Otterbox

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

Recommended Posts

Wess, you must be a little tired. I have already answered that previously, but I'll answer again.

 

Strictly speaking no, Kirby did not need to sue the ILCA to recover unpaid royalties from LP.

 

But - and it's a big BUT.

 

Kirby is suing the ILCA for future royalties in an indirect way. If successful in suing the ILCA, Kirby may get a court order that instructs the ILCA not to issue plaques to builders who are not, or no longer licensed by him. This will win back the rights that the fundamental rule change is being used to deny him.

 

___________________________________

 

Just in case it wasn't clear, the singer Don McGlashan in the video I posted, sails Lasers. We have had some great battles. Last sailed against him in 2012. I remember we finished within seconds of each other in both races. He's a great guy. Here's a recent release of Don's about not letting people down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wess, you must be a little tired. I have already answered that previously, but I'll answer again.

 

Strictly speaking no, Kirby did not need to sue the ILCA to recover unpaid royalties from LP.

 

But - and it's a big BUT.

 

Kirby is suing the ILCA for future royalties in an indirect way. If successful in suing the ILCA, Kirby may get a court order that instructs the ILCA not to issue plaques to builders who are not, or no longer licensed by him. This will win back the rights that the fundamental rule change is being used to deny him.

 

Sorry if I missed the prior answer but regardless, thank you for a direct and straight-forward response (my emphasis added). Its an important point you make. I also note your caveat; its also an important point and I will not blow it off

 

On the first point - that he didn't need to sue ILCA to collect - I assume you agree that this applies to future royalties through the contract term of 2025 (I think I have the date right but not positive). If this case was not decided till then (hopefully it will be or JimC will really skewer our court system) Kirby would still fully collect if the judgement went his way. In fact he will collect more than he otherwise would have because he is eligible for lawyers fees and damages on top of those royalties, if the court rules in his favor. So if we are just interested in the pre-2025 world the actions of the class have no effect on Kirby's ability to collect. I do agree the class actions impact post 2025 for Kirby and will address it as so not to ignore your point. But continuing in the pre-2025 world for a moment this allows Kirby to collect a historic 2% royalties well beyond the date his IP is decades (I believe) ago expired or sold (the trademark for example). As TM points out I think most everyone would have been OK with this status quo and because there were signed valid contracts even if they were not tough on them. Kirby had a valid builders contract plain and simple. But then Kirby sold to GS/PSA and things eventually got weird and we have the landslide TM talks about. If in reversing that mess - and all we cared about was pre-2025 - Kirby could have just sued LPE (or let GS/PA do it which is ILP's point) and not ILCA, I am guessing you would not see TM, myself and others annoyed at Kirby's actions and I suspect the entire class would have lined up behind him. If just interested in pre-2025 Kirby could have said to the class "I understand you need boats, go ahead and issue stickers it makes no difference to my ability to collect royalties and damages from LPE (in fact I'll get more)" and my guess is the vote never would have happened and the class would have lined up behind Kirby. One last interesting point here offered for your consideration before talking about the post-2025 (future royalties) world... its maybe informative that ISAF, ILCA (but ignore them for a moment), and LPE would go down this path and continue to make and sell boats given they face damages. Even as the case drags on longer and longer. I don't know why they might feel this way but they must feel pretty confident in their case to continue to make and sell in the face of ever growing royalties, interest, damages, owed... Its not my intent to preach here or try to convince you. Frankly I am surprised myself that LPE is willing to take this risk. In the industry I work, in this instance, a product would not launch or its sale would be ceased rather than risk the damages.

 

On the future royalties (post 2025 world), I agree the old class rule come in to play. Without it there is no longer any reason for LPE (or any builder) to enter into another new contract with Kirby. With it Kirby collects royalties into perpetuity and has complete control and absolute leverage. Once GS/PSA had the rights and leverage they allegedly attempted to use it in a potentially predatory or anti-competitive fashion and really kicked off a landslide. Nobody here can know the truth of this but there is no doubt something happened and it all fell apart at this stage (thus an area I disagree with TM on... I see it as GS/PSA starting it; not the Kirby sale). Either way given all Kirby's IP is apparently long ago sold or expired, that historic class rule convey a ton of power, control, and leverage to whomever holds it for nothing of tangible value in return going back to the class. That might be called greedy, brilliant, of questionable legality, or a crafty deal structure but lets avoid the adjectives as they inflame.

 

I think we agree the Kirby fight is less about pre-2025, and more about post 2025... and likely about something other than 2% because as IPL and others have pointed out that royalty is not material even long term and if it was just that, this case would have settled long ago or never happened.

 

Have a good weekend all. Looks like good weatherr and some breeze here so nice time to be on the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, Gouv did one of his massive post purges again. We lost some good music and interesting posts. Strange; its gotta take serious time to delete that many posts.

 

Come back Gouv and check out the guy in TM's video. We love that guy and his posts.

 

Or go sailing and chillax. You can't take this stuff too seriously. Its just rich dudes fighting rich dudes. The sailors will be fine. Go sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, great, we are definitely getting somewhere.

 

Are you referring to clause 10.6 of the 1989 Builders License agreement (Europe) which mentions July 11, 2025?

 

Do you believe the 1989 Builders License agreement expires at that date?

 

Clause 10.6 of the 1983 Builders License agreement (North America) does not mention the same date, rather the term is 21 years, meaning the date was July 11, 2004.

 

Do you believe the 1983 Builders License agreement expired at that date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gannt,

 

I was not referring to a specific clause (unless that clause specifies the contract term) of the agreement but rather the term of it. I have not had a chance to re-read it. I think IPL mentioned the current builders agreement w LPE expires 2025 and/or is up for renewal then. I could easily have this date wrong as I have no independent recollection of it as my reading of the contracts was quite some time ago when the first case hit. Sorry, bit nuts at the office so need to focus there obviously.

 

Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem Wess. The big issue seems to be whether or not the contract expires.

 

1983 Agreement (North America)
Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, this Agreement shall extend for an initial term of 21 years from the effective date hereof, and shall be automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions as herein specified except if the parties hereto agree to the contrary, unless either of Licensee or Kirby Inc. by notice in writing at least 60 days before the expiration of the initial term of this Agreement or any renewal term thereof shall advise the other party of it's desire to terminate.
1989 Agreement (Europe)
Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, this Agreement shall extend for an initial term of 21 years from the effective date hereof set out in Article 14.8 hereof and terminating on July 11, 2025, and shall be automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions as herein specified except if the parties hereto agree to the contrary, unless either of Licensee or Kirby Inc. by notice in writing at least 60 days before the expiration of the initial term of this Agreement or any renewal term thereof shall advise the other party of it's desire to terminate.
Do you agree that expiry is different to termination?
If its termination, then termination clauses apply.
Also important:
  • The agreements automatically renew in perpetuity
  • The ISAF Agreement (which forms part of the agreement) is valid while the Laser is an international class.

It's possible that you may immediately raise the issue that this doesn't matter because of Kirby's agreement to sell to GS. But before we go on to discuss that, can we reach agreement to the above? I want to make sure that I have not got this important issue about contract expiration wrong; that you know something that I have somehow missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta be quick but yes of course termination is different than expiry or term of contract. I thought you might be referring to the termination clauses before but not sure and that was not what I am talking about. I am talking term or expiry. Agree this part has nothing to do w GS/PSA.

 

Be careful with the "agreements automatically renew in perpetuity" language. Its a common misunderstanding. Usually and I recall this being the case here, that is polite but useless BS language because its only so unless either party opts out and does not renew at the term of the contract. That is what LPE claims GS/PSA indicated they were going to do to them (opt out and not allow LPE to renew). I am looking for the date when Kirby or LPE could decide to not renew - the term date - and thought that was 2025 per IPL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your comment about using "perpetuity".

 

No problem Wess about the expiration. IPLore mentioned 2025 approx six times on this thread.

 

They are:

  • "1% to Bruce Kirby until 2025 (which I believe is when the contract expired)"
  • 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.

  • 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".

  • Five years ago, Bruce Kirby had a set of reasonably iron clad contracts guaranteeing him a royalty on the Laser until 2025. Judging from the contracts he played an instrumental role in easing the path to new builders when Ian Bruce ("father of the Laser") went bankrupt. He negotiated extensions of those contracts when the builders changed ownership, as is his right under the law.

  • Bruce Kirby did not sell BKI for those rights to be abused in discussions regarding territory and purchase/sale negotiations. Bruce Kirby sold a royalty stream for estate planning purposes. That royalty stream ran until 2025. If Global Sailing tried to use the rights they acquired in order to muscle other builders, then clearly they would be exposed to a rule change (+ the ISAF agreement requires ISAF/ILCA approval for a change of builder). Thus, if that is true, Bruce Kirby would not be responsible for the damage to the contractual rights, so he should be entitled to keep whatever he was paid from GS.

Additionally, SM123 mentioned 2025 twice:

  • A slight correction to my earlier posts: I said earlier that BK has the right to terminate the QM and LPE builders' agreements. This isn't true. I did find that the PY Small boats agreement was extended out to 2025. However, I haven't seen a similar extension for LPE.
  • My comment was badly written. What I meant to discuss was BK's right to terminate the builder's agreement without any fault by the builders. If you look at the PY Small Boats agreement, after 2025, BK has an option to terminate the agreement at a certain time each year.

The only mention of 2025 in any of the contracts I can find is in the 1989 Agreement (Europe) here:

Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, this Agreement shall extend for an initial term commencing on the effective date hereof set out in Article 14.8 hereof and terminating on July 11, 2025, and shall be automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions as herein specified except if the parties hereto agree to the contrary, unless either of Licensee or Kirby Inc. by notice in writing at least 60 days before the expiration of the initial term of this Agreement or any renewal term thereof shall advise the other party of it's desire to terminate.
-ref page 113 of this PDF https://www.docdroid...ndices.pdf.html
Note that I made a typo when transcribing the 1989 Agreement excerpt previously. This one corrects my error.
Again, there must be something else, something I have missed that makes the contracts expire. Is there something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can try to look later but am cruising this weekend. If both of those folks are mentioning it I am sure its in there somewhere. Perhaps IPL will check back in and confirm.

 

Its Friday, its nice and there is breeze. My mind is quite quickly shifting away from deal structures and litigation to rum drinks and moonlight sails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately IPLore gives no reference. It is possible that this is an example of IPLore giving misinformation. (Sorry, I wish I could say the same more tactfully).

 

SM123 is 100% consistent with the contract and does not talk about expiration. I believe SM123 was correct.

 

Anyone else care to comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There does not appear to be any legislature that would make either contract expire at 2025. Only conclusion left to make was that IPLore was mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Gannt IPL will be proven correct, there is no caae here. GS overplayed their hand, the Kirby rule is toast. It will never, ever, ever come back. It's over.

Just to be clear on my views:-

 

1. Based on the facts available I don't have a view on the outcome on the contractual dispute between BK+ BKI+ GS vs LP and LPE. This is the nexus of the case and yet is the aspect of the case least discussed on this forum.

 

2. Based on the facts available, I have a strong opinion that the tortious interference suit brought by BKI vs ILCA will fail. If there is anyone who still thinks this claim could succeed I would be happy to summarize (Again!) why in my opinion, this claim is DOA.

 

3. RMK is correct that the fundamental class rule that purported to allow the entity BKI to terminate Class approved builders without cause and without the consent of the Class Association or ISAF is as he puts it "toast" .

 

I have not said there is "no case here". I could offer up some of the issues that I think could arise in the contractual dispute...but it would be partially speculative because we have so few of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only mention of 2025 in any of the contracts I can find is in the 1989 Agreement (Europe) here:

Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, this Agreement shall extend for an initial term commencing on the effective date hereof set out in Article 14.8 hereof and terminating on July 11, 2025, and shall be automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions as herein specified except if the parties hereto agree to the contrary, unless either of Licensee or Kirby Inc. by notice in writing at least 60 days before the expiration of the initial term of this Agreement or any renewal term thereof shall advise the other party of it's desire to terminate.
-ref page 113 of this PDF https://www.docdroid...ndices.pdf.html
Again, there must be something else, something I have missed that makes the contracts expire. Is there something else?

 

 

Do you agree that expiry is different to termination?

 

In the same way the the Laser is different to a sailboat.

 

It is not a particularly important issue...but for those interested in the finer points. Expiry in a contract is a form of termination unless specifically distinguished in the language of the contract. (In the same way that a Laser is a form of sailboat)

 

In the 1989 contract they are used interchangeably. The date that the initial term of the contract terminates on July 11 2025, is also referred to as the "expiration of the initial term"

 

There are many different types of termination with different legal implications.For example, a contract that terminates at an initial expiry date ("This contract terminates at xxxx unless the parties agree to renew etc etc") is not usually a termination for cause.

 

Gantt has made a small error. The 1989 contract does NOT refer to Europe. The 1989 contract was the builders agreement for North America. Gannt correctly appends the clause from the 1989 contract which specifies that the initial term of the contract expires in 2025.

 

The European agreement was signed in 1983 (prior to the infamous 1983 ISAF agreement ), renewed in 1995 accompanying a change of ownership (but without a new expiry term). My recollection is that the initial term of the European contract expired in 2004 and thereafter became subject to annual renewal. Then in 2005, it became a contract with a 30 day notice period.

 

It is my personal opinion that the language in the 1995 and 2005 extensions was a bit sloppy. (Providing more fodder for the litigation lawyers to play around with if they want to spend their clients money)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from the text in the 1989 Agreement (North America) here:




Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, this Agreement shall extend for an initial term commencing on the effective date hereof set out in Article 14.8 hereof and terminating on July 11, 2025, and shall be automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions as herein specified except if the parties hereto agree to the contrary, unless either of Licensee or Kirby Inc. by notice in writing at least 60 days before the expiration of the initial term of this Agreement or any renewal term thereof shall advise the other party of it's desire to terminate.


-ref page 113 of this PDF https://www.docdroid...ndices.pdf.html



The way the contract reads it automatically renews, so royalties are paid so long as Laser sailboats are made, unless both parties agree to something else.




According to IPLore:


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".


(Posted by IPLore on 05 July 2016 - 02:37 AM)


The misinformation from IPLore resulted in Wess recently saying a lot about the '2025 expiration', concluding:


I think we agree the Kirby fight is less about pre-2025, and more about post 2025... and likely about something other than 2% because as IPL and others have pointed out that royalty is not material even long term and if it was just that, this case would have settled long ago or never happened.


(IPLore was the only person who mentioned 2025 expiration in this context)


With IPLore's most recent post, it's kind of ambiguous, but does not mention the expiration of royalties in 2025 in the same way he did previously. Certainly no retraction of his earlier six mentions of royalties expiring.


Just to be clear, the royalties resulting from the LPE 1983 contract continued to be paid after the initial term expired, because the contract "... automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions...".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Tiller Man. Funny thing is that you mention my small errors with great specificity.

Got anything to add on LPLore putting forward that the contracts expire in 2025?

 

Also, we were discussing our different perspectives about what Kirby is suing the ILCA for.

 

Tiller Man's list:
1. statutory damages
2. enhanced damages
3. heightened statutory damages
4. costs and attorney fees
5. prejudgement interest.
Gantts list:
1) No future supplying of plaques to builders not licensed by Kirby
2) No future use of Bruce Kirby on plaques without Kirby's approval
3) Forfeit of all plaques they have in their possession
4) Legal costs
5) Anything else the court deems right and proper
I said that perhaps I could include some more financials, how about you Tiller Man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah geeze, just when it seemed like it might stay friendly and interesting.

 

Gantt, I will defer to IPL on the date that the term expires for the LPE builder agreement - sounds like it might not be 2025 but presently on an annual renewal cycle - and if you think it through its unimportant to your primary point about the rule and future royalties. This is just a minor nuance about when the "future" part starts and what is guaranteed under the existing contract if its valid, not correctly terminated, and/or nobody breached it. But first go back and read what you wrote in 3921 about renewals to perpetuity. You cite this again "... automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions..." but its really not so or relevant because either party can choose to not renew (effectively terminate the the other) at the "automatic renewal" either for no cause or if the other party will not agree new terms the non-renewing party dictates. If you think otherwise you should not be going on about the class rule because it would be completely irrelevant.

 

I do agree the change of class rules shifts power and leverage at such time as either of the parties could decide to not "automatically renew" the builders agreement. With the old class rule Kirby had complete and absolute control and leverage to demand whatever he wanted for as long as he wanted at each renewal cycle even when he no longer help any IP, while the builder - even while holding the trademark free and clear - had none. The class also had none (leverage) even though it gets nothing in return for the right granted to Kirby in the rule. With the change in the class rule, Kirby's power is no longer absolute; its then based on whatever IP he does or does not own and whatever rights he has in valid contracts. I understand that this change in the rule offends you and Gouv, while the old structure and rule (its use anyway) offends others myself included. There is no point in debating that, as its personal opinion. From a legal and practical standpoint its pretty clear, as many others have noted, that the old class rule is not ever coming back.

 

I'm out on the water and about to pull the anchor and sail home. Have a nice time arguing all and try to keep it friendly. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My lawn mower understands the law better than Gantt .

 

Excellent contribution IPLore.

 

As I have a low level of understanding of law, can you please explain what you meant when you said that royalties would stop in 2025. Specifically, when IPLore said:

  • 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".

  • Five years ago, Bruce Kirby had a set of reasonably iron clad contracts guaranteeing him a royalty on the Laser until 2025. Judging from the contracts he played an instrumental role in easing the path to new builders when Ian Bruce ("father of the Laser") went bankrupt. He negotiated extensions of those contracts when the builders changed ownership, as is his right under the law.

  • Bruce Kirby did not sell BKI for those rights to be abused in discussions regarding territory and purchase/sale negotiations. Bruce Kirby sold a royalty stream for estate planning purposes. That royalty stream ran until 2025. If Global Sailing tried to use the rights they acquired in order to muscle other builders, then clearly they would be exposed to a rule change (+ the ISAF agreement requires ISAF/ILCA approval for a change of builder). Thus, if that is true, Bruce Kirby would not be responsible for the damage to the contractual rights, so he should be entitled to keep whatever he was paid from GS.

Obviously, this fails in two ways:

  1. The 1989 builders license says: "Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, this Agreement shall extend for an initial term commencing on the effective date hereof set out in Article 14.8 hereof and terminating on July 11, 2025, and shall be automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions as herein specified except if the parties hereto agree to the contrary, unless either of Licensee or Kirby Inc. by notice in writing at least 60 days before the expiration of the initial term of this Agreement or any renewal term thereof shall advise the other party of it's desire to terminate." (If the license terminates, then termination clauses apply.)
  2. The 2025 date does not apply to the 1983 builder's license.

I will be happy to apologise to IPLore if he is able to explain what appears to me to be another example of IPLore misinformation.

If I have low legal acumen, and I demonstrate how inadequate your legal thinking is - what does that say about your legal competence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah geeze, just when it seemed like it might stay friendly and...

 

 

 

I'm out on the water and about to pull the anchor and sail home. Have a nice time arguing all and try to keep it friendly. :ph34r:

 

My lawnmower is very friendly and hardly ever argues.

 

I explained to the lawn mower that much of the contractual dispute was going to revolve around termination of contract. I told the lawn mower that there are different legal implications for termination when the term expires and is not renewed than termination for cause. Lawn mower did not disagree.....

But then, the lawnmower is very busy at this time of year and doesn't really have a lot of time for discussion on the Internet.

I also explained the importance of "clean hands" when claiming breach of termination clauses in contract but the lawn mower cut the conversation short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah geeze, just when it seemed like it might stay friendly and interesting.

 

Gantt, I will defer to IPL on the date that the term expires for the LPE builder agreement - sounds like it might not be 2025 but presently on an annual renewal cycle - and if you think it through its unimportant to your primary point about the rule and future royalties. This is just a minor nuance about when the "future" part starts and what is guaranteed under the existing contract if its valid, not correctly terminated, and/or nobody breached it. But first go back and read what you wrote in 3921 about renewals to perpetuity. You cite this again "... automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions..." but its really not so or relevant because either party can choose to not renew (effectively terminate the the other) at the "automatic renewal" either for no cause or if the other party will not agree new terms the non-renewing party dictates. If you think otherwise you should not be going on about the class rule because it would be completely irrelevant.

 

I do agree the change of class rules shifts power and leverage at such time as either of the parties could decide to not "automatically renew" the builders agreement. With the old class rule Kirby had complete and absolute control and leverage to demand whatever he wanted for as long as he wanted at each renewal cycle even when he no longer help any IP, while the builder - even while holding the trademark free and clear - had none. The class also had none (leverage) even though it gets nothing in return for the right granted to Kirby in the rule. With the change in the class rule, Kirby's power is no longer absolute; its then based on whatever IP he does or does not own and whatever rights he has in valid contracts. I understand that this change in the rule offends you and Gouv, while the old structure and rule (its use anyway) offends others myself included. There is no point in debating that, as its personal opinion. From a legal and practical standpoint its pretty clear, as many others have noted, that the old class rule is not ever coming back.

 

I'm out on the water and about to pull the anchor and sail home. Have a nice time arguing all and try to keep it friendly. :ph34r:

 

Thank you Wess. Good post. This issue is once the North American 1989 contract reaches 2025, unless agreed by both parties, it is a termination, and termination clauses apply.

 

For the European 1983 contract, it had a 21 year term. It already "expired" in 2004 - yet royalties were paid. This is not something that LP's lawyers raised. (The European contract is more important because LP no longer builds in North America.)

 

The clause quoted above clearly refers to termination. LP doesn't have to build, can give 60 days notice if they want to terminate the contract, though once they do, the termination clauses apply.

 

If the builder continues to build, then the royalties are due.

 

Honestly Wess, it's a mistake or misinformation put forward by IPLore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My lawn mower understands the law better than Gantt .

 

 

Brilliant!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you guys arguing about?

 

I think Gantt is saying that while the the change to the class rule does not change the royalties owed under the existing contract (to the extent its valid, not breached or rightly terminated), it does eliminate the absolute control Kirby had over the class and builders for future renewal of that contract or the negotiation of a new one. To the extent Kirby holds any IP he still has leverage, to the extent the class can set its own rules (and holds the construction manual along with the builders) it has leverage, and to the extent that the builders hold the Laser trademark, they have leverage. Does anyone disagree Gantt's point? I think its a true statement.

 

There is no point in arguing the "goodness" of that as its just inflames. Perhaps we can all just agree that some say this violates the class' moral obligation to Kirby to serve as royalty "police" (a Gouv quote) while others say it was the class' moral obligation to its members to do this and the "royalty police" is the court not the class.

The point about exactly what date the LPE builders contract terms out or can (or can not) be renewed is sort of a minor tangential point to above. It does however - if we are in the annual renewal stage - further highlight IPL's point that GS/PSA overpaid (by much more than we realized) so apparently the rights were valued far and above the simple royalty for the contract term.

 

I think Tillerman is saying its not Kirby's right or leverage anyway as he sold it away and even if he did buy/get it back its clear how the rights can be used to the class's detriment and apparently the class gets noting in return for it as well as GS/PSA retaining some hold on it. Does anyone disagree that? Again, it seems like a true statement.

 

I think IPL's comments on this matter are generally suggesting it terms of the case the class rule really just does not matter. Its a rule - not a contract term so it can be changed. Kirby has not challenged the class vote from a legal standpoint. The ISAF has already been fully cleared. And finally Kirby's remaining claims against ILCA are highly unlikely to succeed. Does anyone disagree that? It also seems like a true statement.

 

If we can get past the irrelevant disagreement (where I suspect there is actually broad agreement on the important points) perhaps some of the more interesting elements of the case can be discussed:

 

1.) All parties seem to agree that the builders agreement is terminated and/or breached... so how does it work today. If that is so are there any remaining legal obligation to Kirby?

 

2.) Is the following accurate?

a.) Given the lack of remaining IP, anyone can make and sell a Kirby sailboat today they just can't call it a Laser or a Kirby sailboat.

b.) Kirby can make and sell and call it a Kirby sailboat but he can't call it a Laser.

c.) LPE can make and sell a Kirby sailboat like the others in "a.)" and can call it a Laser but can't call it a Kirby sailboat.

d.) Under current rules the class accepts boats that are called Laser and made to a construction manual it owns as allowed to sail in its races; its could decide to change those rule to accept any or all of above a - c made boats if it wished.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great summary Wess.

 

So, who isn't happy with the status quo?

 

LP are making and selling Lasers so they should be happy.

Laser sailors are buying and sailing Lasers so we should be happy.

 

Bruce Kirby (according to unconfirmed reports on this thread) still has the $2.6 million he received from Global Sailing. I would be happy if I had that.

 

 

 

Who else is there? Oh yes. Global Sailing. But Gantt told us Global Sailing=Chris Spencer.

Chris Spencer - member of the New Zealand toilet paper fortune family - is probably not a happy camper. He is presumably $2.6 million out of pocket and isn't getting any royalties from LP. And Wess says he overpaid for his royalties anyway.

I wonder why we haven't heard anything from him in public about all of this? Or did I miss something?

 

And the Laser class (as opposed to Laser sailors) has a right to be unhappy too. They are being sued by Bruce Kirby.

And Gantt. Gantt often sounds unhappy. It's not always clear why.

 

Please tell me again. What are you guys arguing about?

 

Cheers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Status quo is the 3-way balance of powers that many classes use is upset.

 

If the builder does something the class doesn't like (for instance switch to roto-moulded construction) the Laser game is over.

 

 

 

 

edit- not that that is likely, just a big f'rinstance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart Like Lawn Mower (aka Gantt),

 

Even a dim witted casual reader like me who is not really following this thread on a daily basis understood what Wess and IPLore were saying. As I understood it, Wess was saying that after the contracts expired, the only incentive for a builder to renew the contract was the class rule.

IPL was saying Bruce was being paid when the contracts were sold to Global sailing and had a contract that guaranteed some royalties until 2025. But Global sailing did something to damage the contractual relationship. I thought I understood Wess and IPL until you jumped in.

 

The thread went something like this:

 

Wess: So if I understand this right, after the contract expires in 2025, it would only be renewed if Class kept the class rule

Smart Like Lawn Mower: No. You are wrong.

Wess: Huh?

SLLM: The contract is in perpetuity unless terminated.

Wess: Doesn't it say it expires in 2025 unless renewed.

SLLM : You are wrong. Dont you understand the difference between expired and terminated. The European contract terminates in 2025.

IPL : Expired and terminated are the same. It is the North American contract that expires in 2025. The European contract expired in 2004 and was renewed annually since then.

SLLM: IPLore and Wess are wrong. So is Tillerman. RMK and Dex awash are wrong, so is Simon. In fact you are all wrong, except me. I am right.

 

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great summary Wess.

 

So, who isn't happy with the status quo?

 

LP are making and selling Lasers so they should be happy.

 

Laser sailors are buying and sailing Lasers so we should be happy.

 

Bruce Kirby (according to unconfirmed reports on this thread) still has the $2.6 million he received from Global Sailing. I would be happy if I had that.

 

 

 

Who else is there? Oh yes. Global Sailing. But Gantt told us Global Sailing=Chris Spencer.

 

Chris Spencer - member of the New Zealand toilet paper fortune family - is probably not a happy camper. He is presumably $2.6 million out of pocket and isn't getting any royalties from LP. And Wess says he overpaid for his royalties anyway.

 

I wonder why we haven't heard anything from him in public about all of this? Or did I miss something?

 

And the Laser class (as opposed to Laser sailors) has a right to be unhappy too. They are being sued by Bruce Kirby.

 

And Gantt. Gantt often sounds unhappy. It's not always clear why.

 

Please tell me again. What are you guys arguing about?

 

Cheers!

 

I was pretty happy this weekend.

 

photo (5)

 

cruising home

cruising home 2

Oddly I didn't think about Laser contracts much! But I was not as tipsy as the first one suggests.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart Like Lawn Mower (aka Gantt),

 

Even a dim witted casual reader like me who is not really following this thread on a daily basis understood what Wess and IPLore were saying. As I understood it, Wess was saying that after the contracts expired, the only incentive for a builder to renew the contract was the class rule.

IPL was saying Bruce was being paid when the contracts were sold to Global sailing and had a contract that guaranteed some royalties until 2025. But Global sailing did something to damage the contractual relationship. I thought I understood Wess and IPL until you jumped in.

 

The thread went something like this:

 

Wess: So if I understand this right, after the contract expires in 2025, it would only be renewed if Class kept the class rule

Smart Like Lawn Mower: No. You are wrong.

Wess: Huh?

SLLM: The contract is in perpetuity unless terminated.

Wess: Doesn't it say it expires in 2025 unless renewed.

SLLM : You are wrong. Dont you understand the difference between expired and terminated. The European contract terminates in 2025.

IPL : Expired and terminated are the same. It is the North American contract that expires in 2025. The European contract expired in 2004 and was renewed annually since then.

SLLM: IPLore and Wess are wrong. So is Tillerman. RMK and Dex awash are wrong, so is Simon. In fact you are all wrong, except me. I am right.

 

:huh:

 

 

Smart Like Lawn Mower. :lol:

 

Brilliant!

 

SaveSave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Status quo is the 3-way balance of powers that many classes use is upset.

 

If the builder does something the class doesn't like (for instance switch to roto-moulded construction) the Laser game is over.

 

 

 

 

edit- not that that is likely, just a big f'rinstance

Just not sure.

 

There seemed to be balance for many years w Kirby holding it. Balance lost some time after sale to GS/PSA. Restored to some extent with current class rules.

 

But yea, you do have that right re Laser name. Such is life when the Laser trademark is sold to the builder and not the class. But still there is some balance as the builder does benefit from a strong class and resulting brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyesailor demonstrates the importance of resolving that the following information by IPLore is untrue:

  • 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".

  • Five years ago, Bruce Kirby had a set of reasonably iron clad contracts guaranteeing him a royalty on the Laser until 2025. Judging from the contracts he played an instrumental role in easing the path to new builders when Ian Bruce ("father of the Laser") went bankrupt. He negotiated extensions of those contracts when the builders changed ownership, as is his right under the law.

  • Bruce Kirby did not sell BKI for those rights to be abused in discussions regarding territory and purchase/sale negotiations. Bruce Kirby sold a royalty stream for estate planning purposes. That royalty stream ran until 2025. If Global Sailing tried to use the rights they acquired in order to muscle other builders, then clearly they would be exposed to a rule change (+ the ISAF agreement requires ISAF/ILCA approval for a change of builder). Thus, if that is true, Bruce Kirby would not be responsible for the damage to the contractual rights, so he should be entitled to keep whatever he was paid from GS

 

Wess, before I agree to any of your summary, can we please finish discussing the 2025 issue?

 

You are saying that Lasers being built by Laser Performance no longer need to pay royalties after 2025, and that if the contract is terminated, the termination clauses don't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, before I agree to any of your summary, can we please finish discussing the 2025 issue?

 

You are saying that Lasers being built by Laser Performance no longer need to pay royalties after 2025, and that if the contract is terminated, the termination clauses don't apply.

You lost me here.

 

No, I am not saying that termination clauses don't apply if the contract is rightly terminated. They would likely apply (depending on the circumstances of the termination).

 

And no I am not saying its 2025 that the LPE builders contract reaches the initial term date at which either party (builder or royalty collector) can decide to not renew or instead either walk away thinking they don't need a contract, or renegotiate for more money thinking they have absolute power. I thought others had mentioned the 2025 date. I have said I would need to reread the whole mess to try to determine what date that was.

 

I think you are maybe confusing/confounding the idea of a contract term (or initial term here) with termination. There will usually be different termination obligations depending if the contract has a.) reached its term and is simply not renewed, b.) reached its full term, c.) terminated for cause (and depending on which party), or d.) terminated for breach. Which if any of those instances apply here seems to be a matter of dispute between the parties.

 

In any event I am not sure how this is related to your point that with the class rule changes impact on the leverage of the parties (you focus on Kirby) at such time as either could walk away at the initial term limit/renewal (or not) date which I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wess, before I agree to any of your summary, can we please finish discussing the 2025 issue?

 

You are saying that Lasers being built by Laser Performance no longer need to pay royalties after 2025, and that if the contract is terminated, the termination clauses don't apply.

You lost me here.

 

 

 

 

Oh good. I'm not the only one who's lost.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what you said Wess:

 

I was not referring to a specific clause (unless that clause specifies the contract term) of the agreement but rather the term of it. I have not had a chance to re-read it. I think IPL mentioned the current builders agreement w LPE expires 2025 and/or is up for renewal then. I could easily have this date wrong as I have no independent recollection of it as my reading of the contracts was quite some time ago when the first case hit. Sorry, bit nuts at the office so need to focus there obviously.

 

You were 100% correct in referring to IPLore who mentioned 2025, saying stuff like:

 

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".

 

This contradicts the North Americal 1989 builder's contract, and the 2025 date does not apply to the 1983 builder's contract for Laser Performance Europe (The initial term date for that contract was 21 years).

 

Here's the 1989 builder's contract clause which contains the only mention of 2025:

Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, this Agreement shall extend for an initial term commencing on the effective date hereof set out in Article 14.8 hereof and terminating on July 11, 2025, and shall be automatically renewed on an annual basis thereafter on the same terms and conditions as herein specified except if the parties hereto agree to the contrary, unless either of Licensee or Kirby Inc. by notice in writing at least 60 days before the expiration of the initial term of this Agreement or any renewal term thereof shall advise the other party of it's desire to terminate.

 

So when Wess said:

I think you are maybe confusing/confounding the idea of a contract term (or initial term here) with termination. There will usually be different termination obligations depending if the contract has a.) reached its term and is simply not renewed, b.) reached its full term, c.) terminated for cause (and depending on which party), or d.) terminated for breach. Which if any of those instances apply here seems to be a matter of dispute between the parties.

 

I don't think I'm mixing up contract term with termination. What I'm saying is that IPLore was incorrect in saying that Kirby's royalties would stop in 2025.

 

Wess, you then took the idea that the contact expires, and wrote a big post (http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=145562&view=findpost&p=5378669)

 

...where you (Wess) talks about pre and post 2025, which Wess raised in response to me saying (quoting me): "Kirby is suing the ILCA for future royalties in an indirect way. If successful in suing the ILCA, Kirby may get a court order that instructs the ILCA not to issue plaques to builders who are not, or no longer licensed by him. This will win back the rights that the fundamental rule change is being used to deny him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand what you are saying, agreeing with, or disagreeing with Gantt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand what you are saying, agreeing with, or disagreeing with Gantt.

 

 

Me neither.

 

For a guy who supposedly heads up a marketing consultancy, he is an appallingly bad communicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem focused on the 2025 date. OK, so let's just run with whatever date you think the contract shifted from the initial term to the (annual?) renewals. Assuming you think it's much earlier that 2025 that actually aligns with LPE allegations that GS/PSA was not going to renew them. But I don't think this changes what I thought (?) was your point that the rule change impacts Kirby (if he still held the contracts/rights) on that date. This was the " future" you referred to. Don't read my "expires" too literally. I never imagined there would be debate around this. I was simply referring to the date the initial term expires and the contracts shifts into (annual?) renewals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Troll:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

 

 

To see an example of trolling, take a look at the discussion about lawnmowers on the blowtorch thread.

 

 

Oh geeze.

 

Now Gantt is over on the thread he started about trolls, complaining about our lawnmower jokes.

 

What did Zapata call him? A whiney little shit?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Wess, I am focussing on the 2025 date. Here's why:

 

 

 

Wess, you must be a little tired. I have already answered that previously, but I'll answer again.

 

Strictly speaking no, Kirby did not need to sue the ILCA to recover unpaid royalties from LP.

 

But - and it's a big BUT.

 

Kirby is suing the ILCA for future royalties in an indirect way. If successful in suing the ILCA, Kirby may get a court order that instructs the ILCA not to issue plaques to builders who are not, or no longer licensed by him. This will win back the rights that the fundamental rule change is being used to deny him.

 

Sorry if I missed the prior answer but regardless, thank you for a direct and straight-forward response (my emphasis added). Its an important point you make. I also note your caveat; its also an important point and I will not blow it off

 

On the first point - that he didn't need to sue ILCA to collect - I assume you agree that this applies to future royalties through the contract term of 2025 (I think I have the date right but not positive). If this case was not decided till then (hopefully it will be or JimC will really skewer our court system) Kirby would still fully collect if the judgement went his way. In fact he will collect more than he otherwise would have because he is eligible for lawyers fees and damages on top of those royalties, if the court rules in his favor. So if we are just interested in the pre-2025 world the actions of the class have no effect on Kirby's ability to collect. I do agree the class actions impact post 2025 for Kirby and will address it as so not to ignore your point. But continuing in the pre-2025 world for a moment this allows Kirby to collect a historic 2% royalties well beyond the date his IP is decades (I believe) ago expired or sold (the trademark for example). As TM points out I think most everyone would have been OK with this status quo and because there were signed valid contracts even if they were not tough on them. Kirby had a valid builders contract plain and simple. But then Kirby sold to GS/PSA and things eventually got weird and we have the landslide TM talks about. If in reversing that mess - and all we cared about was pre-2025 - Kirby could have just sued LPE (or let GS/PA do it which is ILP's point) and not ILCA, I am guessing you would not see TM, myself and others annoyed at Kirby's actions and I suspect the entire class would have lined up behind him. If just interested in pre-2025 Kirby could have said to the class "I understand you need boats, go ahead and issue stickers it makes no difference to my ability to collect royalties and damages from LPE (in fact I'll get more)" and my guess is the vote never would have happened and the class would have lined up behind Kirby. One last interesting point here offered for your consideration before talking about the post-2025 (future royalties) world... its maybe informative that ISAF, ILCA (but ignore them for a moment), and LPE would go down this path and continue to make and sell boats given they face damages. Even as the case drags on longer and longer. I don't know why they might feel this way but they must feel pretty confident in their case to continue to make and sell in the face of ever growing royalties, interest, damages, owed... Its not my intent to preach here or try to convince you. Frankly I am surprised myself that LPE is willing to take this risk. In the industry I work, in this instance, a product would not launch or its sale would be ceased rather than risk the damages.

 

On the future royalties (post 2025 world), I agree the old class rule come in to play. Without it there is no longer any reason for LPE (or any builder) to enter into another new contract with Kirby. With it Kirby collects royalties into perpetuity and has complete control and absolute leverage. Once GS/PSA had the rights and leverage they allegedly attempted to use it in a potentially predatory or anti-competitive fashion and really kicked off a landslide. Nobody here can know the truth of this but there is no doubt something happened and it all fell apart at this stage (thus an area I disagree with TM on... I see it as GS/PSA starting it; not the Kirby sale). Either way given all Kirby's IP is apparently long ago sold or expired, that historic class rule convey a ton of power, control, and leverage to whomever holds it for nothing of tangible value in return going back to the class. That might be called greedy, brilliant, of questionable legality, or a crafty deal structure but lets avoid the adjectives as they inflame.

 

I think we agree the Kirby fight is less about pre-2025, and more about post 2025... and likely about something other than 2% because as IPL and others have pointed out that royalty is not material even long term and if it was just that, this case would have settled long ago or never happened.

 

Have a good weekend all. Looks like good weatherr and some breeze here so nice time to be on the water.

 

 

And therefore, all you (Wess) were saying was "...the date the initial term expires and the contracts shifts into (annual?) renewals."???

 

To be clear, IPLore was saying that the contracts expired in 2025, not that the first term ended.

 

The terms and conditions of the builders license mean that if the contract is terminated for any reason, then the termination clauses 10.7 and 10.9 are in effect.

This is why Wess's notion that LP doesn't need a builder's license is mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt - this discussion might become a little more productive if you could propose some ideas on how Laser sailing as a sport could be even more fantastic than it already is - rather than trying to score minor, obscure points agains Wess and IPLore.

 

Wess and IPLore seem to me to be smart, articulate, knowledgeable people who want the Laser to continue to be the most successful single-handed dingy class on the planet.

 

Why not find ways to work with them constructively instead of always trying to tear them down?

 

Let's come together!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt - How on earth do you conclude that?

 

Are you referring to me saying: "This is why Wess's notion that LP doesn't need a builder's license is mistaken."??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean after the class rule change, yes, let's start there.

 

The termination clauses (from 1983 Builder's License Agreement).

Agreement of Licencee on Termination

 

10.7 Licensee agree that termination of this Agreement for any reason shall not relieve Licensee of the obligation to pay the royalty payments and fees as provided herein which have accrued up to the effective date of termination hereof and the obligation to pay the royalty payments and fees for all Kirby Sailboats manufactured prior to the effective date of termination but not delivered until after such date.
10.8 Licensee agrees that in the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason, Licensee shall attempt in good faith to negotiate a sale to Kirby Inc., or to negotiate a sale to another licensee of Kirby Inc., all plugs, moulds and tooling then owned by the Licensee relating to the manufacture of Kirby Sailboats at fair market value not to exceed replacement cost.
10.9 Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, Licensee shall forthwith discontinue manufacturing Kirby Sailboats and shall discontinue the use of and shall refrain from using the production tooling, moulds and plugs particularly associated with the manufacture of Kirby Sailboats. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensee shall be permitted (against a letter of credit or other similar assurance that royalties and fees shall be fully paid) to complete the manufacture, subject to all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, of Kirby Sailboats in the course of manufacture, and sell all such sailboats, together with any Kirby Sailboats in a finished state at the effective date of termination hereof provided that in each case Licensee pays all royalty payments and fees with respect to such Kirby Sailboat at the rate, time and manner provided for in Article 8 hereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be specific Gantt. What about them makes you believe that?

 

And if really do, why on earth did you go on about the class rule change and it's importance if it has no importance and the termination clause you refer to address the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be specific Gantt. What about them makes you believe that? And if really do, why on earth did you go on about the class rule change and it's importance if it has no importance and the termination clause you refer to address the issue?

 

The above shows that you Wess raised the idea that LP no longer needed a contract after the first term, you referred to 2025 multiple times in that regard, and when questioned, referred us to IPLore.

 

I am pointing out what the termination clauses contradict the idea that LP can make Lasers / Kirby Sailboats without a license from Kirby.

 

Do you still think that LP can make Lasers / Kirby Sailboats without being in breach of the termination provisions above? (Specifically clause 10.9).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absent Kirby identifying some IP still held I think it's entirely possible that absolutely anyone can make and sell a Kirby sailboat; they just can't call it a Kirby sailboat or a Laser. If you disagree say why for gosh sakes. Absent a class rule or Kirby owned IP, what stops anyone... and why didn't they stop the 99er?

 

 

I think that if in breach of 10.8 and 10.9 - and I am not saying they would be - the damages are maybe insignificant in the larger context.

 

Good grief if you believe that what on earth were 30 some pages about the class rule all about. You don't need it in your new view of the world do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Be specific Gantt. What about them makes you believe that? And if really do, why on earth did you go on about the class rule change and it's importance if it has no importance and the termination clause you refer to address the issue?

 

The above shows that you Wess raised the idea that LP no longer needed a contract after the first term, you referred to 2025 multiple times in that regard, and when questioned, referred us to IPLore.

 

I am pointing out what the termination clauses contradict the idea that LP can make Lasers / Kirby Sailboats without a license from Kirby.

 

Do you still think that LP can make Lasers / Kirby Sailboats without being in breach of the termination provisions above? (Specifically clause 10.9).

 

 

 

Who does LP need a license from? Bruce Kirby or Chris Spencer?

 

If Kirby is still sitting on the $2.6 million he got from Spencer, then doesn't Spencer own the design rights and any royalties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absent Kirby identifying some IP still held I think it's entirely possible that absolutely anyone can make and sell a Kirby sailboat; they just can't call it a Kirby sailboat or a Laser. If you disagree say why for gosh sakes. Absent a class rule or Kirby owned IP, what stops anyone... and why didn't they stop the 99er? I think that if in breach of 10.8 and 10.9 - and I am not saying they would be - the damages are maybe insignificant in the larger context. Good grief if you believe that what on earth were 30 some pages about the class rule all about. You don't need it in your new view of the world do you?

 

 

Is Rastegar constrained by the fact that his companies had contracts with Kirby - and then with Spencer - and so termination clauses may kick in if he keeps manufacturing Lasers?

 

What's to stop him starting a new company that never had any contract with Kirby or Spencer, and use that company to start making Lasers? He could transfer his Laser trademarks to that company so he could legally sell them as Lasers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, TM I agree that would appear to be one of many ways around the issue of needing a contract that apparently is needed at all. I must admit I am not following Gantt's logic on how termination clause impose a need for a contract.

 

On the damages that might be owed - ignoring the potential answers to the claim - perhaps consider what the $ value of the damages would be and decide if it's worth even fighting.

 

What really has me most baffles about Gantt's new position is that it appears to have evolved to such a place that the class rule change is completely irrelevant. So at least we have that progress - I think?!? Oddly I agreed with his prior position that it did matter because these arguments don't.

 

Not trying to be argumentative with him. I honestly don't understand his current view or how to align it with his prior view.

 

Either way it's time to get some sleep and let you have at it.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, intended to say not needed at all...

 

I need to sign off. Good grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absent Kirby identifying some IP still held I think it's entirely possible that absolutely anyone can make and sell a Kirby sailboat; they just can't call it a Kirby sailboat or a Laser. If you disagree say why for gosh sakes. Absent a class rule or Kirby owned IP, what stops anyone... and why didn't they stop the 99er? I think that if in breach of 10.8 and 10.9 - and I am not saying they would be - the damages are maybe insignificant in the larger context. Good grief if you believe that what on earth were 30 some pages about the class rule all about. You don't need it in your new view of the world do you?

 

Not everyone in the world has or had a builder's license agreement to build Lasers / Kirby Sailboats.

 

LP agreed that once the builders license agreement was terminated for any reason, to not manufacture Lasers / Kirby Sailboats. If they do manufacture, then they agreed to pay royalties.

 

This is not about whether or not anyone can build Lasers / Kirby Sailboats, rather whether or not LP can without breaching their agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having skimmed some of the old contracts which are included in the complaint it seems fairly clear that once a company has signed the contract they have ongoing duties and restrictions. It reads, in part "Upon termination of this agreement Licensee shall forthwith discontinue manufacturing Kirby Sailboats and shall discontinue the use of and refrain from using production tooling moulds and plugs" . No doubt the lawyers can and will spend time dancing on a pin, but it seems obvious that the intention was for a former builder to be permanently prohibited from building "Lasers", irrespective of what stickers or plaques they might have on them. Of course that's one oldish contract, no doubt there'll be more dancing on a pin concerning exactly what contracts apply to each partner. But if those contract terms are still valid you would think that there is no way PSA are contractually permitted to build Lasers if the contract has been terminated. And that seems to me to be terminated by *either* party.

 

Perhaps JimC may make more sense to you Wess. He's making the same point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a mess! This is what you get when the designer sells his rights to a company owned by the same family that also owns a builder.

 

Was it perhaps a clue of what was to come that Chris Spencer named his company Global Sailing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Having skimmed some of the old contracts which are included in the complaint it seems fairly clear that once a company has signed the contract they have ongoing duties and restrictions. It reads, in part "Upon termination of this agreement Licensee shall forthwith discontinue manufacturing Kirby Sailboats and shall discontinue the use of and refrain from using production tooling moulds and plugs" . No doubt the lawyers can and will spend time dancing on a pin, but it seems obvious that the intention was for a former builder to be permanently prohibited from building "Lasers", irrespective of what stickers or plaques they might have on them. Of course that's one oldish contract, no doubt there'll be more dancing on a pin concerning exactly what contracts apply to each partner. But if those contract terms are still valid you would think that there is no way PSA are contractually permitted to build Lasers if the contract has been terminated. And that seems to me to be terminated by *either* party.

 

Perhaps JimC may make more sense to you Wess. He's making the same point.

 

 

 

What? Performance Sailcraft Australia's contract has been terminated? Who did that? Surely not Chris Spencer? So did Bruce Kirby do it? Why would he do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Absent Kirby identifying some IP still held I think it's entirely possible that absolutely anyone can make and sell a Kirby sailboat; they just can't call it a Kirby sailboat or a Laser. If you disagree say why for gosh sakes. Absent a class rule or Kirby owned IP, what stops anyone... and why didn't they stop the 99er? I think that if in breach of 10.8 and 10.9 - and I am not saying they would be - the damages are maybe insignificant in the larger context. Good grief if you believe that what on earth were 30 some pages about the class rule all about. You don't need it in your new view of the world do you?

 

Not everyone in the world has or had a builder's license agreement to build Lasers / Kirby Sailboats.

 

LP agreed that once the builders license agreement was terminated for any reason, to not manufacture Lasers / Kirby Sailboats. If they do manufacture, then they agreed to pay royalties.

 

This is not about whether or not anyone can build Lasers / Kirby Sailboats, rather whether or not LP can without breaching their agreement.

 

Gantt - If you really believe that is what 10.8 and 10.9 result in, OK, I can only disagree and wish you and JimC much luck in your argument with the court. I think you are going to need it. But let's agree that 10.7 does exactly what it say and that royalties are owed up to termination. I agree. Always have but its largely irrelevant. On the rest I don't know how to help you...

 

Lets ignore that your view regarding 10.8 and 10.9 means that the change in the class rule has zero effect on the Kirby with regards LPE (a point you keep ducking) so you should acknowledge the class did nothing wrong in changing it. Lets ignore that your view makes LPE 's owing the trademark essentially useless in its territory because Kirby could always not renew the builders agreement with LPE and then they could forever not make boats, thus making the deal to sell LPE the trademark essentially a fraud (something I don't believe at all) and leaving a situation whereby nobody can sell Lasers in LPE's trademark territory (diminishing the value of the mark WW and hurting even GS/PSA). Let's ignore that your view would then open the door to the class being able to get rid of all of this Kirby, LPE, and GS/PSA mess completely as well as own the trademark if you think it through to its logical conclusion (something that would be great IMHO so I am all for it). Let's ignore that TM in 3958 outlined one of dozens of ways LPE could get around this even if it was an accurate assessment (I don't think it is). Let's even ignore that you think the termination provisions of 10.8 and 10.9 mean that LPE is denied a right that you agree all others have...

 

If the intent of the termination clauses was to deny a right that all others have - something that could be done BTW - its not done through termination provisions which are designed to allow Kirby to produce Kirby sailboats, its done through a non-compete. There would be something like a section 11 reading something like:

 

"11.0 Non-Complete

 

In return for the rights granted for the period the builder agrees that upon termination it will not compete with BKI in the territory, by making or selling Kirby sailboats or replica thereof under any name, for a period of X years, yada, yada, yada. Additionally, the builder will not sell the Laser trademark to any other entity without first negotiating with BKI in good faith for them to purchase the trademark from the builder in such an instance, and further the builder grants BKI a right of final offer in the event of a sale, yada, yada, yada..."

 

* Is there anything like this in the builder's contract Gantt (other than what you are claiming in 10.8 and 10.9)? Its been a long time since I read them so its an honest question.

 

Assuming its no (which is what I recall) I do get it (I think?)... your view is now is that the class rule change does not matter with re LPE and that the termination provisions 10.8 and 10.9 essentially create a non-compete. In the interest of affordable high quality generic Lasers everywhere I wish you much luck with that argument and even if you win it, I have to wonder how you deal with TM's solution noted or the many others like it.

 

The shortest way I can say it is... "Termination provisions do not a non-compete make."

 

I am sorry Gantt but I just don't think your theory on the reading of the termination provisions has a great chance either in court or in practical implementation but I know you will not be convinced. I can only offer an opinion and we will have to wait to see what the court rules and how it plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Absent Kirby identifying some IP still held I think it's entirely possible that absolutely anyone can make and sell a Kirby sailboat; they just can't call it a Kirby sailboat or a Laser. If you disagree say why for gosh sakes. Absent a class rule or Kirby owned IP, what stops anyone... and why didn't they stop the 99er? I think that if in breach of 10.8 and 10.9 - and I am not saying they would be - the damages are maybe insignificant in the larger context. Good grief if you believe that what on earth were 30 some pages about the class rule all about. You don't need it in your new view of the world do you?

 

Not everyone in the world has or had a builder's license agreement to build Lasers / Kirby Sailboats.

 

LP agreed that once the builders license agreement was terminated for any reason, to not manufacture Lasers / Kirby Sailboats. If they do manufacture, then they agreed to pay royalties.

 

This is not about whether or not anyone can build Lasers / Kirby Sailboats, rather whether or not LP can without breaching their agreement.

 

Gantt - If you really believe that is what 10.8 and 10.9 result in, OK, I can only disagree and wish you much luck in your argument with the court. I think you are going to need it. But let's agree that 10.7 does exactly what it say and that royalties are owed up to termination. I agree. Always have but its largely irrelevant. On the rest I don't know how to help you...

 

Lets ignore that your view regarding 10.8 and 10.9 means that the change in the class rule has zero effect on the Kirby with regards LPE (a point you keep ducking) so you should acknowledge the class did nothing wrong in changing it. Lets ignore that your view makes LPE 's owing the trademark essentially useless in its territory because Kirby could always not renew the builders agreement with LPE and then they could forever not make boars, thus making the deal to sell LPE the trademark essentially a fraud (something I don't believe at all) and leaving a situation whereby nobody can sell laser in LPE's trademark territory (diminishing the value of the mark WW and hurting even GS/PSA. Let's ignore that your view would then open the door to the class being able to get rid of all of this Kirby, LPE, and GS/PSA mess completely as well as own the trademark if you think it through to its logical conclusion (something that would be great IMHO so I am all for it). Let's ignore that TM in 3958 outlined one of dozens of ways LPE could get around this even if it was an accurate assessment (I don't think it is). Let's even ignore that you think the termination provisions of 10.8 and 10.9 mean that LPE is denied a right that you agree all others have...

 

If the intent of the termination clauses was to deny a right that all others have - something that could be done BTW - its not done through termination provisions which are designed to allow Kirby to produce Kirby sailboats, its done through a non-compete. There would be a section 11 reading something like:

 

"11.0 Non-Complete

 

In return for the rights granted for the period the builder agrees that upon termination it will not compete with BKI in the territory, by making or selling Kirby sailboats or replica thereof under any name, for a period of X years, yada, yada, yada. Additionally, the builder will not sell the Laser trademark to any other entity without first negotiating with BKI in good faith for them to purchase the trademark from the builder in such an instance, and furter the builder grants BKI a right of final offer in the event of a sale, yada, yada, yada..."

 

Is there anything like this in the builder's contract Gantt? Its been a long time since I read them so its an honest question.

 

Assuming its no (which is what I recall) I do get it. Your view is now is that the class rule change does not matter with re LPE and that the termination provisions 10.8 and 10.9 essentially create a non-compete. In the interest of affordable high quality generic Lasers everywhere I wish you much luck with that argument and even if you win it, I have to wonder how you deal with TM's solution noted or the many others like it.

 

The shortest way I can say it is... "Termination provisions do not a non-compete make."

 

I am sorry Gantt but I just don't think your theory on the reading of the termination provisions has a great chance either in court or in practical implementation but I know you will not be convinced. I can only offer an opinion and we will have to wait to see what the court rules and how it plays out.

 

 

 

Thanks Wess. You always explain things so patiently and clearly.

 

But you made one tiny mistake. I think LPE make boats - not boars. B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always? :lol:

 

Fixed it along with some other mess ups.. You may have noticed I am "typo challenged."

 

I am Wess. Its been 5 days since my last video post....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always? :lol:

 

Fixed it along with some other mess ups.. You may have noticed I am "typo challenged."

 

I am Wess. Its been 5 days since my last video post....

 

 

I am typo challenged too. if I notice my typos at all, it's usually after I have posted them.

 

I think the letters on my computer screen are getting smaller as I get older. :unsure:

 

I am Tiller Man. It has been 22 minutes since my last video post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered to wade through the maze of BS from you guys.

 

It seems to me the mesh of contracts was set up so every party had rights and privileges, and the intention was no-one could duck out without getting out of the game completely, but equally no-one could be pushed out. Thus every party had skin in the game and could commit for the long term, and there were a whole set of checks and balances (like the trademark ownership) that meant it was in everyone's interests to play nice, and no rational businessman or administrator would disturb things.

 

Why this went pear shaped is to me unclear, but once it did a mess was inevitable - and, I think, intended. But by removing the fundamental rule the ILCA further dismantled the checks and balances structure, making the mesh of contracts yet more unstable. Quite what will emerge depends on what survives of the contracts should your legal system ever cease delaying justice, but I should have thought it will be necessary to establish a new contractual basis if the class is to have a secure future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered to wade through the maze of BS from you guys.

 

It seems to me the mesh of contracts was set up so every party had rights and privileges, and the intention was no-one could duck out without getting out of the game completely, but equally no-one could be pushed out. Thus every party had skin in the game and could commit for the long term, and there were a whole set of checks and balances (like the trademark ownership) that meant it was in everyone's interests to play nice, and no rational businessman or administrator would disturb things.

 

Why this went pear shaped is to me unclear, but once it did a mess was inevitable - and, I think, intended. But by removing the fundamental rule the ILCA further dismantled the checks and balances structure, making the mesh of contracts yet more unstable. Quite what will emerge depends on what survives of the contracts should your legal system ever cease delaying justice, but I should have thought it will be necessary to establish a new contractual basis if the class is to have a secure future.

JimC,

 

I think most would agree most of your post but consider your comments re ILCA and the rule change.

 

That actually happened, not days, or weeks, or months or even a year, but rather years from when it went Pear shaped as you quite rightly say. Kirby sold to GS/PSA in 2008 (?) and the terminations/breaches/threats/royalty stops shortly thereafter by 2010/11 (?), all while the rule change was years from being approved by ISAF implemented. It seems a bit unfair to link the problem to the rule change. The rule change was rather a way to deal with the problem and get the class out of the middle and the dispute in court, no?

 

Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Sailing was first registered as a company in 2008.

 

Was Global Sailing created solely as an entity to own the design rights transferred from Bruce Kirby to the Spencer family?

 

Global Sailing now apparently owns a "security interest" in the Kirby sailboat design rights, whatever that means.

Does Global Sailing have any other business activities?

Do they design boats, build boats, sell boats or own any other companies that do useful stuff like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... get the class out of the middle and the dispute in court, no?

 

No. Its put the class slap bang in the middle when they weren't involved at all.

 

Once the class executive chose of their own free will to effectively take sides, jump right into the middle of the dispute and make a complicated situation even more complicated I don't think there was any choice but to involve them in the legal process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... get the class out of the middle and the dispute in court, no?

 

No. Its put the class slap bang in the middle when they weren't involved at all.

 

Once the class executive chose of their own free will to effectively take sides, jump right into the middle of the dispute and make a complicated situation even more complicated I don't think there was any choice but to involve them in the legal process.

 

OK, so we gotta agree to disagree. The class was going to get pulled into the legal process either just by different parties IMHO. This way we still have boats; the other way we didn't. I get that you seem to think ala Gantt we are eventually not going to have boats on this path citing the termination clauses but I would disagree again for the reasons noted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is clearly room for disagreement on whether the change to the Laser Class Fundamental Rule was a wise decision or not.

 

Geeze, I have even disagreed with myself on it. I voted against the change and then, in the light of subsequent events and more revelations on what had really been going on, I changed my mind. I now think the majority of Laser class members made the right choice in voting to make the change.

 

I would be interested to hear from anyone who thinks the rule change was the wrong choice, what they think the Laser class should have done instead. What would have been the course of events if Laser class members had voted down the rule change, for example?

 

And please don't give a vague answer like "get the parties together to resolve the issue." The officers of the class made several attempts to get the parties to the dispute to resolve their differences and they all failed. Tell us specifically what you would have done if you had been on the Laser World Council at the time when Global Sailing told the class that LP no longer had an agreement with BK or BKI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would have been the course of events if Laser class members had voted down the rule change, for example?

 

 

1.) There are no new Lasers in LPE territories that can be acquired by sailors that are class approved relative to the class' rule.

2.) Laser sailors find ways to acquire new class approved Lasers from sources outside of LPE territories.

3.) LPE is sued by Kirby and ILCA and ISAF are sued by LPE.

 

What I really don't understand from JimC and Gantt is how they rationalize the two views they hold. One the one hand they say its all about the termination provisions and that those termination provisions essentially creates a non-compete such that LPE can't ever make Laser without Kirby's approval. OK, while I actually don't think that is true, lets agree it anyway for the sake of their argument. The only reasonable conclusion then is that the class rule change had absolutely zero impact on the relationship between Kirby and LPE. You don't need a class rule to say LPE needs a contract with Kirby if your view is the termination provisions of the contracts say you need a contract with Kirby or you can't ever produce?!?

 

But then they turn around and say this whole mess was caused by and made worse by the class rule change and that put the class in the middle?1?

 

I would ask for JimC and Gantt to rationalize these two views as they seem inconsistent with one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression is the purpose of the three-way contracts was for BK to serve as a neutral arbiter between the class and the builders and to preserve the one-design integrity of the Laser class. Maybe that wasn't explicitly stated in the contracts, but that was the intent. That was a service only Bruce could provide. His heirs would not be able to do it, and Global Sailing sure as hell not.

 

So a few years back he decides to sell is contracts/design rights/whatever. I'm can't blame him for doing so as he was trying to do some estate planning. However, I think he should have foreseen that selling his interests to one of the builders would throw the whole three-way balance of power out of whack. Still, he made his choice.

 

Given the mess that was created and the refusal of the parties involved to reach a reasonable agreement, the rule change was the only way the ILCA could move forward. Communication of the rule change and the vote were poorly handled, but those are separate issues. Bruce appearing to buy his contracts back from Global Sailing had no effect on my opinion since the damage was already done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression is the purpose of the three-way contracts was for BK to serve as a neutral arbiter between the class and the builders and to preserve the one-design integrity of the Laser class. Maybe that wasn't explicitly stated in the contracts, but that was the intent. That was a service only Bruce could provide. His heirs would not be able to do it, and Global Sailing sure as hell not.

 

So a few years back he decides to sell is contracts/design rights/whatever. I'm can't blame him for doing so as he was trying to do some estate planning. However, I think he should have foreseen that selling his interests to one of the builders would throw the whole three-way balance of power out of whack. Still, he made his choice.

 

Given the mess that was created and the refusal of the parties involved to reach a reasonable agreement, the rule change was the only way the ILCA could move forward. Communication of the rule change and the vote were poorly handled, but those are separate issues. Bruce appearing to buy his contracts back from Global Sailing had no effect on my opinion since the damage was already done.

 

 

Great summary torrid. I don't think anyone could disagree with this. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, we have had Wess dancing on a pin and making no sense at all relating to his assertion that the contracts ended in 2025. Wess, its very clear that you were saying that the contracts expired, though more recently you have changed this to meaning that the first period ended.

 

Regarding the termination clauses, it's very clear what they mean for Laser Performance, they have agreed to not build Lasers if the contract is terminated for any reason. To answer idea put forward that Rastegar could just create another company, the ISAF agreement was definitely in force in 2011 (and probably still in force) means that the builders must be approved by Kirby, ILCA and ISAF to build approved Lasers to Kirby's design. This is also outlined in ISAF regulations which the ILCA supposedly adheres to.

 

It's very clear why Kirby is suing the ILCA. He specifically asks for the court to issue an order to the ILCA not to issue plaques to builders without a license, as per the builder's license agreement. Yes there are other reasons, however it's clear that he feels that there has been an attempt to steal his rights, and he wants them back. Wess appears to be taking the approach that all Kirby wants is his royalties.

 

So a few years back he decides to sell is contracts/design rights/whatever.

 

The "whatever" part is crucial.

 

Kirby did reach an agreement to sell his contracted rights with GS. Those rights were not delivered. If they were delivered, there would be a builder's contract between Global Sailing and Laser Performance. The ISAF Agreement would be amended to have replaced Kirby/BKI with GS. The action would be Global Sailing taking legal action against Laser Performance. That is not the case.

 

Courts in making determinations will ask: What was agreed to?

 

In relation to the parties Global Sailing and Laser Performance, there is some evidence that LP paid GS some royalties, though that was an interim measure while contractual negotiations took place. There was no replacement builders agreement.

 

Because there was no agreement reached to form a new builders agreement, the existing agreement between BKI and LP was not replaced.

 

So we have BK stepping back in.

 

So far, the court has accepted that the contract is real, that there is a case to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the termination clauses, it's very clear what they mean for Laser Performance, they have agreed to not build Lasers if the contract is terminated for any reason.

 

Gantt - I am going to ignore the lies in your last post and simply note that I really have really to been patient and tried to find any common ground with you. I honestly thought previously you were just joking or playing a part earlier in the thread but its becoming clear with your second DA thread and comment since coming back and you really do believe what you are saying. I recall the DT mess in CA and don't want to be part of anything similar so I think the most polite thing I can say is that we disagree and will have to wait for the court.

 

I am curious if you would answer one simple yes or no question:

 

* If you believe what you wrote above then the change to the class rule had no impact on the contractual rights or relationship between Kirby and LPE; yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do believe what I'm saying Wess.

 

What lies are you referring to Wess? As far as I'm concerned, there is no lie. Are you refering to you saying that the contracts expired in 2025?

 

Here's what Eyesailor said:

Even a dim witted casual reader like me who is not really following this thread on a daily basis understood what Wess and IPLore were saying. As I understood it, Wess was saying that after the contracts expired, the only incentive for a builder to renew the contract was the class rule.

 

Eyesailor believes you said that the contract expired. Are you saying Eyesailor is lying too?

 

Or was it something else?

 

Please, if you are going to accuse me of lying, be specific. I would like the opportunity of admitting a mistake I have made, and offering an apology.

 

I said that you appear to be taking the approach that all Kirby wants is his royalties. I'm basing this on you asking if Kirby needed to sue the ILCA to recover royalties. Was it that??

 

* If you believe what you wrote above then the change to the class rule had no impact on the contractual rights or relationship between Kirby and LPE; yes or no?

 

?????????

 

To answer your question, Kirby is suing the ILCA for future royalties in an indirect way. If successful in suing the ILCA, Kirby may get a court order that instructs the ILCA not to issue plaques to builders who are not, or no longer licensed by him. This will win back the rights that the fundamental rule change is being used to deny him. So yes, the rule change is having an impact, as it allowed the ILCA (in their minds) to issue plaques. If they didn't, then Kirby wouldn't have sued them for interfering with the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a simple yes or no Gantt.

 

* Did the change to the class rule impact on the contractual rights or relationship between Kirby and LPE; yes or no?

 

I really don't know how to make it more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. Yes.

 

 

I wrote " ....yes, the rule change is having an impact, as it allowed the ILCA (in their minds) to issue plaques."

 

I've answered this several times Wess. Also, for three years, I've been talking about the impacts the rule change has had.

 

 

I would appreciate an answer with regards to your accusation that I lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. Yes.

 

 

I wrote " ....yes, the rule change is having an impact, as it allowed the ILCA (in their minds) to issue plaques."

 

I've answered this several times Wess. Also, for three years, I've been talking about the impacts the rule change has had.

 

 

I would appreciate an answer with regards to your accusation that I lied.

Gannt,

 

Thank you. I understand your answer. I will not comment on your logic and simply decline to further engage in serious debate. Its pointless.

 

Let me use the most simple non-controversial example I can think of. With regards to Kirby's sale of BKI rights to GS/PSA you have repeatedly said (and again in 3978 ) that "Those rights were not delivered." Keep in mind the deal was done in 2008 and royalty were paid by LPE to GS till about 2011 when its alleged that GS/PSA informed LPE they would not allow LPE to renew. I don't know if I should call your comments here misleading, lies, delusional, trolling, misinformed, lacking in the most basic understanding relevant to the case, trolling, or absurdly funny so I will just stick to a polite.... "I disagree and decline to further engage in serious discussion with you."

 

Why?

 

Because you make similar statements many times in each post, each day, 1000s of times in this thread and frequently and repeatedly misrepresent what people say/said and appear to either lack or refuse to accept the most basic logic and widely held legal/contractual constructs as a basis for discussion. Its actually impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you and then you complain people make fun of you and troll you.

 

Whatever.

 

There is almost nothing that you have contributed to this thread as actual factual input even when folks tried to engage you on a factual (and for some time TM, IPL and SM123 all tried as did I) - rather than laugh at you - basis.

 

I am not interested in making fun of you. I'll just wish you the best and conclude that your views of this case are light years beyond...

 

 

Sincerely,

 

The toll under the bridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Wess. Somebody had to say it sooner or later.

 

There is no point in engaging him in serious discussion.

 

In fact it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with him.

 

It's pointless. I agree.

 

I do sometimes wonder why he is acting like this.

 

Is this just the way his mind works?

 

Or is he knowingly spewing misinformation in order to divert attention from the people who really caused this train wreck in Laser world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Wess. Somebody had to say it sooner or later.

 

There is no point in engaging him in serious discussion.

 

In fact it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with him.

 

It's pointless. I agree.

 

I do sometimes wonder why he is acting like this.

 

Is this just the way his mind works?

 

Or is he knowingly spewing misinformation in order to divert attention from the people who really caused this train wreck in Laser world?

I fell off the wagon, LOL.

 

I don't know which it is but agree he is...

 

 

Note the boot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best part was how many times we were all accused of being somebody else.

 

I think at various stages of this thread he has accused me of being at least 4 or 5 different people (including you, LOL).

 

He must have...

 

 

But I don't want to listen to this whine anymore!!

 

Its the dregs... there is your que for some old blue eyes says my wife...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Wess for your post.

 

I hear you Wess, you are clearly stating that you decline to engage in debate.

 

In the following paragraph (immediately after stating that you would not engage further), you make mention of the idea that the sale was not completed as if it is untrue. In 2001, when the rule change was proposed and in 2003, when Kirby started his legal action, the ISAF Agreement was in place. I do not believe that Global Sailing was ever made to be a party to the ISAF Agreement. For the rights to be transferred, this change was necessary.

 

I don't believe they even got that far, I believe that negotiations between LP and GS for a new builder's contract broke down.

 

All that Wess presented is that in his opinion that what I have said above is delusional, a lie and defies logic. Here's a suggestion Wess, try and back what you are saying with some facts. Because Wess when you don't, your arguments are weak and come across as unfounded opinions. Worse, you are prone to making mistakes, as you have plainly did when you thought the contracts expire in 2025.

 

Without dealing with previous inaccurate statements, you go on to introduce new ideas, like "Keep in mind the deal was done in 2008 and royalty were paid by LPE to GS till about 2011 when its alleged that GS/PSA informed LPE they would not allow LPE to renew." Based on what? Both Kirby and LP put forward that royalties stopped at an earlier date. You are saying that it is alleged that GS/PSA did not allow LPE to renew???? Really? Was that actually said in the counterclaim or is that your inaccurate version of it?

 

The last few pages have shown that I have attempted to engage with you Wess. Specifically about your stating that the contracts expire in 2025. What I got back was creative spin that you were talking about the initial term ending, and no coherent facts about Laser Performance's agreement to not manufacture Lasers once the contract terminates for any reason.

 

Again, you failed to demonstrate how I have lied in any meaningful way, though we can all see you are are happy to make the accusation again. And again.

 

In signing off, you claim to be the toll under the bridge. Assuming you did not mean troll, these days tolls do far better when placed on top of the bridge.

 

I'm good to keep arguing each time anyone posts here ideas like IPLore's recent idea (July 2016) that the contracts expire in 2025. Or Wess's idea (2013) that it's Kirby's fault that Lasers are expensive (specifically spare parts).

 

I'm happy to be trolled, as it keeps me motivated to check and recheck facts and repost them here.

 

I'm very happy to reveal false accusations or statements for what they are: false.

 

I'm more happy to discuss this case as it develops, and look at some of the details in great focus, in particular the ILCA's fundamental rule change, and whether or not it was proposed in contradiction to ISAF regulations. (At this point, I believe it was).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry TM, but wife is laughing while reading this and wants it played.

 

Says it will be a very good year when the court kicks the free loading bums out...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toll, Troll, Ganntt, canntt understand.

 

I got typo issues its true.

 

But my gosh you do...

 

 

without ever posting a shed of anything close to reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just gets worse, doesn't he?

 

That last post was a classic Ganttism. Full of made-up "facts", distortions of the truth and the usual paranoid fantasies.

 

Do NOT take the bait.

Do NOT respond to the troll.

 

How does he keep up this crazy performance for so many years?

 

I am beginning to wonder if someone is paying him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just gets worse, doesn't he?

 

That last post was a classic Ganttism. Full of made-up "facts", distortions of the truth and the usual paranoid fantasies.

 

Do NOT take the bait.

 

Do NOT respond to the troll.

 

How does he keep up this crazy performance for so many years?

 

I am beginning to wonder if someone is paying him.

But we are only nine posts from a new page and even the dearly departed pouting sourpuss canntt stop us now that he has already purged. Yea that will get his hackles up but I miss him and he really cares about the class and grass root sailors even if he does perhaps sniff too much of the resin and carry a huge chip on his shoulder. But he actually does stuff like run regattas and I like that...

 

Anyway, please do...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Canntt. We see you there and want another page.

 

Won't you please tell me more...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure.

 

Gouvernail's heart is in the right place and he has done more for the Laser class in his time than almost anyone else on the planet.

 

Gantt is just a bundle of negative energy.

 

I am sure I lose a few million brain cells every time I try to make sense of one of his posts.

 

I refuse to even try to follow his crazy train of thought any more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the people who really caused this train wreck in Laser world?

 

Let's draw up a list and compare facts.

 

I'd nominate Farzad Rastegar.

I can see that Tiller man thinks it is Chris Spencer.

My guess is that Wess thinks it is Bruce Kirby.

 

Note that contested accusations are not facts: For example: "Global sailing retains a security interest in BKI". An example of an uncontested fact is: "Bruce Kirby agreed to sell Global Sailing his design rights" and "Farzad Rastegar initially refused to build boats for the ISAF youth worlds".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites