you write.

 

But i have to serve the ball back over the net by saying that this week the rest of the world is appalled at your (the UK's) dysfunctional electoral and political system.

 

Be that as it may, I think the point of Wess's recent posts is that Gantt is not sticking to the subject of the thread. He is not even discussing the issues that Kirby has included in his attack on the Laser class. Gantt, in his vendetta against the Laser class, has conjured up out of thin air all sorts of other gripes against the Laser Class, that even Bruce Kirby and his very clever (and no doubt high-priced) lawyers never even thought of.

 

One of his latest wild theories seems to be that the Laser should no longer be an International Class - although I have to confess I cannot follow his convoluted logic. At least that is the implication of his statement that "the ILCA, if it wants that Laser to continue as an international class, must recognize" various crazy demands that Gantt has invented.

 

So JImC I suggest that you try and help Wess to steer this thread back to its original topic.

 

Or, if you aren't interested in that topic, I am sure you will find many other threads on Dinghy Anarchy that do cater to your interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could play the vibes like this you still couldn't sleep in the same hotel where your band just played all night because the southerners were expressing states rights... Really.. They had nothing against colored people.... They just didn't want them sleeping in their hotels or rating in their restaurants or talking to them except to take orders.

 

Forgive a tangent while we await words of wisdom from Ganntt.

 

And Tiller I am trying to steer towards music. More Gannt sh*t? Really??

 

Gouv - To be serious for a moment I do know what you mean. We played this and Chameleon in a Nationals competition for All State Jazz bands somewhere in the deep south and got to meet somebody from the Buddy Rich band as well as Maynard Ferguson. I was percussion so was loving life. But the dude playing lead trumpet for us (African American) was amazing and could fully cover all the Ferguson solos and MF actually jammed with us... and that night at the hotel we also saw that kid subjected to racism we didn't even know existed in this country. I was way the weak link in the band. Think lead sax, trumpet and guitar all made good careers in music. Good times (well other than that experience down south).

 

 

Great thread for the music memories, LOL, but fine, bring us back to the case TillerMan. Goood luck getting Ganntt there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt, you've done more than anyone else to shut down this topic - you've drowned it under mountains of misguided, irrelevant, made up tripe, so there is pretty much nobody left willing to actually engage in a real discussion. As soon as anyone tries to engage you race in and bury them under the weight of your crap.

 

The only people left are those who enjoy a laugh at your expense. And Gouv.

 

 

 

Well said redstar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For your answer is "no" ye canntt answer thy queries. Be it so. But thy friend Gouv who is also thine does and that is why even though Ye disagree our friend's methods and accusations re mythical gods of past class leadership I respect thy friend has sufficient grace to repeat myself to repeat myself to dialogue and even settle on similar soils. Ye want not a dialogue; your bellows from thine pulpit henceforth and with the masses come from yon

to make mirth and seek a response. It is with a heavy heart thy sayeth We are blessed for Dinghy Anarchy has no buckets of Tainted Kool Aid.

Fair Winds and Following Seas

Expressing thy indulgence in thy Humor vocally

Fixed it for you

 

Just doing my bit to get it a quarter of the way to anther page in one night but this did make me laugh my a** off Gouv. You delete too many posts so I had to save this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cantt get over yew

 

 

Don't be bringing that weak music trivia crap here. You went with a southern theme.

 

So caught up in you... southern rock style

 

 

Canntt believe I posted that...

 

Canntt believe we covered that...

 

Canntt believe Gannt would not even tell us if he liked the new sail (good grief I could not think of a simplier more friendly safe question)... but maybe he doesn't know. Does he even sail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... to shut me (and others) down.

 

And they have failed. In fact, you might say it has royally backfired!

 

 

I wish all four of you would shut up until here's something new to say.

 

Whether you sail Lasers or not, whether you like them or not, the Laser is vitally important to sailing as a whole, being pretty much the only truly International popular class. And this basic topic ought to be the place where people who are interested can keep up with what, if anything is happening in what is (or would be if you seppos had a functioning legal system) a vital topic. But instead you guys are filling it up with page after page of repetitive nonsense and pointless irrelevant stupid bloody videos.

 

If there's nothing new to say for goodness sake shut up.

 

 

 

Jim C you have a good point.

 

This thread was started when Bruce Kirby attacked ISAF and the Laser Class and one of the Laser builders by suing them all. That is the topic of this thread.

 

We really should get back to discussing the merits or otherwise of Bruce Kirby's lawsuits against the class and the builder. (His suit against ISAF has already been dismissed.)

 

I have some sympathy for the swipes you make against the Connecticut legal system in every post you write.

 

But i have to serve the ball back over the net by saying that this week the rest of the world is appalled at your (the UK's) dysfunctional electoral and political system.

 

Be that as it may, I think the point of Wess's recent posts is that Gantt is not sticking to the subject of the thread. He is not even discussing the issues that Kirby has included in his attack on the Laser class. Gantt, in his vendetta against the Laser class, has conjured up out of thin air all sorts of other gripes against the Laser Class, that even Bruce Kirby and his very clever (and no doubt high-priced) lawyers never even thought of.

 

One of his latest wild theories seems to be that the Laser should no longer be an International Class - although I have to confess I cannot follow his convoluted logic. At least that is the implication of his statement that "the ILCA, if it wants that Laser to continue as an international class, must recognize" various crazy demands that Gantt has invented.

 

So JImC I suggest that you try and help Wess to steer this thread back to its original topic.

 

Or, if you aren't interested in that topic, I am sure you will find many other threads on Dinghy Anarchy that do cater to your interests.

 

 

 

Tiller Man, what you say is so reasonable!

 

Except that I haven't made stuff up. I don't have a vendetta against the ILCA. This is a constant theme of others. You know that it annoys me so you repeat it over and over - and I end up posting the same stuff over and over - so thank you Tiller Man - I'm feeling obligated to repost the information I first posted again - which feeds into your 'don't read this shit - it's not important'. Nothing to do with the legal action here.

 

Of course the Laser is an International Class. and it follows, from my first post today, that the ILCA should follow the ISAF regulations, as it has said it would in it's constitution.

 

What's new to this thread is that the fundamental rule change is a departure from the ISAF regulations.

 

This is not made up. You just made up that I made it up. That is called trolling. Good one Tiller Man.

 

It seems that these are not "wild theories" at all.

 

This has everything to do with the legal action, because it shows how ill founded the fundamental rule change was, which seems like that position is the ILCA appears to spend it's member's money to justify in court.

 

So, to counter the very obvious obfuscation, in an act of frustration, I will post it again.

 

Again, the ILCA acting in support to Laser Performance is critical to the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What the Class Officers Actually Said

 

"The whole issue started when ILCA was advised by Global Sailing, who purports to be representing Kirby’s interests, that as per July 11 2010 they had terminated the license agreement with Laser Performance Europe. ILCA is not a party to these agreements and does not even know their exact content."

 

The main point that Heini was making was that the ILCA was not a party to the builders agreements. It was an entirely valid and truthful point that was relevant to class members. He added that the Class did not know the "exact content" of the contract. He does not say that he had "no knowledge" of the builders contracts. Of course the Class knew that builders contracts existed and even though they likely had a general idea of content...that did not qualify them to be in a legal position to rule on who was right or wrong.

 

In sum, they were not party to the builders contract and they neither had the information nor the qualifications to resolve a contractual dispute.

 

 

Thanks for sorting that one out IPLore. The bricks in Gantt's wall of deceit are falling one by one.

 

Just to be clear - the above is a lie. I did not refer to the statement above in the way that IPLore said.

 

Here's Heini Wellmann's statement:

As you know the conflict centres on the validity and existence of a licence contract between the design rights holder (it is currently not even clear who that is) and a builder. 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.
- ref page 7, Laser World, December 2011 (after the Fundamental Rule vote: http://www.laserinternational.org/sites/default/files/LaserWorld_Dec_2011_lo_res.pdf
The important part of what Heini Wellmann said in reference to the builder's contract is:
"ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content"
(Exactly why are IPLore and Tiller Man lying about this quote? It could be that they are mean spirited, as seen by their obvious attacks against me, though I think it goes beyond that. They actively do not want people questioning the ILCA in any way.)
Hieni made the above statement as if he was not aware of the ISAF Agreement, or it's significant relationship with the builder's contract.
Here's some facts surrounding the builder's contract significance to the ILCA:
  • The ILCA received money from builders because of the builder's contract
  • The ILCA received reports from builder because of the builder's contract
  • The ILCA could inspect Laser manufacturers production facilities as a right because of the builder's contract

Did the ILCA stop receiving money from Laser Performance because the builders contract was terminated in 2010 by Global Sailing? Payments to the ILCA and ISAF in the builder's agreement are referred to as royalties.

 

Jeff Martin, who signed the ISAF agreement, was continuously ILCA Executive Secretary and was tasked with the administration arising from the ILCA's benefits, the builder's obligations to the ILCA - both as a result of the builder's agreements.

 

Also, as it turns out, for the Laser to have international status, ISAF required certain agreements to be enacted, with specific requirements. Those agreements are the ISAF Agreement and the builder's license agreement. Here's the ISAF (World Sailing) requirements:

 

10.3 There shall be an executed agreement between World Sailing Limited., the Class/Owners Association and where relevant the Trademark, Trade Name and the Copyright Owner. This agreement shall include at a minimum the following matters:

 

( a ) define, if any, the ownership of the Copyright, Trade Name and Trademark and establish the rights granted and the responsibilities, obligations and restrictions that apply to the use of such rights generally and among the parties to the agreement;

 

( b ) where a licensed builder system is to be adopted, establish the procedure for granting licences and the control of the licensed builders;

 

( c ) agree on the amount of the World Sailing fee for each boat which is based on 0.4% on the first £20,000 then 0.2% on the next £70,000 and 0.1% on the amount above £90,000 of the average retail price of a complete new boat without sails as a guideline for negotiation;

 

( d ) define the method of issuing and using World Sailing plaques, if any, Sail numbers, Measurement forms, Measurement certificates, changes to class rules and any other documentation affecting the ownership and the use of the boat; and

 

( e ) provide that the Class organization and members of the class shall act in accordance with the World Sailing Constitution, Rules and Regulations.

 

- ref. page 50 of the following PDF: http://www.sailing.o...016-[20887].pdf

All of this points to the Fundamental Rule change being extraordinary departure from the ISAF requirements and the ISAF Agreement.

The ILCA, if it wants that Laser to continue as an international class, must recognize the ISAF Agreement and Kirby's builder's agreement. The alternative was to replace the ISAF Agreement, which did not happen.

When Kirby realized that he had made a mistake with the transfer of his builders license rights (under the ISAF agreement) to Global Sailing, he asked the ISAF to approve them. The ISAF did not give their approval.

It does not take a lawyer to recognize the significance of the fundamental rule change, or the significance of the ISAF Agreement to Kirby's legal action.

Jeff Martin was central to the fundamental rule change.

Jeff Martin was a central figure in the ISAF Agreement.

Jeff Martin administered directly the ILCA's benefits, rights and builder's obligations under the builder's licence contracts

Jeff Martin is the chairman of the ISAF Classes Committee.

Again, this does not take away from the decades of service Jeff Martin gave to the ILCA or sailing in general. That does not make him above reproach. There is some serious explaining for the ILCA to do, if it wants to justify spending ILCA members money on defending it's position in court.

And IPLore, Wess and Tiller Man want to talk about music videos, or make attacks on me. Their rebuttals consistently misquote me, rubbish my logic and say that I'm making stuff up. These are significant issues for the ongoing welfare of the way that Laser Sailing is run. No matter what the outcome of the court case, these issues still need to be addressed.

No amount of the posting of music videos or attacks on me will make this go away.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

... to shut me (and others) down.

 

And they have failed. In fact, you might say it has royally backfired!

 

 

I wish all four of you would shut up until here's something new to say.

 

Whether you sail Lasers or not, whether you like them or not, the Laser is vitally important to sailing as a whole, being pretty much the only truly International popular class. And this basic topic ought to be the place where people who are interested can keep up with what, if anything is happening in what is (or would be if you seppos had a functioning legal system) a vital topic. But instead you guys are filling it up with page after page of repetitive nonsense and pointless irrelevant stupid bloody videos.

 

If there's nothing new to say for goodness sake shut up.

 

 

 

Jim C you have a good point.

 

This thread was started when Bruce Kirby attacked ISAF and the Laser Class and one of the Laser builders by suing them all. That is the topic of this thread.

 

We really should get back to discussing the merits or otherwise of Bruce Kirby's lawsuits against the class and the builder. (His suit against ISAF has already been dismissed.)

 

I have some sympathy for the swipes you make against the Connecticut legal system in every post you write.

 

But i have to serve the ball back over the net by saying that this week the rest of the world is appalled at your (the UK's) dysfunctional electoral and political system.

 

Be that as it may, I think the point of Wess's recent posts is that Gantt is not sticking to the subject of the thread. He is not even discussing the issues that Kirby has included in his attack on the Laser class. Gantt, in his vendetta against the Laser class, has conjured up out of thin air all sorts of other gripes against the Laser Class, that even Bruce Kirby and his very clever (and no doubt high-priced) lawyers never even thought of.

 

One of his latest wild theories seems to be that the Laser should no longer be an International Class - although I have to confess I cannot follow his convoluted logic. At least that is the implication of his statement that "the ILCA, if it wants that Laser to continue as an international class, must recognize" various crazy demands that Gantt has invented.

 

So JImC I suggest that you try and help Wess to steer this thread back to its original topic.

 

Or, if you aren't interested in that topic, I am sure you will find many other threads on Dinghy Anarchy that do cater to your interests.

 

 

 

Tiller Man, what you say is so reasonable!

 

Except that I haven't made stuff up. I don't have a vendetta against the ILCA. This is a constant theme of others. You know that it annoys me so you repeat it over and over - and I end up posting the same stuff over and over - so thank you Tiller Man - I'm feeling obligated to repost the information I first posted again - which feeds into your 'don't read this shit - it's not important'. Nothing to do with the legal action here.

 

Of course the Laser is an International Class. and it follows, from my first post today, that the ILCA should follow the ISAF regulations, as it has said it would in it's constitution.

 

What's new to this thread is that the fundamental rule change is a departure from the ISAF regulations.

 

This is not made up. You just made up that I made it up. That is called trolling. Good one Tiller Man.

 

It seems that these are not "wild theories" at all.

 

This has everything to do with the legal action, because it shows how ill founded the fundamental rule change was, which seems like that position is the ILCA appears to spend it's member's money to justify in court.

 

So, to counter the very obvious obfuscation, in an act of frustration, I will post it again.

 

Again, the ILCA acting in support to Laser Performance is critical to the case.

 

 

A song called lies

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so confused.

 

All I think I used to know is that some secret possibly Chinese conglomerate is paying me to post middle wing conspiracy theories about boats designed back in the day of Chiang Kai-shek to hide the truth being told by some mixed up man and I get paid by the post ($0.1 for each of mine and $0.5 for each of Canntts) but they dock my pay for Gouv's crummy music. And I get a huge bonus check for each page. Or maybe not and maybe that beer was more than just skunky.

 

But on the last check there was a yellow post it with a note saying just keep him occupied and away from Bruce.

 

Who the he** is Bruce?

 

All Canntt ever talks about is Jeff.

 

Good grief this is what life has come to.

 

Bill

 

PS - Come on Gouv. Just one good music video. I want to get paid this week!

 

PPS - If Gannt can post whoppers so can we right? Maybe set a prize for best whopper of the week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, YOU need to post a good music video Gouv. Not repost Redstars. Help a brother out. I got expenses.

 

Or was that an attempt at best whopper?

 

And who the he** is Bob Crannstton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, YOU need to post a good music video Gouv. Not repost Redstars. Help a brother out. I got expenses.

 

Or was that an attempt at best whopper?

 

 

JimC is right. The Laser is important to the entire sport of sailing.

 

You say that I 'hate' the ILCA. That is a lie. I challenge you Wess to quote me where it shows my use of hateful language against the ILCA.

 

It appears that some others have believed that lie of your Wess.

 

Time to put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A discussion requires two people willing to answer questions Canntt.

 

Beer cold. Popcorn warm. Me bored.

 

I defer to IPLures comments re your posts about ILCA membership until such time as you are willing to answer questions as well as ask them.

 

So do you like the new full Laser rig sail Gannt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raise whether or not the ILCA is acting consistently with ISAF regulations (they aren't), and you talk about beer, popcorn and post videos.

 

It's obvious you do not care if the ILCA does the right thing or not.

 

Just so long as you have access to boats and parts - apparently don't care about anything else. So why are you here Wess? For laughs?

 

The ILCA is going to court supporting a poorly conceived strategy. You want to know about membership of whether or not I like the new sail? And you accuse me of not staying on topic.

 

I'm here because I care bout my sport: Laser sailing.

 

Why are you here Wess? To undermine any attention to the ILCA, who are a party to the legal action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....

How about a boating song in 8/7

Yes Wess

It has seven bests per measure

Accent on that first beat

 

Try to keep up

 

Ben wrote some weird stuff

 

Oh, very good. That wins on theme alone. I will have to give you a cut of the check. Almost half way to another page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raise whether or not the ILCA is acting consistently with ISAF regulations (they aren't), and you talk about beer, popcorn and post videos.

 

It's obvious you do not care if the ILCA does the right thing or not.

 

Just so long as you have access to boats and parts - apparently don't care about anything else. So why are you here Wess? For laughs?

 

The ILCA is going to court supporting a poorly conceived strategy. You want to know about membership of whether or not I like the new sail? And you accuse me of not staying on topic.

 

I'm here because I care bout my sport: Laser sailing.

 

Why are you here Wess? To undermine any attention to the ILCA, who are a party to the legal action?

Well I like beer and popcorn and music and you refuse to answer any questions. Sorry, but most people learned in kindergarten that the the price of admission to a discussion is that there actually be a two way discussion. Try it; you might learn something.

 

So do you like the new Laser full rig sail Gannt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I raise whether or not the ILCA is acting consistently with ISAF regulations (they aren't), and you talk about beer, popcorn and post videos.

 

It's obvious you do not care if the ILCA does the right thing or not.

 

Just so long as you have access to boats and parts - apparently don't care about anything else. So why are you here Wess? For laughs?

 

The ILCA is going to court supporting a poorly conceived strategy. You want to know about membership of whether or not I like the new sail? And you accuse me of not staying on topic.

 

I'm here because I care bout my sport: Laser sailing.

 

Why are you here Wess? To undermine any attention to the ILCA, who are a party to the legal action?

Well I like beer and popcorn and music and you refuse to answer any questions. Sorry, but most people learned in kindergarten that the the price of admission to a discussion is that there actually be a two way discussion. Try it; you might learn something.

 

So do you like the new Laser full rig sail Gannt?

 

 

OK so I am going to go way out on a limb here and guess you are not interested in a discussion you just want to cut and paste some more holier than thou preachy stuff and have the last word. OK.

 

Given how I already surpassed my quote set by my masters why don't I sign off and you can have it. I don't want to keep you up past your bed time. You must need lots of rest for all that research. Enjoy, I look forward more lies with my morning coffee. But just beware the guy with the yellow and green polka dot baseball cap, French-German-Russian-Canadian accent and pure black tie-dye board shorts. He is part of the middle wing conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that it performs much the same as the old one, that it lasts longer - I don't like the cost - but then - I have already written that previously.

 

Now that I have answered (again), what possible relevance to the legal action does that have?

 

You have specifically criticized me for not being on topic, yet you ask the above?

 

Earlier today I posted information which shows that the ILCA's fundamental rule change is not consistent with ISAF regulations.

 

Because the rule change was instrumental in allowing Laser Performance to continue to make Lasers without a license from Kirby, it is highly relevant to the case.

 

Today you have accused me of many things, posted many more videos. Why are you here Wess? For fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever Wess, we all know about your rants about Kirby (which that thread of drivel you started bears out)... ;)

 

Check out the date.

 

I joined 30 April 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, wait, an actual civil conversation?!

 

OK, I am game.

 

Answer to why am I here: I sail a Laser and have some background in IP negotiations so have a passing curiosity in the case. The thread evolved to not discuss the case and was dominated by folks not in the class (or even sailing the boat) being critical of the class which I thought did about as good a job as could be done. It became more funny than informative long ago but that is the SA way I guess.

 

Question: Do you you own the sail, when did you last use it (what were conditions like). Surprised at your comments cost; its less expensive here - is that not so there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whatever Wess, we all know about your rants about Kirby (which that thread of drivel you started bears out)... ;)

 

Check out the date.

 

I joined 30 April 2013.

 

I have no idea what this means or refers to. Thought we were trying the civil two way discussion thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a civil conversation Wess. Remember, you have been trolling me (and others) for three years.

 

I don't care for chit chat about the sail.

 

The nature of the class is that many people from other classes sail in it to keep their tactics sharp. It is one of the most important classes in one design sailing today, and has been for decades. Also, it's a recognized junior pathway to other international classes. Of course other people commented on it. It's of high interest to many former and non Laser sailors.

 

You say that the ILCA did as good a job as it could under the circumstances, yet that attempt fell short, mistakes were made and now the class is spending members money defending a problematic stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Whatever Wess, we all know about your rants about Kirby (which that thread of drivel you started bears out)... ;)

 

Check out the date.

 

I joined 30 April 2013.

 

I have no idea what this means or refers to. Thought we were trying the civil two way discussion thing?

 

 

It has a date stamp, and is from this thread. Want to know the context? Look it up. My point is that you were 'ranting' before I joined here. Not my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so we are back to you don't want to answer questions or engage in two way dialogue but rather want to preach. Nothing wrong with that; I have fun fishing in this thread myself.

 

So I will leave you to your preacher's pulpit and last word.

 

It was such a simple question Ganntt. Just a way to build trust around a non-controversial topic. Notice I answered your question simply and directly.

 

Good night but do watch out for that guy in the pure black tie dye shorts. I think he is building knock-off red Lasers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so we are back to you don't answer questions or engage in two way dialogue and preach.

 

So I will leave you to your preacher's pulpit and last word.

 

It was such a simple question Ganntt. Just a way to build trust around a non-controversial topic. Notice I answered your question simply and directly.

 

Good night but do watch out for that guy in the pure black tie dye shorts. I think he is building knock-off red Lasers.

 

I am the product of your trolling. Deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK so we are back to you don't answer questions or engage in two way dialogue and preach.

 

So I will leave you to your preacher's pulpit and last word.

 

It was such a simple question Ganntt. Just a way to build trust around a non-controversial topic. Notice I answered your question simply and directly.

 

Good night but do watch out for that guy in the pure black tie dye shorts. I think he is building knock-off red Lasers.

 

I am the product of your trolling. Deal with it.

 

Well Duh, yea! And thank you.

 

If there is no ability to have serious conversation, then its just a funny thread with occasional useful tidbits from others. It would certainly be no fun without you so don't go.

 

Oh and good music. You gotta admit its got some good music.

 

Regards,

 

Captain Obvious

 

 

PS - Dude, do your cut and paste thing and repost your manifesto. I wonntt post over it and Gouv and TM are long since in bed. I'm bored myself and crashing. If you build it they will come. Except the guy in the pure black tie-dye shorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You work very hard as a troll to ruin serious discussion about the ILCA. Today is a small chapter.

 

What I want is to raise discussion about parties in the legal action. You don't. I raised new information today. Exactly how does you asking me about the new sail or posting videos contribute? JimC who has a genuine interest, missed the post. Redstar, who has a genuine interest, did not comment on this new information.

 

My point today is that the Fundamental Rule change appears to be in contravene of ISAF regulations. I wonder if that will ever get discussed?

 

The appropriate thing for you to do Wess is start a new thread on the topics of music, jokes about Kirby, or jokes about me. None of these have anything to do with Kirby's legal action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You work very hard as a troll to ruin serious discussion about the ILCA. Today is a small chapter.

 

What I want is to raise discussion about parties in the legal action. You don't. I raised new information today. Exactly how does you asking me about the new sail or posting videos contribute? JimC who has a genuine interest, missed the post. Redstar, who has a genuine interest, did not comment on this new information.

 

My point today is that the Fundamental Rule change appears to be in contravene of ISAF regulations. I wonder if that will ever get discussed?

 

The appropriate thing for you to do Wess is start a new thread on the topics of music, jokes about Kirby, or jokes about me. None of these have anything to do with Kirby's legal action.

Gosh you do whine a lot. You could have even posted your manifesto.

 

On the one hand you say you want to talk about Kirby's legal action above and on the other hand you never do, you say its not about Kirby's legal action, and refuse to answer questions about it.

 

In case you forgot here were the questions directly about the legal action:

 

Is Kirby suing for what you write so passionately about earlier?

If yes please briefly state 1.) the entity being sued that is still a party to the litigation, 2.) the specific claim outlined in the filings against said entity, and 3.) the remedy sought by Kirby in the filings from said entity. Please quote directly from the filings.

Can you also please remind me briefly about the court's decision or court status/Kirby's disposition of 1.) Kirby's claims against ISAF and 2.) Kirby's claims re the Laser trademark. Please quote directly from the court documents.

 

Here are the ones related directly to Kirby's stated solution the the legal mess:

 

Given Kirby wants us to sail them, has Kirby manufactured or sold any Torches?

Has Kirby launched a Torch class; how do I join?

Where can I buy a Torch and get in on all the fun?

Does Kirby have any contracts with the ISAF naming the Torch?

I took out the one asking if you liked and owned the new sail because somehow that offended you. I'll replace it with this so its closer to the case and related to the Torch.

 

Is Kirby named on the patent for the new sail?

 

Many other folks asked you many more questions for pages now but you never answer - rather just preach drivel about your made-up evils of the class and its leadership (while saying the class all agree with you, LOL) - but you refuse to answer any of them and they have all been swept away so I'll try just one or two new ones about your most recent new (old) position.

 

* Noting you claim the ILCA rule change is contrary to ISAF regulations can you state briefly:

- when did ISAF approve the ILCA rule change?

- what was the status of the Kirby litigation at the time?

- given this do you think ISAF carefully consider the legal implications of approving the rule change?

- did you state words to the effect that Kirby has great lawyers?

- did Kirby sue ISAF?

- did Kirby make this claim or amend his claims against ISAF to include this?

- what did the court rule with regards to ISAF?

 

Please teach us Canntt. Love the music Gouv. Maybe JimC will answer since he wants to talk about the legal side of the case.

 

 

Have a nice day Ganntt. Happy to have a serious two way discussion and even tried to start one on as safe a topic as the sail (assuming you actually sail) while you could ask me (and I would answer) anything. But you didn't want to do that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gantt, you've done more than anyone else to shut down this topic - you've drowned it under mountains of misguided, irrelevant, made up tripe, so there is pretty much nobody left willing to actually engage in a real discussion. As soon as anyone tries to engage you race in and bury them under the weight of your crap.

 

The only people left are those who enjoy a laugh at your expense. And Gouv.

 

 

 

 

Well said redstar!

 

 

I pretty much agree with this.

 

I was going to respond to Gouv's serious question about the the IP law implications of ISAF and ILCA issuing plaques with Bruce Kirby's trade marked name on it. I was going to explain the arguments that would have to be addressed regarding trade mark, but also highlight the Right of Publicity and how it was encompassed in the Lanham (Trademark) act.

 

But, frankly, all interesting and factual discussion ends up buried under Gantts irrelevant, inconsistent and often just plain wrong posts.

 

Redstar chooses to call them "tripe". I am forced to concur!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, the Laser class and World Sailing have indicated they have a revised class agreement. World Sailing has a division devoted to managing the one design classes. There is nothing in the World sailing constitution that prevents the Laser Class continuing as an International Class. But who on earth wants to waste their time arguing with a truculent child who is bawling that the Laser Class cannot continue as an International Class? Not me.

 

 

10.3 There shall be an executed agreement between World Sailing Limited., the Class/Owners Association and where relevant the Trademark, Trade Name and the Copyright Owner.

 

Is BKI the Class Association, the Trademark owner or the Copyright owner?

 

Cancel that question....I dont want to even know his answer. It will be absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be no point in directing questions at Gantt for a while.

 

In case you didn't notice Gantt started another thread on DA last night His opening post started...

 

What's SA's policy on trolling?


Discussion about the Laser's legal action is now dominated by trolling.

I'm happy for IPLore, Wess, Tiller Man and Gantt (myself) to all be suspended or banned.

 

 

 

His reward was this post from an administrator...

Gantt has been given a short time out to allow him to understand the "rules" a bit better and to stop being such a whiney little shit.

 

 

 

I will miss him. I hope they let him back soon. He has a lot of questions from Wess to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well okay.......if he is really gone. We could take the opportunity to discuss the case a bit more seriously (in an anarchic spirit of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well okay.......if he is really gone. We could take the opportunity to discuss the case a bit more seriously (in an anarchic spirit of course).

 

 

You mean, like a real two-way discussion where people actually listen to each other's point of view and then make intelligent responses that help increase understanding and move the discussion forwards?

 

What a novel idea.

 

Can we still post music videos?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well okay.......if he is really gone. We could take the opportunity to discuss the case a bit more seriously (in an anarchic spirit of course).

 

Sure, OK.

 

You had posted two things that surprised me. Note please its been likely about a year plus since I really read anything carefully so this is via recall (you should likely insult me and my family and the class for that to keep w SA tradition):

 

1.) I think you said you thought BK was vastly overpaid by PSA/GS for his revenue stream; why did you say that what were key assumptions?

 

I remember doing a quick back of envelope calc using 2% royalty, annual # stickers in region per year from ILCA (I think; not sure where I got that), assumed some modest growth rate, discount rate for future years, and used a the termination date of the builders contract for end of stream (want to say mid-20s??). Thought it was a bit rich but also recalling (incorrectly??) that the rule change had not passed then and so there was some possibility the rights could go longer leveraging old class rule only, a bigger bite from LPE or they walk away and PSA gets their territory (and scale of efficiency from larger volume),, and the other expansion possibility with consolidated rights... gotta risk adjust that but it seemed reasonable.

 

2.) I think you said BK did not give the money back but got his rights back; where are you getting that?

 

And are you sure there is no side deal like GS/PSA paying BK legal costs or something?

 

OK and two more...

 

3.) Any clue what LPE defense is on back royalties to BKI?

 

I am just not seeing how they get out of that?

 

4.) Did/does BK have any leverage to force renewals on builders contract other than the old class rule? When did his leverage all go away (other than class rule)?

 

I have vague recall of an interim renewal of the builders contract when he had nothing but the class rule for leverage and kinda thought it would have blown up back then but I could easily be recalling this wrong. Sounds like you did a lot of reading of late and so would more complete and accurate info.

 

Please flame me in the response. Without Gantt yelling its just not the same. Also not ignoring you if response delayed. Boat repairs and plans for the weekend.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well okay.......if he is really gone. We could take the opportunity to discuss the case a bit more seriously (in an anarchic spirit of course).

 

 

 

Here's a question that has been puzzling me.

 

Why did Bruce Kirby buy back his rights from Global Sailing?

 

Or did he?

 

There have been claims on this thread that Bruce is still sitting on the $2.8 million the Spencers paid him.

 

 

Did he have to buy back his "rights" because ISAF hadn't given him permission to sell his "rights" to the Spencers?

 

Or was there some clause in his sale contract to the Spencers that said the sale was null and void if LP or LPE stopped paying royalties?

 

Or did the Spencers find some other way to pressure him to reverse the deal, once they discovered they had overpaid for a whole lot of nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did LP Europe get terminated by GS for supposed non payment of royalties but LP US kept paying royalties?

 

 

 

Great question. I have always thought that there was more to this story that "LPE stopped paying royalties" than we have heard publicly.

 

Why did they stop?

 

Was it advice from lawyers that said they no longer needed to pay royalties to the Spencer family of New Zealand (to whom Bruce Kirby had sold his "design rights")?

 

Or was it something that the Spencers did that triggered them to stop paying royalties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TM - Would have to go pull all the original docs and re-read but as I recall LPE claimed all sorts of evil things by GS/PSA after Kirby sale of rights to them and then also the agreement was no longer in effect at some stage such that they did not need to pay royalties but not recalling their logic as to how or why (or by whom) it was terminated.

 

Also it was ILP on the claim re Kirby being overpayed by PSA/GS and still having their money. For their comments I am thinking he/she and or SM123 have more recently read the docs and could more easily opine.

 

Kinda miss Gantt. Funny thing is there are answers to my Qs which support less than a clean get-away for the class. Was curious if he could/would state them. I think I see it as a bit more risky for the class than IPL. Unlikely the class gets tagged is my guess and I think they have ways out if they do but its gets messier. But that is what you pay lawyers for. I do absolutely think they picked the best of the paths open to them given the options and interests of the members.

 

Wait on IPL or SM. I suspect they have a more recent read and recollection. I got plans to work on boats and get out on the water. Looking at parts sitting on counter as I type. Hope you have a good holiday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please repost the links to the builder's agreement and the ISAF agreement. I want to research another aspect of Kirby's sale of "rights" to the Spencer family that has been bugging me for a while.

 

I know Gantt posted these links a few weeks ago but he has posted so much other voluminous nonsense since then that it would take me weeks to search through it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey TM - Remind me which party thinks that builders agreement is valid and in effect. Didn't Kirby claim to termin.... and didn't LPE stop paying because they think....

 

Dang it you are annoying. Got me interested again. Didn't want to even try to find sh*t till Tueday - nevermind reread it - if SM or IP didn't come through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey TM - Remind me which party thinks that builders agreement is valid and in effect. Didn't Kirby claim to termin.... and didn't LPE stop paying because they think....

 

Dang it you are annoying. Got me interested again. Didn't want to even try to find sh*t till Tueday - nevermind reread it - if SM or IP didn't come through.

 

 

 

Gantt seen me the link via a FB message. We are Facebook friends! I guess he really did get bounced from DA.

 

The builders agreement may have been terminated but I am interested in history!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TM - Facebook friends! You are braver than me! If you do track stuff down post it here (complaints too) if you can to save folks time of finding it all again.

 

Who the fuck cares???

 

OK I admit not me this weekend as I have electrical, mechanical, fiberglass, welding, and rigging work to do and eventually hopefully some sailing. Geeze maybe the Laser does have advantages as a day-sailer and not just a racer! But I am guessing the wife will disagree and what the Admiral wants the Admiral gets. But more generally Gouv I suggest a multiple choice approach to your query such as:

 

1.) Who the f*** cares?

 

a.) Gouv as he has started threads in multiple venues and posted tons on the topic.

b.) Gantt because the sun rises in the east

c.) Kirby because only he can say "Who's your daddy" to a Laser sailor and get away with it.

d.) Kirby's great, great, great, great grand-kids because they need ascots too.

e.) All ILCA members because they should honor thy father.

f.) All Laser sailor because they should honor their wallets.

g.) Wess, IPL, TM, SM, various other un-named co-conspirators, and trolls everywhere because this has the potential to be the best, longest SA thread ever... if they let Canntt back and I promise to never spell his name correctly and Gouv stops deleting stuff.

i.) The Chinese because with a Brexit and EU mess its maybe looking like a good place to invest and build toys for the rich western bourgeoisie.

j.) Lawyers everywhere because come on this is the most convoluted design rights mess in the history of the WORLD!!!

k.) People named Jeff so people not named Canntt will finally leave him alone when its decided (or not).

l.) GS and PSA because they are like Pinky and the Brain (look it up fools)

m.) Judges because maybe like the great grey hair they too want to get alot of:

 

 

n.) ALL OF THE ABOVE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link my Facebook friend sent me.

 

https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html

 

It has Kirby's "First Amended Complaint" plus many many exhibits, including lots of stern letters from Kirby to Rastegar companies - and the ISAF agreement and the builders agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TM - Facebook friends! You are braver than me! If you do track stuff down post it here (complaints too) if you can to save folks time of finding it all again.

 

Who the fuck cares???

 

OK I admit not me this weekend as I have electrical, mechanical, fiberglass, welding, and rigging work to do and eventually hopefully some sailing. Geeze maybe the Laser does have advantages as a day-sailer and not just a racer! But I am guessing the wife will disagree and what the Admiral wants the Admiral gets. But more generally Gouv I suggest a multiple choice approach to your query such as:

 

1.) Who the f*** cares?

 

a.) Gouv as he has started threads in multiple venues and posted tons on the topic.

b.) Gantt because the sun rises in the east

c.) Kirby because only he can say "Who's your daddy" to a Laser sailor and get away with it.

d.) Kirby's great, great, great, great grand-kids because they need ascots too.

e.) All ILCA members because they should honor thy father.

f.) All Laser sailor because they should honor their wallets.

g.) Wess, IPL, TM, SM, various other un-named co-conspirators, and trolls everywhere because this has the potential to be the best, longest SA thread ever... if they let Canntt back and I promise to never spell his name correctly and Gouv stops deleting stuff.

i.) The Chinese because with a Brexit and EU mess its maybe looking like a good place to invest and build toys for the rich western bourgeoisie.

j.) Lawyers everywhere because come on this is the most convoluted design rights mess in the history of the WORLD!!!

k.) People named Jeff so people not named Canntt will finally leave him alone when its decided (or not).

l.) Judges because maybe like the great grey hair they too want to get alot of:

 

 

m.) ALL OF THE ABOVE

 

 

 

Money For Nothing! OK. Game over. That wins Grand First Prize for theme song for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Gouv to Fix It Anarchy.

 

DIY cheap a** sailing fool with zero motorboat repair skills but bent wheel and lots of tools and sh*t.... on lunch break... seeks crazy Texan for quick consult.

 

Paging Gouv to Fix It Anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link my Facebook friend sent me.

 

https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html

 

It has Kirby's "First Amended Complaint" plus many many exhibits, including lots of stern letters from Kirby to Rastegar companies - and the ISAF agreement and the builders agreement.

 

You really need the counter claim form LP and subsequent motions to get the full picture of publicly known info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So post it IPL and chime in. Sounds like you do this stuff for a living and we don't.

 

Yo Gouv, you on-line? About to head back out and looking for some input on prop repair. Thinking about trying the West system on the theory that I can shape it easily and the worst case it that it does not work and get sheared right off and I am back where I am. Got a new prop on it so this is for giggle and sh*ts and back up.

 

Should have known Texans sleep in. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and answer some of the questions. But spending July 4th at the cabin on the lake and the kids staying with us. So apologies for grammar and I dont have time for detailed answers.

 

I even have an old Laser tied up at the dock. Gawd I love this place.

 

Gouv raised an interesting question a few pages back before it got buried in Gantt drivel and spit. Tiller raised it again.

 

 

Gouvernail is right.

One of Kirby's main beefs with the Laser Class seems to be that we kept on issuing little shiny stickers with his name on after he had politely asked us to stop.

 

Kirby apparently has a trademark on his name and he said he wanted to put little shiny stickers with his name on some boats called Torches and didn't want his name on little shiny stickers on boats called Lasers any more.

 

 

 

In Kirby's suit, he revealed that he had trademarked his name and he sued LP, ISAF and the ILCA for trademark infringement for selling boats with plaques bearing his trademark without his authorization in CT.

 

What legal issues will arise in this claim?

 

1. Laches and Acquiescence.

Bruce Kirby's name has appeared on the ISAF plaques for over a decade without BK notifying ISAF of the trademark.

 

Laches is an equitable defense when a plaintiff has unreasonably delayed bringing a cause of action and the delay has prejudiced the defendant. Its a bit complicated so just trust me when I say that laches is highly unlikely to be a defense that works here.

 

Acquiescence will almost certainly be raised as a defense. Trademark law is grounded on common sense. If the trademark owner clearly tolerated the use of his trademark by another entity, he cannot suddenly change his mind and sue for infringement. The defendant will likely be able to utilize "acquiescence" as a defense and the court will not award damages.

 

The defendants (ISAF, ILCA and LP) will argue that Bruce Kirby was clearly aware that his name was on the plaque and he never sought to enforce his trademark for many years and thus claim acquiescence.

 

BKI's lawyers will likely respond that he was not acquiescing to the unlicensed use of his trademark, that he was in fact receiving a license fee for his trademark....and that when he no longer received his fee, he instructed the other parties to stop using his trademark.

 

Then, the lawyers will get into the facts of what Kirby actually was receiving the fee for, and what can be construed from the notices he issued to ISAF and ILCA . Kirby's lawyers are going to be skating a thin line here because they do NOT want the license fee to be solely construed as a fee for the trademark....because that would imply that boats built without the trademark do not owe a fee.

 

My guess (and purely a guess) is that there will be some to and fro on this issue. The Plaintiffs will argue unauthorized use after they issued the request to cease issuing plaques. The defendants will argue that they were unaware of the trademark, that they were honoring the designer and that as soon as they were made aware of the trademark, they removed the trademark.

 

2. Damages

In the end I think that the greatest difficulty facing this claim of trademark infringement will be claiming damages. Kirby would have to show the harm caused by the time delay between asking for the removal of his trademark and the actual removal of his trademark. Its hard to argue that it delayed the launch of the Torch. It will be hard to overcome the assumption of acquiescence prior to the notice to cease issuing plaques and Im not sure what profits the defendants disgorge or implied royalty is due on the trademark alone for that brief period between asking for plaques to cease and the removal of BK's name. The court may impose an even higher standard and require that BK show when he informed ISAF that he owned the trademark.

 

ISAF has been dismissed from the case so now BK's lawyers are going to have to show that LP should have declined to place the plaques because they knew of the trademark. Tough row to plough and I think this will be a side show compared to the more straightforward contract case.

 

3. Right of Publicity

One twist. The plaque bore Bruce's name. Rather than suing for trademark infringement, BK's lawyers could explore the doctrine of "Right of Publicity". When you are famous for something, like for example designing boats, then you do have the right to control the commercial exploitation of your name, image or persona especially if is used to sell products or services.

 

Bruce's lawyers would still have to overcome the same concept of "acquiescence" as in suing for trademark infringement BUT they would not have to show that BK informed LP about the trademark. Furthermore, I dont see why this claim could not go back all the way to when LP stopped paying royalties. LP continued putting a plaque with BK's name on exploiting his name (note "name" not "trademark") to sell the product.

 

A possible defense would be that LP paid for these plaques, the plaques were sold to them by ISAF......and then we get into acquiescence again.

 

So in conclusion.....Gouv raises an interesting point. It could be part of the case. I think that establishing any kind of consequential damages from ISAF/ILCA will be challenging but a claim of right of publicity might be helpful for claiming royalties from LP for the period after royalties ceased until the name was removed. There could be a reasonable claim that Bruce is entitled to a right of publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So post it IPL and chime in. Sounds like you do this stuff for a living and we don't.

 

Yo Gouv, you on-line? About to head back out and looking for some input on prop repair. Thinking about trying the West system on the theory that I can shape it easily and the worst case it that it does not work and get sheared right off and I am back where I am. Got a new prop on it so this is for giggle and sh*ts and back up.

 

Should have known Texans sleep in. :P

 

If you are seriously thinking of repairing a prop with West System.......then you need to play the Ron White (see above) video again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well okay.......if he is really gone. We could take the opportunity to discuss the case a bit more seriously (in an anarchic spirit of course).

 

Sure, OK.

 

You had posted two things that surprised me. Note please its been likely about a year plus since I really read anything carefully so this is via recall (you should likely insult me and my family and the class for that to keep w SA tradition):

 

1.) I think you said you thought BK was vastly overpaid by PSA/GS for his revenue stream; why did you say that what were key assumptions?

 

I recall thinking that the price paid for BKI's royalty stream was "generous" If you have numbers of boats built and average selling price for the last three years we could take a stab at estimating a value. Your methodology below is how royalty streams are valued when sold. The discount rate varies depending on maturity of the patent/copyright/ contracts and the stability of sales.

 

I remember doing a quick back of envelope calc using 2% royalty, annual # stickers in region per year from ILCA (I think; not sure where I got that), assumed some modest growth rate, discount rate for future years, and used a the termination date of the builders contract for end of stream (want to say mid-20s??). Thought it was a bit rich but also recalling (incorrectly??) that the rule change had not passed then and so there was some possibility the rights could go longer leveraging old class rule only, a bigger bite from LPE or they walk away and PSA gets their territory (and scale of efficiency from larger volume),, and the other expansion possibility with consolidated rights... gotta risk adjust that but it seemed reasonable.

 

2.) I think you said BK did not give the money back but got his rights back; where are you getting that?

 

We don't know the terms under which BK reacquired the rights or BKI. In LP's counter claim, I recall something about they allege that GS still owns the economic benefit of the rights and that GS may be paying the legal costs. Dig up the counter claim.

And are you sure there is no side deal like GS/PSA paying BK legal costs or something?

 

OK and two more...

 

3.) Any clue what LPE defense is on back royalties to BKI?

 

We would have to refer to the counterclaim. The contracts are the nexus of the matter. I think I recall that LP claim that GS terminated the contract with LPE and that LP stopped paying from that date.

 

I am just not seeing how they get out of that?

 

4.) Did/does BK have any leverage to force renewals on builders contract other than the old class rule? When did his leverage all go away (other than class rule)?

 

Did the renewals take place at the time of a change of ownership of builder?

 

I have vague recall of an interim renewal of the builders contract when he had nothing but the class rule for leverage and kinda thought it would have blown up back then but I could easily be recalling this wrong. Sounds like you did a lot of reading of late and so would more complete and accurate info.

 

Please flame me in the response. Without Gantt yelling its just not the same. Also not ignoring you if response delayed. Boat repairs and plans for the weekend.

 

Cheers,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why did LP Europe get terminated by GS for supposed non payment of royalties but LP US kept paying royalties?

 

 

 

Great question. I have always thought that there was more to this story that "LPE stopped paying royalties" than we have heard publicly.

 

Why did they stop?

 

Was it advice from lawyers that said they no longer needed to pay royalties to the Spencer family of New Zealand (to whom Bruce Kirby had sold his "design rights")?

 

Or was it something that the Spencers did that triggered them to stop paying royalties?

 

 

 

I vaguely recall that LP allege that GS terminated the contract with LPE...and subsequently, LPE stopped paying the royalty.

If true (and it seems hard to believe) then duh!

 

GS: "Hello LPE we would like to terminate the agreement you have with BKI whereby you pay BKI royalties for expired design rights..with immediate effect"

LPE " Ummm. Sure. Okay"

 

It is certainly not going to be that simple.

 

Allegedly there was a territorial dispute between the GS/PS group and the LP group at the time regarding Asia. LPE owns the territory for Asia not LP US so presumably the contract with LP US was not terminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Here's a question that has been puzzling me.

 

Why did Bruce Kirby buy back his rights from Global Sailing?

 

 

 

The million dollar question!

 

Or rather the $2.8 million dollar question.

 

Why did Bruce bother getting involved again? He sold the rights in good condition. The royalties were being paid. He received a generous price for them

 

AFTER he sold them:

1. GS and LP had done something to each other and were in a fight. If GS had terminated the agreement that was GS's fault not Bruce Kirbys. Why would he want to buy back the damaged rights?

2. The vote was 9/10 over. Bruce and his advisors could see the writing on the wall.

3. Bruce was a legend admired and adored by Laser sailors around the world, heading towards a well earned retirement. Why would he want to jump into the mud wrestling between GS and LP. As we say down here. "You going to get dirty if you roll with pigs"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is the link my Facebook friend sent me.

 

https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html

 

It has Kirby's "First Amended Complaint" plus many many exhibits, including lots of stern letters from Kirby to Rastegar companies - and the ISAF agreement and the builders agreement.

 

You really need the counter claim form LP and subsequent motions to get the full picture of publicly known info.

 

 

 

Actually for my purposes, I don't. I didn't want this link for Kirby complaints but because it also includes the builders agreement and the ISAF agreement. There is something about how the contractual relationships were originally set up between Kirby and the builders and ISAF and the Class that has been bugging me and I wanted the original documents to read exactly what they said. But there is sailing and grandkids and July 4 and my birthday coming up in the next few days so I may not get into it for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did LP Europe get terminated by GS for supposed non payment of royalties but LP US kept paying royalties?

 

 

 

Great question.

 

But at this link https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html you will see letters sent by Bruce Kirby in 2012 to both the US and UK corporate entities of LaserPerformance terminating their builders agreements for alleged non-payment of royalties.

 

Of course by that date he had first sold his rights to royalties from LP to the Spencer family of New Zealand and then apparently had been obliged to reverse that sale.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So post it IPL and chime in. Sounds like you do this stuff for a living and we don't.

 

Yo Gouv, you on-line? About to head back out and looking for some input on prop repair. Thinking about trying the West system on the theory that I can shape it easily and the worst case it that it does not work and get sheared right off and I am back where I am. Got a new prop on it so this is for giggle and sh*ts and back up.

 

Should have known Texans sleep in. :P

 

If you are seriously thinking of repairing a prop with West System.......then you need to play the Ron White (see above) video again.

 

Yea, I was and we did. Got the welding done on the bowsprit but wanted to do this (testing the bowsprit).

 

photo (4)

 

Already got a new prop for the Whaler so the repair on the old wheel is just for giggle and sh*ts. I'm an optimist. It might work, if not I'll try welding it.

 

Don't understand the moral obligation argument Gouv. Lots of stuff invented back then you are not paying royalties on but don't feel a moral obligation.

 

I feel moral obligation to folks like this:

 

 

Kirby; not so much. I do think he should and has the right to get whatever he legally can but my obligation ends there. I admit I have never understood or been compelled by the emotional argument. This is a legal dispute primarily between a builder and a designer. Let the court decide.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is interesting from 16 Sep 2011

 

www.sail-world.com/81938‘

 

Now it would appear that Laser Performance Europe doesn’t want to recognize the fact that this transfer has taken place. It is really weird because they paid the royalties to Global Sailing for two years as they were supposed to do, and then all of a sudden they stopped doing that. That action has caused issues between LPE and Global Sailing and they will have to sort it out.’

What was his response to the ILCA statement ‘Lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patent has in fact expired.’

Kirby responded. ‘That’s total bull s--t! There never were any patents. You can't patent a sail boat design. These were contracts, legitimate contracts drawn up by lawyers and there is no suggestion that I had a patent on the boat. These were long term contracts that were renewable every so many years. No-one’s ever questioned them so I don’t know what lawyer they found that suggested this course of action. It’s crazy!’

 

What about the ILCA statement 'We also took legal advice the above rules changes where the only possible solution in order to promote the uninterrupted supply of class legal Laser boats' ?

Kirby again ‘That’s nonsense too because the Spencers, through Global Sailing, have virtually guaranteed an uninterrupted supply. They have allowed LPE to go ahead and produce boats even though they don’t have a proper contract at this time, but in order to keep an uninterrupted supply of boats Global has allowed them to continue producing without a contract.’

The ILCA document continues 'Therefore, we are proposing to change the rule to eliminate the 'building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc' requirement.'

Kirby was firm on that suggestion. ‘Global Sailing owns those rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick post as I have to get back to shaping the prop and want to try it before it starts pouring here. Will paraphrase others and if I do that incorrectly its not intentional.

 

RMK - Agree Kirby was firm that GS owned those rights. But equally its clear today that they don't. Kirby is suing LPE not GS. But it is an important and interesting point that Kirby was so firm that GS owned the rights. More in a moment.

 

IPL - I think you maybe suggested above that the Laser trademark (maybe you intended the Kirby name trademark and I am mistaken) was somehow wrapped up in the royalty payment re the builders agreement. That would be a big game changer but I don't think its so. Believe Laser trademark was transferred in separate transaction and is owned free and clear by others; not Kirby and not in play in this litigation.

 

Both above relevant too Gouv below

 

Gouv - I agree everyone has an obligation to follow the laws of the land and decision of the court. Call it a legal obligation. To me a moral obligation exceeds that. But that legal obligation is a double edge sword that can also cut Kirby.

 

The court may rule that LPE owes Kirby some back royalties. Obligation on LPE to pay and there are mechanisms for Kirby to collect if they don't. Class has no obligation. Court may even say royalties should have been paid till 2025 (current builders contract termination from recall) and so Kirby or court could tell LPE they can't make "Kirby sailboat." But the court cant tell LPE they cant make an exact copy of a Kirby sailboat (anybody can) and LPE can even call it a Laser since they own that trademark free and clear. Class can legally modify its rules to allow those boats into the class because (here is the double edge sword) Kirby clearly sold to GS as RMK notes and he clearly didn't have that legal right and in so doing that gave others, other legal rights. Que Billy Joel "we didn't start this fire!"

 

Now exceeding (or distinct depending on your POV) the legal obligation is a moral obligation. I feel no moral obligation to Kirby. He drew a boat almost a century ago. He drew up a set of requirements that potentially see him paid even while he had no IP and it was done in such a way as it did not involve a legal requirement but rather a class rule that nobody envisioned being used that way. That is highly unusual. I cant think of anything bad Kirby has done but I also cant think of anything good Kirby has done for me or my fellow sailors such that I would feel compelled to send him money. I don't mind giving LPE money when they give me boats called Lasers and parts (note the when). I feel an obligation to the class who make the game go. AND SO SHOULD KIRBY - FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO THE CLASS - AS THEY ARE THE ONE THAT MADE HIM RICH. In the words of somebody to Kirby I would say... its the class (not the boat) stupid! I was indifferent to Kirby. Hoped he would make as much money as he legally could off the century old Laser drawing. But once he sued the class... I got no time for him. I think Kirby's suing the class and selling to GS will come back to bite. Moral and legal obligations go both ways and impact both parties.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IPL - I think you maybe suggested above that the Laser trademark (maybe you intended the Kirby name trademark and I am mistaken) was somehow wrapped up in the royalty payment re the builders agreement. That would be a big game changer but I don't think its so. Believe Laser trademark was transferred in separate transaction and is owned free and clear by others; not Kirby and not in play in this litigation.

 

Cheers,

 

Nope. I wasn't suggesting that the Laser trademark belonged to Bruce Kirby. The Laser trademark belongs to the respective builders in their respective territories.

 

I was responding to an earlier question from Gouv where he asked if there was any significance to the fact that the name "Bruce Kirby" continued to appear on the ISAF plaques for the Laser after Bruce had requested that ISAF stop issuing plaques and that LPE stop building boats.

 

I replied that "yes" it did create some legal issues. One around trade mark because Bruce had registered his name as a trade mark. Bruce has in fact claimed trade mark infringement in his suit. Two, I also raised the possibility of an infringement of the "right of publicity". Bruce's lawyers have not alleged this in their suit. If it were me, I would have thrown this in the complaint on the off chance. Both claims would have to overcome the defense of "acquiescence". The fees would play a part in overcoming that defense but damages for trade mark infringement might be limited to the period between BK informing that parties he owned the trademark and the cessation of including the name on the plaques (which I understand was a very short period) . A right of publicity claim would have extended back much earlier in the dispute.

 

If you used Donald Trump's name to promote your hotel (The Donald Trump Conference Center), even if you dont use the Trump logo or trade mark, he is coming after you. Even more so, if you were previously paying him a consulting fee, stopped paying it, but continued to use his name as an endorsement of the product with pictures of him in your marketing material. Then he is coming after you with a right of publicity claim (among others) and an army of well paid lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, agree IPL. Same page.

 

Hey the prop seems to have worked for a short run and I didn't die. Pulling it back off now for close examination.

 

Gouv - let me try it this way...

 

BK at one time owned or could have owned patents, trademarks, copyrights, vessel design rights described in law. This is all IP.

 

Contracts are not IP. They take IP and transfer it for value. The contract usually ends when the right expire. Sometimes the contracts do go longer than the IP but eventually they end. What you have here is a situation with the old class rule where even though the contract ended and the IP was long expired you would still have to pay. So 2 questions:

 

1.) under that arrangement, 1000 years from now you would still have to pay Kirby's heirs... is that what you think should be the case in terms of a moral obligation (or legal one)?

 

2.) in 2025 (I think) when the current builders contract ends because of the old class rule you would have to still pay Bruce under a new contract. Remember you already bought the trademark. Let's say Bruce wants a billion dollars lump sum. Old class rule says you have to pay him. Is that what you think should be the case in terms of a moral or legal obligation?

 

Off to my next project and will be off line most of day. Enjoy the weekend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever you think is responsible for this conflict, we (the sailors) didn't start it.

 

 

I think the explosion of the "replica" market, and our willingness to buy into it, certainly contributed to the situation. It certain has to have negatively impacted the builders' revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whoever you think is responsible for this conflict, we (the sailors) didn't start it.

 

 

I think the explosion of the "replica" market, and our willingness to buy into it, certainly contributed to the situation. It certain has to have negatively impacted the builders' revenue.

 

 

 

Well, if it's replica parts and sails that caused the volcanic eruption in Laser world in 2011, then I am off the hook. I bought my first (and only) replica sail in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no more contracts in force between Bruce Kirby and LP.

 

Bruce Kirby has terminated all the contracts between himself and LP.

 

Bruce Kirby doesn't own any Intellectual property in the sailboat he drew on a scrap of legal paper while chatting on the phone to Ian Bruce in October 1970.

 

Anybody can build sailboats that look like that drawing on that piece of yellow paper.

 

And they will.

 

If you think replica sails are a problem, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost ...

Kirby says there are termination clauses. Those molds which were taken to China may well have been taken there against a contractual obligation to sell them at an appropriate price to whomever is the new builder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv from my post above and this is Kirby speaking

 

"They have allowed LPE to go ahead and produce boats even though they don’t have a proper contract at this time,"

 

bold is mine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in they are in violation of the contract or they have never set anything up.??

 

 

Back to the judge.... He has al the information and power to demand more.

 

Or we can keep guessing and calling people names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost ...

Kirby says there are termination clauses. Those molds which were taken to China may well have been taken there against a contractual obligation to sell them at an appropriate price to whomever is the new builder.

 

 

I think you are right Gouvernail. A builder who had a contract with Kirby still has some obligations even after the contract is terminated,

 

But any other boat builder? I don't see anything to stop them from building Laser replicas. Except they couldn't call them Lasers, or use the starburst symbol or put Bruce Kirby's name on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, agree IPL. Same page. Hey the prop seems to have worked for a short run and I didn't die. Pulling it back off now for close examination. Gouv - let me try it this way... BK at one time owned or could have owned patents, trademarks, copyrights, vessel design rights described in law. This is all IP. Contracts are not IP. They take IP and transfer it for value. The contract usually ends when the right expire. Sometimes the contracts do go longer than the IP but eventually they end. What you have here is a situation with the old class rule where even though the contract ended and the IP was long expired you would still have to pay. So 2 questions: 1.) under that arrangement, 1000 years from now you would still have to pay Kirby's heirs... is that what you think should be the case in terms of a moral obligation (or legal one)? 2.) in 2025 (I think) when the current builders contract ends because of the old class rule you would have to still pay Bruce under a new contract. Remember you already bought the trademark. Let's say Bruce wants a billion dollars lump sum. Old class rule says you have to pay him. Is that what you think should be the case in terms of a moral or legal obligation? Off to my next project and will be off line most of day. Enjoy the weekend!

 

Broadly right. It is not uncommon for license contracts to extend longer than the life of the patent. Thereafter they are extremely difficult to renew or extend. It is possible that they can get extended when there is a change of ownership provision and the licensee changes ownership during the duration of the contract. Any decent lawyer advising a prospective purchaser of the BKI royalty rights would counsel basing the decision on the contract expiring in 2025.

The Class Association is an independent entity and if (under your scenario) the extended rights (which effectively belong to the Class Association in 2025 since it is the Class Rules which create those rights) are worth $1 million, then the Class might want a cut of $500,000 or more.

 

In 1904 Herbert Skinner invented the constant depression carburetor. The patent was granted in 1906. The SU Carburetor company was incorporated in 1910 by Herb's younger brother Carl, and acquired by contract (accompanied by a royalty fee) the rights to manufacture the carburetor. Shortly after the end of the first world war , SU was acquired by Morris Motors, and a new contract extended the royalty rights until at least Herb's death in 1931 (and maybe beyond, history doesnt give us that detail).

 

The SU carburetor went on to become a legend in the history of motor sports.

S.U. carburetors were used on several generations of British sport cars including MGs, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Rover, Riley, Turners, Jaguar and Triumph. They were also fitted to aircraft engines including the RR Merlin which powered the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain where "so many owed so much to so few". They remained on production cars through to 1993 in the Mini Cooper.

 

The Japanese (of course) came out with a replica when the patent expired but SU continued to pay its royalties until the contract expired. Interestingly SU (now independent again after Morris-Rover was sold) is still in business today, still making those damn fine carburetors. (Yes I am an MG enthusiast)

 

If Herbert had sold the contractual rights to someone else and that someone else terminated the contract, then the royalty stream would have ended but SU would have continued to make the carbs and the MG Drivers Club would have supported that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, Ganntt is back and crying over in his DA trolling thread. Can somebody go change his diaper?

 

 

Gouv - Agree there are termination clauses and everyone seems to say its terminated (just for different reason and by different parties). You mention the molds. Guessing you would know so a question... given timing that mold language was drafted and inserted in the original contract., the number of changes of location (ignoring the China BS as the boats are clearly not made there now), the number of boats made,., etyc... what are the chances those original mold are still being used as opposed to them having been trashed long ago and LPE now using new molds they built and own? Not fishing here; I really have no clue.

 

IPL - We are seeing/saying similar or same above. Agree. Sorry, been in and out. Did you ever comment on what you think the LPE defense is as to why they don't owe royalties (are they claiming breach by BK or PSA/GS or something)? Can they effectively argue they are not making and have not made a "Kirby sailboat" since some prior BK or PSA/GS breach and resulting termination? That they are making boats to a construction manual they and the class owns, calling them the trademark name they own and not violating any BK IP (or any contract we BK since they breached and or terminated?)

 

Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess:

The moral obligation has to do with abiding by the law. It has nothing to do with personalities

 

 

 

If there is any moral obligation, then surely there is a moral obligation from Global Sailing to Bruce Kirby.

 

When Bruce sold BKI and the attendant royalty stream that came with BKI, to Global Sailing, the contracts were in good stead and the royalties were being paid. They continued to be paid for a further two year and would have continued to be paid until 2025. Bruce sold the entity in "good condition".

 

Then Global Sailing did something. We do not know precisely who did what because the facts found in discovery are not available to us. Suugestions abound that there was a territory dispute between LPE and PS. The result was as RMK pointed out, that the contracts were terminated and the royalties ended. How is this Bruce Kirby's fault?

 

Again, why did BK purchase the rights back from GS? If GS damaged the value, the damage should reside with GS. If GS thinks that LP was in breach of the builders contract why did not GS sue LP? Why was Bruce dragged into this mess which was not of his making?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites