bill4

New Olympic Dinghy Selection

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, RobbieB said:

It will be interesting to hear the results of the big pow wow later this week between all the laser builders, ILCA and WS sitting at one table.

To me the easiest path is to allow for a new builder in North America.  If Europe is happy with LP and they agree to allow for factory inspections and NOT to try and take over the class organization I'd say move forward and if LP gives Europe the same wonderful service they have for NA then let the folks over there deal with it at that time.

it's not like LP would be giving up much, as little as they've been servicing NA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

it's not like LP would be giving up much, as little as they've been servicing NA

Wondering where the brand new Lasers in South America, Asia, Middle East, Caribbean and Africa come from. LP will still be able to sell there under Frand, though they may have some local competition.

Also, are there really no less than 9 year old boats in North America?

laser clinic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gantt said:

Also, are there really no less than 9 year old boats in North America?

there are new boats here... the problem is that dealers have to work their asses off to get any product from LP. And, if I remember correctly, the dealers have to order any stock months and months ahead of getting it, and pay for all of it up front. Not a great situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 8:00 AM, JimC said:

But look where that leaves you. It means the only people who are prepared to serve will be those with rhinoceros hides and probably massive egos who are able to let the abuse wash over them. Are you sure this is a desirable trend for competent administration? 

On the subject of secret votes by committees. 

Thank you, I am not sure I have a rhinoceros hide or a massive ego, yet I have at times been willing to serve and have my comments and votes on the public record. I haven't found abuse much of a problem. More the sheer boredom of sitting on committees late into the evening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JulianB said:

   From my POV we are being Opied

I'm sure you know what you mean by that but I'm not certain the rest of us do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

I'm sure you know what you mean by that but I'm not certain the rest of us do?

 I think Julian's suggesting that the Laser is moving towards the build model used in the Optimist Class. There are quite a few manufacturers but they are not particularly cheap. It's not a commodity product and so people don't generally choose on marginal price differences, more on reputation (which preserves resale value, offsetting the purchase price) and finish, results achieved and so on.

Cheers,

              W.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt, Harry has just done Antigua to Bermuda with Witty on Scallywag, having lots of fun, but back to the books this week in Sydney.    I'm sure he will be back in 18teens (ASKO) next year.    12ves, crazy boats, I never managed to master one, but 1 up sailing 49ers and 29erC's,  heaven on a stick, even in 10 knts, the acceleration is wild, speed is quite limited, too much sail.

IB's 7% rule, for us to commercialise a 49er on foils, my guess is it would be a $10k add on.    We would have to reduce the mast height, make the sail heavier also and light air performance would suffer badly.    Sure you can pop up at 6 knts, but top speed tends to be 3 times take-off speed unless you spend even more on the package, so your $10k just increased.    Just look at the cost of NACRA foils if you need any proof.     And for what, to do the same speed your already doing at the top end.    At the lower end, you will be "stuck in the water".     Absolutely its do-able, its been done, and I intend to play around with the top end, so by that, I intend to focus on the 30knt plus area, which means coming out of the water at 12-13 knts, and optimising the boat around that, while trying not to cruel the lower end speeds.

Multiple sails and smaller sails,  had this conversation a few days ago, top speed of a 29er is higher than that of a 49er, and that's a empirical fact!   Just about every course record in the 18teens on Syd Harbour going back 200 years are all small rigs.   Its all about wind-age and manageability.   Also possibly terror factor.    Not sure we will ever get "non-antipodeans" to down size there sails.

Staying with sail size, when Laser say it's 7.1m/sq that's the triangle, head/clew/tack.    If you measure the actual area is 0.4 - 0.5 m/sq more at-least, across all 3 sails.The 4.7 is well over 5m/sq really. I do have the numbers somewhere but I am in Milan, go to HK tomorrow and up to race SirJJ in China.     If I find them I will share them (the areas).

150d and TGi, yep it was a shock to us also, we did not think they got anywhere near that, but this was a test in Singapore.    You just wont see this in UK or NZ or most places even in SYD, you need to be between the 2 tropics, right time of the year, etc etc.   Re plugging the top, as you optimise the topmast diameter the actual volume you capture is quite small to the point that its marginal whether you can get it to float anyway.     I dose absolutely nothing WRT stopping the boat inverting.   Far far better off getting 2 bits of 5mm EVA and developing a "sock" to go over the top of the mast, pinned out to the batten end.    That will stop inversion in all but the most extreme cases and you can make it look good and it costs very little and it wont affect the performance of the top of the sail.    Could even help it.

The other big thing that most people are missing is alloy fatigues, almost regardless of how much (as in little) you bend it.   Carbon you need to go beyond its elastic limit, which is just under 1%, but if you stay under 1% its life is almost indefinite.    Add to that a square head, and mast bend drops from about 5-6%, to about 1.5-2%, so a Std laser mast is about 5.7m, at 5% its bending 280-300mm of bend, if you go square-head, then that bend will drop to 100-120mm.    Add to that the diameter of the carbon ring is 20-30mm less than its alloy counterpart from the GN upwards and this is a sq-law so the elongation is down in some cases to under 1/10th of its alloy counterpart.

Talking about 1/10th, that's about how many replacement sections we ended up selling after the switch to Carbon/square-head (49ers) rigs 8-9 years ago.

By that I mean we are down to about 1/10th of what we used to sell, (excluding masts for new boats,) and sales of boats have just about doubled.

I do sit here and watch the increase in mid mast sales (over and above boats sales) as the kid and there coaches drive the boats harder and harder, the problem is the kids are evolving, this new generation of teenagers don't have the concept of "backing off" there is no "off-button"!    They have toys that remain good fun to go blasting in even in 25-30 knts, but most of the damage happens at 10-12 knts (just above design-wind).   If we don't evolve with them, we loose them.

I could go on re square-heads, I initially thought they where a fad,  How wrong was I !!!

       jB

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JulianB said:

  Not sure we will ever get "non-antipodeans" to down size there sails.

Its interesting that it seems to be a thing in the amateur Aero fleet, at least round where I am, to own two rigs and choose which one on the morning of an event. Plays bloody havoc with long club series scoring and results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People care more about an enjoyable race on the day than long club series and their results.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'd love your take on the current state of IP in boat design and manufacturing.  Does a design patent have much value to you and under what nations laws or treaties?

What other ways exist currently to protect your/ your commercial partners' investments in a new design? 

Would writing an effective, copyrighted construction manual give you any kind of protection?  What about just an aggressive licensing program?

or do you crazy aussies just not give a shit.  "She'll be right"

lol

Greetings

I have queried two, maybe three lawyers on the Laser/ILCA issues. The lawyers were based in different countries/jurisdictions to check if there were variances in law and interpretation. Both were copyright/patent/trademark specialists. One was intimately familiar with the Laser/ILCA situation and had been following the issue for years, and was not surprised to see this particular pot boil over. The other was from outside sailing and responded to a series of written questions.

The key takeouts were (sorry I am going off memory and a few notes):

1. You can't claim copyright a boat design. Copyright law varies tremendously from country to country - UK law is different from Europe. In some countries you can start producing "knock-offs" as soon the first 3D architecture  is publicly viewed, at the other extreme in others you have to wait three months.

2. You can patent any part of a boat that you have designed and which is unique (and not an obvious development).

3. Trademark (symbol and words) are much more powerful and can be enforced, in any country for which you have the trademark. LP seem to be in a strong position on this (which ILCA seem to have conceded). LP sells several other classes with Laser in their title.

4. The question was then raised as to whether a company like LP could continue to build boats from the Laser tooling (except for any part that were covered by  patents by others) and sell those as Lasers, for which they held the trademark rights (or a licence for use). It seemed that was possible, however unless they had sign-off from the appropriate bodies they couldn't sell these as ILCA/Lasers  ie the buyer had to clearly understand that they could not turn up at an ILCA event and try to claim they had a legal ILCA/Laser. LP did go down the path of selling their stock of boats as Club Lasers - but they were not street-legal ILCA/Lasers. Passing off is illegal. The Club Lasers could not carry ILCA/Laser plaques or an imitation. The customer clearly has to know what they are buying.

5. The comment was made that maybe ILCA's Construction Manual was not as strong in copyright as ILCA seemed to think.

6. ILCA could do what they are doing which is to bring in new builders in LP territories, and could licence these builders who could in turn get building plaques subject to point 7.

7. ILCA has to make any changes to the Constitution and Rules within the constraints of the two documents. The Constitution (Clause 17c) requires a two thirds majority by a postal ballot within a six month time limit. ILCA's members are 14,000 so if they issues a ballot they could move as soon as they had 9240 ballots returned in favour of the changes. ILCA may be able to enact changes without requiring a formal membership vote using the powers it has in the World Council. Interestingly under Clause 15 ILCA has an "Advisory Council, comprising The President and Vice-President and two persons nominated by the Trademark owners (LP), but PSA and PSJ in Oceania, Japan and Korea.

There is obviously a lot of shadow boxing that can be done around this issue. It just remains to be seen what the various parties do and the direction of travel, and as usual there will be as many legal opinions as there are lawyers.

The usual process is for the class officers to work out what they want to do, and then get legal advice as to how they can achieve it.

World Sailing requires Olympic Contracts to be agreed by August 1, 2019 - the impact of that deadline on the situation and party's options remains to be seen. It would seem to preclude a protracted legal battle.

RG

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are theoretically contractual restrictions on ex Laser builders continuing to build boats from the moulds. Whether those would stand up in court and whether anyone would have the money to enforce them is quite another matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one clear thing is this mess going back ten years is LP owns the Laser trademark in its territories.  To my non-lawyer mind, that is legally more significant than any of the convoluted contracts involving five different parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gantt said:

Wondering where the brand new Lasers in South America, Asia, Middle East, Caribbean and Africa come from. LP will still be able to sell there under Frand,

FRAND is for licensing the IP, not distributing the boats.  There's nothing in the guideline that says distribution needs to be open unless I'm totally misreading it.  Which is always possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

FRAND is for licensing the IP, not distributing the boats.  There's nothing in the guideline that says distribution needs to be open unless I'm totally misreading it.  Which is always possible. 

I've worked with FRAND policies in European context. A regional monopoly through IP licensing -- such as what I understand the Laser trademark has today -- isn't FRAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martin.langhoff said:

I've worked with FRAND policies in European context. A regional monopoly through IP licensing -- such as what I understand the Laser trademark has today -- isn't FRAND.

What does the WS policy say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

What does the WS policy say?

Why would I know? Do you know? Tell us.

If WS says "we have to do FRAND because EU says so", it's relevant to know what FRAND means in EU terms. If WS mangled it, well

Edit: maybe I should have added "FRAND not in boats related topics, but in IP and tech manufacturing" in my original post. Still, the FRAND policy we dealt with applied across industries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU requiring FRAND for boats has to be a joke, surely Mercedes Benz does not have to allow anyone else to build cars to their design, no, they are alowed to have a monopoly on all Mercedes branded cars. Same with all the other car brands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Here you go.    I can't figure it out.

the only reference to FRAND  is here in article 4.2. So basically there is no obbligation to have multiple builders per se. there has to be a FRAND scheme to allow for potential substitute manufacturers.

"Through the contract, World Sailing is committed to complying with its obligations under all applicable antitrust and competition laws.  Manufacturers and suppliers agree that if World Sailing considers that they have consistently breached contractual quality and service levels (or a breach is not remedied within 30 days of direction to do so) then they can be required to license all necessary rights to a third party selected by World Sailing through objective criteria.  This licence will be on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to enable the new third party to manufacture and supply the Class equipment to customers as an alternative source of supply to the Class supplier.   Any dispute over this licensing is referred to an independently appointed expert for determination. "

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If (*if*) I understand this right its because WS has a monopoly on deciding which boats are used for the Olympics they have to be seen as providing a fair go for anyone who wants to to supply boats. I gain the impression that seeing as Devoti has sicced the European Commission on them WS are trying to appear whiter than white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU do not require FRAND for boats.  

WS have to comply with anti-competition law.  That means, rather than selecting a SMOD class indefinitely for the Olympics they need to re-evaluate very 8 years. The evaluation is effectively a competition, so WS comply with the law.

Seperately, WS have decided (is it absolutely confirmed?) that Olympic classes should be FRAND. They were not forced to do this, but presumably they see it as a belts and braces approach to complying with anti-trust law.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 17mika said:

the only reference to FRAND  is here in article 4.2. So basically there is no obbligation to have multiple builders per se. there has to be a FRAND scheme to allow for potential substitute manufacturers.

"Through the contract, World Sailing is committed to complying with its obligations under all applicable antitrust and competition laws.  Manufacturers and suppliers agree that if World Sailing considers that they have consistently breached contractual quality and service levels (or a breach is not remedied within 30 days of direction to do so) then they can be required to license all necessary rights to a third party selected by World Sailing through objective criteria.  This licence will be on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to enable the new third party to manufacture and supply the Class equipment to customers as an alternative source of supply to the Class supplier.   Any dispute over this licensing is referred to an independently appointed expert for determination. "

Right. There's not much concrete, other than circular statements on how it'll all prevent or limit the risk of monopolies -- 2.4, 3.1.2. In addition, it turns out to be that the effective policy is: if you are a successful monopoly (ie: there's lasers everywhere! access!) then more power to you. That's exactly how monopolies work unless regulated.

I am not a lawyer and I'm not your lawyer, but I'd expect a more reasonable RAND policy to say

- for a new class where we drive development -- ie N17 -- we'll gloss over the fact that it's a monopoly, as the builder invested significantly, and it's a small market play (so not really a monopoly)

- for a well established class (age, global numbers/presence) the development investment risk is more than amortized, we'll want to treat your craft as generic, and we'll push you hard to license FRAND, where FRAND means you charge well established fees (ramp up + yearly + per unit or similar), and you allow more than one mfg to service any given market. I don't know where the thresholds should be, other than that the Laser clearly meets them :-) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I read it is "if you want to be an Olympic class you have to sign an agreement to let us appoint other builders if you stuff up" .

An interesting question is whether the much publicised woes of Laser supply in North America would be sufficient to trigger that contract term.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil S said:

The EU requiring FRAND for boats has to be a joke, surely Mercedes Benz does not have to allow anyone else to build cars to their design, no, they are alowed to have a monopoly on all Mercedes branded cars. Same with all the other car brands.

Phil you are misunderstanding the legal framework here.

The reason all IOC sanctioned sports are terrified right now is that they have a government-granted monopoly, which is what the EU is going after.  Sort of like the way that government bodies are required to get multiple bids when they do business and not favor anyone.

Mercedes Benz has no such issues.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

FRAND is for licensing the IP, not distributing the boats.  There's nothing in the guideline that says distribution needs to be open unless I'm totally misreading it.  Which is always possible. 

In the case of the current Laser contracts, licensing the building of the boats is based on limited distribution. World Sailing are clearly thinking beyond IP when talking about fairness:
 

Quote

Re-evaluations of Equipment for Olympic Events

23.6.1 In addition to the review processes in Regulation 23.1, the Board shall carry out reevaluations of the equipment selected for Olympic Events. The purpose of reevaluation under this Regulation is to ensure that:

(a) competing equipment and competing manufacturers of existing equipment can bid to be selected for Olympic Events and therefore access the market on a fair and objective basis;

(b) reduce the risk of monopolies;

(c) manufacturers do not become complacent, remain price-competitive, produce high-quality equipment, and do not abuse their market positions.

Then:

Quote

2.5.1 Once equipment is selected for an Olympic Event, there is a mandatory regular review of its selection. This ensures that, even though the original selection decision was based on an open and fair evaluation, a subsequent exclusivity situation if only one supplier is selected is not permitted to continue without review. These reviews permit competing equipment and competing manufacturers of existing equipment to bid to access the market on a fair and objective basis. This reduces risk of monopolies and ensures existing manufacturers do not become complacent or abuse their position.

Note: the fact that an evaluation results in the grant of the exclusive right to supply equipment for a given event organised by World Sailing to one supplier (e.g. where the selected equipment may only lawfully be manufactured by one supplier) is not, in itself, incompatible with the competition rules.

2.5.2 Via its contracts with Olympic Classes and their manufacturers, World Sailing monitors production quality and prices of manufacturers, in particular sole manufacturers, to ensure that the supplier(s) is satisfying demand at acceptable quality and service levels. In the event of a breach of the contracts (e.g. consistent failure by the supplier to maintain acceptable quality and service levels), World Sailing has the right to require re-tendering for the production of equipment of the Class.

Also relevant are the requirements for the agreement with the class associations and the manufacturers where applicable.

What is important is the WS's (and ILCA's) interpretations of what Frand is.

For example, the ILCA said:

Quote

Q: You wrote that ILCA is seeking new builders. How many new builders will there be? 

A: We’re not seeking a specific number of new builders.  What we are seeking is a worldwide network of existing and new builders that are selected on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) basis in accordance with World Sailing’s strict equipment policies.  ILCA is currently working with our existing builders and World Sailing to establish the details of the criteria by which we name new builders.

We can get the direction and that it is still a work in progress from reading the World Sailing Olympic Equipment Strategy (published Nov 2018), which concludes:

Quote

If World Sailing follows the above roadmap, it will yield an Olympic Equipment slate ahead of Paris 2024 in which all the equipment is accessible to any qualified interested party in FRAND terms from 2022.

From a technical point of view, once the FRAND terms are available, it will require a new interested party approximately one year for the least complex manufacturing classes and potentially up to 2 years for the complex manufacturing classes to be able to manufacture the equipment. This means that between 2023 and 2024 all Olympic Classes could have multiple competing manufacturers.

If WS have released more details on Frand (and they may have), I have yet to read them.

I hope that sheds a little light onto Frand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, richardgladwell said:

Greetings

I have queried two, maybe three lawyers on the Laser/ILCA issues. The lawyers were based in different countries/jurisdictions to check if there were variances in law and interpretation. Both were copyright/patent/trademark specialists. One was intimately familiar with the Laser/ILCA situation and had been following the issue for years, and was not surprised to see this particular pot boil over. The other was from outside sailing and responded to a series of written questions.

The key takeouts were (sorry I am going off memory and a few notes):

1. You can't claim copyright a boat design. Copyright law varies tremendously from country to country - UK law is different from Europe. In some countries you can start producing "knock-offs" as soon the first 3D architecture  is publicly viewed, at the other extreme in others you have to wait three months.

While quite correct in talking about copyright law, copyright is confusingly a term used in the agreements which define its meaning within the contracts. So when the parties to the contracts talk about copyright in terms of the construction manual, they are more often referring to the agreements' meaning. This has been subjected to 6 years debate and much confusion. 

2. You can patent any part of a boat that you have designed and which is unique (and not an obvious development).

World Sailing require agreements for a class to be international. It is these agreements which drive the relationships, without which WS can withdraw their approval.

3. Trademark (symbol and words) are much more powerful and can be enforced, in any country for which you have the trademark. LP seem to be in a strong position on this (which ILCA seem to have conceded). LP sells several other classes with Laser in their title.

Agreed. Which is what is driving the name change. If the Laser is renamed (which must be agreed on by the ILCA membership), then LP may lose considerable value in their brand.

4. The question was then raised as to whether a company like LP could continue to build boats from the Laser tooling (except for any part that were covered by  patents by others) and sell those as Lasers, for which they held the trademark rights (or a licence for use). It seemed that was possible, however unless they had sign-off from the appropriate bodies they couldn't sell these as ILCA/Lasers  ie the buyer had to clearly understand that they could not turn up at an ILCA event and try to claim they had a legal ILCA/Laser. LP did go down the path of selling their stock of boats as Club Lasers - but they were not street-legal ILCA/Lasers. Passing off is illegal. The Club Lasers could not carry ILCA/Laser plaques or an imitation. The customer clearly has to know what they are buying.

The licence to build the Kirby design comes from the IYRU agreement and builder's agreement. The license to apply the trademark is separate. Again, this has been the subject of spirited debate for several years. The ILCA issue the plaques on behalf of WS.

5. The comment was made that maybe ILCA's Construction Manual was not as strong in copyright as ILCA seemed to think.

The strength comes from WS, and the agreements. In the end, if WS and ILCA are not satisfied that Kirby's construction manual is followed, they won't issue plaques.

6. ILCA could do what they are doing which is to bring in new builders in LP territories, and could licence these builders who could in turn get building plaques subject to point 7.

Yes, however need to observe trademark law, hence proposing a new name. 

7. ILCA has to make any changes to the Constitution and Rules within the constraints of the two documents. The Constitution (Clause 17c) requires a two thirds majority by a postal ballot within a six month time limit. ILCA's members are 14,000 so if they issues a ballot they could move as soon as they had 9240 ballots returned in favour of the changes. ILCA may be able to enact changes without requiring a formal membership vote using the powers it has in the World Council. Interestingly under Clause 15 ILCA has an "Advisory Council, comprising The President and Vice-President and two persons nominated by the Trademark owners (LP), but PSA and PSJ in Oceania, Japan and Korea.

Without checking, I think the change is passed if 2/3 of votes cast are in favor, not 2/3 of the entire membership. LP no longer has a member on the advisory committee (the website is out of date. (Also, Bob Crane resigned from LP recently). PSJ filled the gap.

There is obviously a lot of shadow boxing that can be done around this issue. It just remains to be seen what the various parties do and the direction of travel, and as usual there will be as many legal opinions as there are lawyers.

The usual process is for the class officers to work out what they want to do, and then get legal advice as to how they can achieve it.

World Sailing requires Olympic Contracts to be agreed by August 1, 2019 - the impact of that deadline on the situation and party's options remains to be seen. It would seem to preclude a protracted legal battle.

RG

PS: I admire your restraint in not responding to Mr Clean referring to you as "you Aussies". ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Gantt said:

 

#1 (first sentence) in the Gladwell document is incorrect ~ false !

Matters of building (the Kirby dinghy) relate to Copyright and Design law ~ seperate from Patent Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JimC said:

The way I read it is "if you want to be an Olympic class you have to sign an agreement to let us appoint other builders if you stuff up" .

An interesting question is whether the much publicised woes of Laser supply in North America would be sufficient to trigger that contract term.

I read it the same and imo that's not frand, it's not anti-monopoly. There is nothing in the policy, as written, that will do much re monopolies.

The usual strategy is what I described. Small niche plays get to hold a tiny monopoly, but actually dominant plays are forced to license it if they want to keep the privilege of being the blessed product. I've seen this in a few segments, mostly electronics and software. The owner of the IP gets a more meagre but safer earnings from licensing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Southern Cross said:

#1 (first sentence) in the Gladwell document is incorrect ~ false !

Maters of building (the Kirby dinghy) relate to Copyright and Design law ~ seperate from Patent Law.

Not exactly sure what you are disagreeing to Southern Cross.

What I'm talking about is the usage of the term "copyright" in the IYRU agreement, and that what is agreed is different to copyright law.

For example:

1668721535_CopyrightbelongstoKirby.png.ad015c8bbe080e1f663ed494e5a65748.png

and here, where the right to amend and revise is referenced:

1376946646_ConstructionManual.png.a3718a8763b11599406266e5d448c208.png

These are clauses agreed to. It is very clear that over the years some of the parties when loosely saying "copyright", are referring to their contracted rights, rather than copyright law.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB,

80 kgs less weight is significant in the 49er/29er. Acceleration is already pretty wild in modern skiffs. (Love the old pics of water skiing behind an 18 footer, so it is not new.) Amazing speed difference in a blow uphill with smaller rigs - seen it with number 3 rig vs number 1 rig on skiffs... then downhill it changes. (Gusty, variable winds on small lakes lead to different rig choices). Not surprised that the 29er is faster. Remember when Bruce Farr entered a one man 12 footer in the Q class? They changed the rules so you had to have two people in the Q - and the 3.7 was born. I'd love to see the Musto / RS900 or similar in the Olympics one day. (Though still like the Finn, go figure.) Maybe the pathway should be to have more than 10 classes... might fix a few 'problems'. 

Foiling versus not is makes it more technical from an equipment point of view and while it is way more expensive now, I expect that to drop over time. The sailing aspect makes foiling more mental and less physical, especially in relation to waves. Kind of like having suspension in a car - and it literally is suspension! (Until you hit the back of the wave when foiling - then it gets real physical. Haven't foiled myself, but have been one of two fallen off the back of a boat due to extreme acceleration. Is on the bucket list).

Yeah, the tropics are a big issue in electronics too. All the solutions allowing it to breathe are good - or it starts to breath at the weakest point on its own. Still getting over the 150C. (Maybe it can be used to heat lunch. Good temperature to slow roast a potato? New product idea, the Bethwaite solar cooker!)

Amazing difference in bend for square heads, masts lasting longer is good. Makes sense to me. Hooking the leach is bad news, will change trim techniques for the ILCA dinghy / Laser when introduced. (Soon, I hope)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gantt said:

Not exactly sure what you are disagreeing to Southern Cross.

What I'm talking about is the usage of the term "copyright" in the IYRU agreement, and that what is agreed is different to copyright law.

For example:

1668721535_CopyrightbelongstoKirby.png.ad015c8bbe080e1f663ed494e5a65748.png

and here, where the right to amend and revise is referenced:

1376946646_ConstructionManual.png.a3718a8763b11599406266e5d448c208.png

These are clauses agreed to. It is very clear that over the years some of the parties when loosely saying "copyright", are referring to their contracted rights, rather than copyright law.

 

 

Gladwell wrote you can’t claim copyright (in) a boat design... 

The above statement is false.

I agree with Gladwell in that the law on Copyright (and Design)  does vary greatly from one country to another ~ further Copyright protection is often a moving target depending on the reasoning of the legal fraternity, the Copyright rules (law) today will most likely (hopefully) align with Copyright protection for Architects (of buildings) in the future. How the Law can / has distinguish between the work of an Architect and a Naval Architect is beyond me. 

Copyright in the build Manual I think was probably formulated to deal with the time limits / constraints with the protection of articles that have a 3 dimensional form ~ in many countries, but not all.

Often the correct usage of specific words in this thread are way of the mark.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gantt said:

PS: I admire your restraint in not responding to Mr Clean referring to you as "you Aussies". ;) 

My question was not for Richard, it was for Julian (and yes I consider him Aussie 'cause he doesn't sound like the 'Beached As' whale.

If I wanted to know what the law said, the last person I would ever ask is a journalist. 

Actually, scratch that.  1. Engineer, 2. Journalist, 3. International Juror/Umpire

I am very curious what boat designers and builders are doing to protect their IP in non-US areas of the world and JB has some insight there.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Gantt said:

 

some of the parties when loosely saying "copyright", are referring to their contracted rights, rather than copyright law.

 

 

There is not a judge or lawyer in the english speaking world that would come to that conclusion, ever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There is not a judge or lawyer in the english speaking world that would come to that conclusion, ever.

The statements were made outside of a court, outside of an agreement, and widely reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gantt said:

The statements were made outside of a court, outside of an agreement, and widely reported.

Oh, I thought you referenced the words 'Copyright' in the agreement, not a conversation.  Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Southern Cross said:

Gladwell wrote you can’t claim copyright (in) a boat design... 

The above statement is false.

I agree with Gladwell in that the law on Copyright (and Design)  does vary greatly from one country to another ~ further Copyright protection is often a moving target depending on the reasoning of the legal fraternity, the Copyright rules (law) today will most likely (hopefully) align with Copyright protection for Architects (of buildings) in the future. How the Law can / has distinguish between the work of an Architect and a Naval Architect is beyond me. 

Copyright in the build Manual I think was probably formulated to deal with the time limits / constraints with the protection of articles that have a 3 dimensional form ~ in many countries, but not all.

Often the correct usage of specific words in this thread are way of the mark.

Got ya. Agreed about the usage of words, what often is more important is the writer's intention. (That is until it comes to contracts.)

Yes, there are differences (I've published in 14 languages, and counting) and I'm a bit perplexed as you are about the copyright (law) statements made. 

Nah, the IYRU agreement was intended for the whole world, and in the end, what WS decides is what is important. The rest is just noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh, I thought you referenced the words 'Copyright' in the agreement, not a conversation.  Carry on.

Yes, you are quite right, I did. Immediately after saying:

Quote

So when the parties to the contracts talk about copyright in terms of the construction manual, they are more often referring to the agreements' meaning. 

I could have been more precise. I intended to mean all of the rights relating to the copyrighted items. For example: the right to change the content of the CM.

Copyright law pretty much everywhere can be contracted out of, so generally the application of copyright law is subject to any applicable contracts. But you will already know that.

PS: I'm making an effort to improve my writing here because I don't want to upset you Mr Clean. No more voice to text then edit in the dead of night! :) (Sorry, I'm being an apologist again.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

.....................................

I am very curious what boat designers and builders are doing to protect their IP in non-US areas of the world and JB has some insight there.  

 

Burge v Swarbrick ? certainly didn't help designers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Here you go.    I can't figure it out.

I think you will find that multi-page document is intended mainly for EU eyes.

From what I have been able to research WS talks a lot about FRAND without defining what it actually means.

Except i am sure I am sure I read somewhere in the WS FRAND writings that "it is expected that there will be multiple licenced builders in the same territory".

To me that sums it up, provided there is also competitive pricing. Having multiple builders in the same territory for an Olympic class may not be commercially practical - but that is not really a concern of WS or the EU.

In a mature competitive market  for Olympic classes, it usually settles down to be like the Finn class with a dominant single builder like Devoti. 

But then WS try and claim that the Finn class has an Olympic event monopoly, and flick around the argument that Devoti has a monopoly in that monopoly.

From what I have been told by the lawyers a designer can't protect their design by copyright, however they can protect a class (Olympic or otherwise) by obtaining a trademark on the class symbol and words and registering that trademark in the territories they wish. 

RG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard, your last sentence is misguided nonsense ~ the lawyers your talking with I would distance myself from !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Flags said:

Burge v Swarbrick ? certainly didn't help designers

for pocket change Swarbrick could have secured rights to his design in Australia but he didnt hence the result

A previous court case said boats are not art so not automatically  protected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gantt said:

Remember when Bruce Farr entered a one man 12 footer in the Q class? 

No one does; he never actually did it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Southern Cross said:

Richard, your last sentence is misguided nonsense ~ the lawyers your talking with I would distance myself from !

The lawyers didn't play judge on the outcome. However their advice was clear that in this situation enforcement of trademark was a lot stronger than copyright on a construction manual. LP has been very clever in the way they have blotted up the trademark rights in various territories (claiming 85% of the sailing world) and are now in a strong position. Plus they appear to  have EurILCA support.

Interestingly "Lasers" are still sailing in the various international championships using the Sunburst insignia. I just think we all have to wait and see how all this plays out over the next couple on months, and then see what WS does come August 1.

ILCA have to get more builders signed by August 1.

LP supplied Lasers are being used at the Youth Worlds in Poland in July. RS:X sailors have to bring their own gear as NeilPryde are apparently not supplying the RS;X gear.

RG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ILCA can still run "Laser" events until the trademark agreement expires

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curious said:

No one does; he never actually did it.

I admit I didn't see it myself. Possibly an urban legend. Recall where I was told and when. From memory, the prototype had a jib, and Farr was a teenager. I will try to confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this:

Quote

Designed by Bruce Farr in 1970 as a single-handled trapeze yacht that could then fit into the Q-Class 12ft restrictions, it quickly established itself as a class in its own right. 

Source = https://www.3-7class.org.nz/a-fascinating-hobby.html

Image result for original bruce farr design "3.7"

Also found this:

Quote

I think the original 3.7 was raced as a 12 foot skiff. Unfortunately, it beat the other 12 foot skiffs, so they banned it and introduced a rule to have a minimum of two people in the 12 footers. As I understand it this left Farr and his boat high and dry and this is how the class got started as a one design hull.

 

I think I'll stop looking now. :) 

But will post if someone who raced back then comes back to me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does ILCA have control / management over building rights to the Laser ?  seperate to the issuing plaques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this:

Quote

Bruce Farr designed this boat when he was 16 years old to compete against 12 footers (Q Class). Like most Farr designs, it was real fast, so of course, they threw him out.

Source = https://www.sail-world.com/NZ/YNZ-class-of-the-month-37-by-Bruce-Farr/-24804?source=google

...but the original source was likely to be John Elliot... an ex 3.7 National champ. Ex Contender sailor. (RG, you'll like that).

Still will wait to hear from someone who will know and will post if they come back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Southern Cross said:

Does ILCA have control / management over building rights to the Laser ?  seperate to the issuing plaques.

Not really. It's about the contracts... ...and World Sailing.

But. We. Are. All. Holding. Our. Breath. Waiting. For. The. Outcome. Of. A. Big. Meeting.

Between ILCA, WS, PSA & PSJ. And LP.

Edited by Gantt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gantt said:

Not really. It's about the contracts... ...and World Sailing.

But. We. Are. All. Holding. Our. Breath. Waiting. For. The. Outcome. Of. A. Big. Meeting.

Between ILCA, WS, PSA & PSJ. And LP.

That is what I though ~ “ it’s about contracts .... ~ specifically the Build Manual 

So is there a Body of Authority (License holder) claiming to have terminated the UK builders build rights ?   specifically the Build Manual I presume ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Southern Cross said:

That is what I though ~ “ it’s about contracts .... ~ specifically the Build Manual 

So is there a Body of Authority (License holder) claiming to have terminated the UK builders build rights ?   specifically the Build Manual I presume ?

Kind of. It's more complicated than that.

Regardless of the history, we are on the cusp of a new beginning. You can ask lots of question, wade through 6 years of discussion, or wait for the outcome of the meeting, where in my view there will be a solution - and hopefully an announcement in a few days. Check out the ILCA website for their version. Or the several threads here on SA to get a more in depth understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gantt said:

Kind of. It's more complicated than that.

Regardless of the history, we are on the cusp of a new beginning. You can ask lots of question, wade through 6 years of discussion, or wait for the outcome of the meeting, where in my view there will be a solution - and hopefully an announcement in a few days. Check out the ILCA website for their version. Or the several threads here on SA to get a more in depth understanding.

Thanks, I have been following closely for years. It appears likely the UK builder will most likely be selling his less expensive Club Laser globally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JMP said:

ILCA can still run "Laser" events until the trademark agreement expires

According to an aroy post elsewhere it doesn't expire. In any case I see no reason that ILCA would be prohibited from running Laser events without a trademark agreement. My club has no trademark agreement for its Laser events. AIUI they are simply prohibited from using the Laser logo - as indeed they already have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Phil you are misunderstanding the legal framework here.

The reason all IOC sanctioned sports are terrified right now is that they have a government-granted monopoly, which is what the EU is going after.  Sort of like the way that government bodies are required to get multiple bids when they do business and not favor anyone.

Mercedes Benz has no such issues.  

 

 

World Sailing sounds like a monopoly to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Southern Cross said:

Thanks, I have been following closely for years. It appears likely the UK builder will most likely be selling his less expensive Club Laser globally.

Apologies for assuming you hadn't. My bad.

Yes, that's the threat (LPE supplying less expensive club lasers everywhere). The trouble with that, it opens the way for other 'club Laser' manufacturers, right Gouv? (Where is Gouv?)

If you've been following it you'll know the issues with the contracts, and the valid questions of how enforceable they may be.

Also is the WS proposal of multiple builders supplying official Lasers everywhere. 

This is at odds with the original Laser vision of one builder in territories built to the same strict standard.

...so we wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Gantt said:

...the valid questions of how enforceable they may be.

It does seem to be the case that in the US no-one with shallow pockets can enforce a contract against someone with deep pockets.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JimC said:

It does seem to be the case that in the US no-one with shallow pockets can enforce a contract against someone with deep pockets.

You think that is different elsewhere?

The one time in my life I engaged a commercial lawyer to help in a contract negotiation with two other parties, both of whom had in-house counsel, it cost me something like £1500 for a 30 minute phone conversation. And that was for a friendly negotiation, as these things go. It was money well spent as it turned out. Hurt at the time though. What was interesting to me was how little real commercial awareness the lawyer had i.e. lots of advice on what I might ask for but very little awareness of what realistically I could and could not get, that had to come from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My old lawnmower got to be erratic and unpredictable., so I have designed a new lawnmower.

I have made all the drawings and written an assembly manual.

I don't think there's anything particularly novel about my design so I'm not going to patent it.

As I understand it, I now automatically own the copyright in the drawings and manual (but registering the copyright will make it easier too protect it.) Is that right?

Does the copyright in my drawings and assembly manual stop anybody else from legally reproducing them without my permission?

If someone legally got their hands on the drawings and/or assembly manual, would the copyright stop them from using the drawings and/or manual to legally assemble a lawnmower like mine?

Answers please from real lawyers, not lawnmowers.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. I have to ask. what's with this lawnmower joke that keeps coming up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

ok. I have to ask. what's with this lawnmower joke that keeps coming up?

Somebody (not me) on this forum once made a very cruel remark about somebody else on this forum (not me or you) that his lawnmower was smarter than that person. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gantt said:

 

PS: I'm making an effort to improve my writing here because I don't want to upset you Mr Clean. No more voice to text then edit in the dead of night! :) (Sorry, I'm being an apologist again.)

Good on ya.  Write in another language if that's easier for you. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sailabout said:

World Sailing sounds like a monopoly to me?

It is a government sanctioned monopoly for the olympics, just like the ISA and the SSA and the IHA and FIFA and the FIA and...

 

Because they are monopolies, they must comply with national and international laws regulating those monopolies.  In the EU it's the Competition Commission that enforces them.  In the US it's Congress via the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.  In Oz it's something else.   The NGBs are also subject to it, cf. the Farrah Hall case a few years back for details on how it functions to make the governing body provide due process to competitors in a hearing...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tillerman said:

 

Quote


As I understand it, I now automatically own the copyright in the drawings and manual (but registering the copyright will make it easier too protect it.) Is that right?

Correct
 

Quote

Does the copyright in my drawings and assembly manual stop anybody else from legally reproducing them without my permission?

Copyright Law doesn't stop anyone from reproducing them unless you learn about it beforehand and sue for an injunction.  It provides a remedy for you when someone does reproduce them though.  The remedy depends on what they do with them, registration gives you better remedies and easier proofs.
 

Quote

If someone legally got their hands on the drawings and/or assembly manual, would the copyright stop them from using the drawings and/or manual to legally assemble a lawnmower like mine?

Again, it wouldn't stop someone from doing it.  It would provide you a remedy if you found out about it (and you could ask for it to be destroyed).  In the case of one guy who built one lawnmower, the damages might not be much unless you registered.  In the US, registration lets you seek  "statutory damages" under certain circumstances, and in cases of 'willful infringment', i think there's an automatic $150,000 per violation.

 

This is for US law, but similar principles apply in most places. This is not legal advice, and anyone who reasonably relies on the foregoing to their legal or financial detriment is a complete idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

Thanks. 

That males a lot more sense than what my old lawnmower told me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Richard Gladwell. 

Boat designs CAN be protected by design/copyright registration and registered with the copyright office. He should refer his "two maybe three lawyers" friends to chapter 13 of Title 17 of the United States Code (aka The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act) and similar legislation that exists in the EU and Australia.  See also Maverick Boats Company v. American Marine Holdings (US Court of Appeals 11th circuit) . https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1127861.html

However the design protection is for a limited period (10 years in the US, somewhat longer in Europe).

The Copyright protection for the design of the Laser (if it ever existed) has long since expired. Copyright law has limited to no relevance in the Laser situation.

2.  In previous threads there has been some discussion about the copyright of the "Builder Manual" as a written work. Again, this is of limited relevance. Even , in the unlikely event, that a plaintiff succeeded in proving ownership of copyright for the Builder Manual, this would only prevent someone selling a published version of the build book, it does not prevent any number of builders receiving free copies of the build book and the building boats with the recipe contained therein.   I have previously made an analogy with a cook book.  You cannot copy or reprint an author's cook book and offer it for sale....but any number of people can use recipes from the cook book without any infringement of copyright.

3. Gantt was probably correct in point #7 of his response to RG. The rest of it had components which were substantially incorrect. There doesnt seem a lot of point in getting into it.

4.  If the the builders, class association and WS want to try to argue their position from a legal perspective, I suspect the focus will be on contract law and in particular the WS contract and its successors.  Changing the name of the boat will reduce exposure to trademark infringement (except that the ILCA Dinghy is not the name a IP lawyer is going to recommend) but will not close the door on contractual obligations or possible tort infringements .  WS has the most interesting position in all of this.

5. HOWEVER, arguing a legal position is the dumbest thing that any of the parties can do ..... The most important announcement and the most sensible comment in the last 2 days and the phrase that gives the most hope for Laser sailors and Laser builders was this:

Quote

The vote was an important milestone but is not the end of the process. All contractual agreements must be successfully concluded by 1 August or the council will select new Equipment. ILCA has been working to ensure that the class is able to implement World Sailing’s FRAND compliance policy, which is a requirement for Olympic Equipment. ILCA is looking forward to a scheduled meeting later this week with representatives of World Sailing, Performance Sailcraft Austrlia, Performance Sailcraft Japan, and LaserPerformance, to look for ways we can move forward together for the benefit of sailors and the sport worldwide.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IPLore said:

  You cannot copy or reprint an author's cook book and offer it for sale....but any number of people can use recipes from the cook book without any infringement of copyright.



 

For cooking and boats, yes.  For architectural drawings and many other categories, no.  For the Laser Construction Manual...I have no idea but I would be happy to litigate it for $500/hr. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tillerman said:

Somebody (not me) on this forum once made a very cruel remark about somebody else on this forum (not me or you) that his lawnmower was smarter than that person. 

That was not the exact remark that I made. It was not intended to be cruel, but was a one line post venting in frustration after several fruitless pages talking about something that I know a lot about and being told how I was wrong.

someone else (not me) went on to refer to someone as "Smart Like Lawn mower"  which was not my original intention but it caught on.

Then there were the lawnmower awards was probably intended as humor but it probably got out of hand.  Well at least the debate has become good humored now and we can look back at it (hopefully) as the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IPLore said:

That was not the exact remark that I made. It was not intended to be cruel, but was a one line post venting in frustration after several fruitless pages talking about something that I know a lot about and being told how I was wrong.

someone else (not me) went on to refer to someone as "Smart Like Lawn mower"  which was not my original intention but it caught on.

Then there were the lawnmower awards was probably intended as humor but it probably got out of hand.  Well at least the debate has become good humored now and we can look back at it (hopefully) as the past.

I stand corrected. My memory is not what It used to be. I apologize to my lawnmower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

For cooking and boats, yes.  For architectural drawings and many other categories, no.

Indeed: AWCPA , which protects  “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans or drawings,” .  In that simple sentence hangs some of the most complex intellectual property in US law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tillerman said:

I stand corrected. My memory is not what It used to be. I apologize to my lawnmower.

The lawnmower scoring system was damn funny though, even if I didn't invent it. Would it be politically incorrect to repeat it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IPLore said:

The lawnmower scoring system was damn funny though, even if I didn't invent it. Would it be politically incorrect to repeat it?


I don't remember it. If it really is politically incorrect then by all means repeat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tillerman said:

ago

Bonus points for who can name the band and/or song with these lyrics (no Googling allowed): "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, I sat in on the meeting (on phone) Wednesday. No major resolutions, but a couple parties have an action item or two for a follow-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aroy210677 said:

Bonus points for who can name the band and/or song with these lyrics (no Googling allowed): "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

It seems he drowned, selling England by the pound.......you are what you eat ....you are what you wear...

Easy for anyone from the UK of a certain age or more.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

On a more serious note, I sat in on the meeting (on phone) Wednesday. No major resolutions, but a couple parties have an action item or two for a follow-up.

Rome was not built in a day.

Good Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mambo Kings said:

It seems he drowned, selling England by the pound.......you are what you eat ....you are what you wear...

Easy for anyone from the UK of a certain age or more.  

 

image.png.66fb4425cb907120d364a0ca567e22f6.pngWinner, Mambo. (Lawnmower at bottom left)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IPLore said:

3. Gantt was probably correct in point #7 of his response to RG. The rest of it had components which were substantially incorrect. There doesnt seem a lot of point in getting into it.

Yes, this has been the stance of IPLore and his best efforts to give legal advice on this forum.  For anyone who wants to understand IPLore's position better, go take a look at SimonN and IPLore's interactions back in 2013 in the infamous Blowtorch thread. Here's two:

and this, from KiwiJoker:

From memory, about the time of IPLore referred to me as a Lawnmower, I had pointed out that even a first year law student wouldn't have made the same legal mistakes that IPLore had made, so the lawnmower retort was to be expected. IPLore fascinates me, and while no connections may ever be proven, IPLore has a knack of positioning LPE and Rategar in better light. This is muddied by what is in my mind a fake support for the ILCA. IPLore is easily triggered and verbose, which makes him a great study subject. 

Wess, IPLore and Tillerman then became cyber bullies, and at the time I was intrigued by that (My interest in cyber bullying and disinformation is professional, and their antics form part of two major projects. It is a very serious subject). So I played the role of a victim, even getting banned from this site for reporting their bullying. (The reason? For spamming the mediator - with a few messages - from memory it was two or three messages.) In 2014 I attended a the world premiere of the documentary "Merchants of Doubt" which included a presentation from Dr Naomi Oreskes, the author of the book on which the documentary was based. In the documentary, a sweaty, middle aged, ethically compromised man gleefully recounted how he posed as a mother of two, to write against global warming. (Disturbingly, with multiple personas, he has had some effect.) This reminded me in no small way of Wess and IPLore, who's identity have not been announced, and whose position, at that time wasn't so much in favor of LPE/Rastegar, but were very much opposed to Kirby. What interests me most that unlike the subject of Naomi Oreskes, IPLore and Wess are comparatively less evolved. I agree with those who expressed their surprise to me about Tillerman's support of Wess and IPLore. Tillerman's identity of course is well known, as is his support of the RS Aero.

My identity is know, because I announced it on SA on 17 May 2013. I'm very passionate about the welfare of the Laser and Kirby. The purpose of my announcing my identity was because I stood firmly behind my statements, and was not afraid of any repercussions, including exposing myself to libel. My hope was that Wess or ILPore might reveal their own identity. They haven't.

Also, people started messaging me personally from about that time, some even phoning me. These weren't just anyone, these were people involved directly in the legal process, and others who knew key players directly and acted as intermediaries. These people are good people, who have the best interests of the class at heart. This helped to give me a solid understanding of the contracts and their relationships perhaps a little earlier than others.

I have no regrets in asking questions about Jeff Martin (RIP), I was at pains to frame my questions in the context of his many decades of great service to ILCA, though that did not make him beyond reproach. Those questions were never answered to the best of my knowledge. Jeff Martin was in my view caught up with Rastegar in ways I for one (and others) will never understand. That became more apparent during discovery of the court case Heini was a casualty of that time.

I even questioned Andy mentioning that Crane was a top guy. (The minutes for the North American Association made interesting reading - mostly with the correspondence with Crane). IPLore wanted to use that to suggest that was part of my 'attacks' in the ILCA. (Ha. For the record, I don't know Andy, though at the time, was suspicious of most of the ILCA.) As it turns out, in my view Andy has the interests of the ILCA at heart and has worked tirelessly.

More recently, IPLore has promoted the importance of the Laser Trademark, and promoted the notion that the Trademark holder appointed the boatbuilder. (This is not true, the trademark holder licenses the boatbuilder to use the trademark, Kirby licensed the building of the boats - and it is there in black and white in the contracts for anyone who cares to look).

What is important is to know that there are players here who seek to misinform. It is my view that IPLore (whoever he is) is one, consistently to the benefit of the Trademark holders. This stance has been deliberately muddied. Possibly one of the most successful tactics was IPLore attacking me, backed by Wess and Tillerman (plus a few others), then posting nonsense to bury posts. (Let's see if they do it here too.) 

Rastegar was revealed to some extent with his legal defense and outrageous allegations, often parroted by IPLore - and framed cleverly to sew doubt in minds of SA readers. It is fascinating that Rastegar took control of LPE in 2009, and by 2011 the seeds for this dispute were sewn, complicated by Kirby's desire to retire gracefully. Nobody with the best interests of the ILCA and Laser racing wanted this dispute. Rastegar has attempted to sell the Laser Trademark, even offered to buy PSA. In my view Rastegar has been destabilizing to the Laser class. I would one would be comfortable without his involvement, though would be OK if he was placed on a very short leash.

Right now, World Sailing, the ILCA, PSA and PSJ are attempting to make a deal with LPE. There is no doubt in my mind that WS, ILCA PSA and PSJ have the interests of competitive sailing at heart. None of them have become wealthy from their involvement with the Laser, in fact, most have sacrificed an enormous amount of time on this which has had a both personal and financial cost. It is my view that the latest ILCA moves are good.

Like everyone else, I wait for the results with keen interest, and indeed the reactions to this post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt and Mr Clean, I am just going to leave my answer to your questions until this present frucus has past.

I think what is happening in ILCA land is a lot more interesting, at the moment, than 9er land.

Ping me in a week maybe, I'm in HK, about to go to Qingdao, quite drink and possibly sail with Sir JJ.

            jB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aroy210677 said:

image.png.66fb4425cb907120d364a0ca567e22f6.pngWinner, Mambo. (Lawnmower at bottom left)

 

2 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

It seems he drowned, selling England by the pound.......you are what you eat ....you are what you wear...

Easy for anyone from the UK of a certain age or more.  

 

Man, I am way too old to remember "posh boy" bands from the 1970s.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gantt said:

Found this:

Source = https://www.3-7class.org.nz/a-fascinating-hobby.html

Image result for original bruce farr design "3.7"

Also found this:

I think I'll stop looking now. :) 

But will post if someone who raced back then comes back to me.

 

 

According to both "The Shape of Speed" (the Farr/Bowler bio) and contemporary Sea Spray magazines, Farr's concept for a singlehanded 12 Foot Skiff was banned once he went public with the idea. He may have "gone public" when the idea was mentioned in NZ Boating World Mag of March 1970, which says in an article about Miss Beazley Homes that the concept was for a boat with no jib but that it "would be essential to carry a spinnaker". The yardsticks for the 3.7 show it to be slower than a Cherub, and by that time the Cherubs were no longer competitive as 12s, so it's impossible to see a 3.7 winning the next Interdominions.

Apart from being pedantic, there's an underlying point here because the claims that the 3.7 was banned after winning the ID are just another example of the tendency for myths to be created, about events where the Big Bad Authorities did the wrong thing and banned a winner. We see the same thing in the claims about the FD trials being won by another boat, by the Soling being chosen for the Olympics instead of the much faster Etchells, the 470 being chosen despite being desired as a hire boat, etc etc etc. 

There seems to be a constant desire for sailors to portray themselves as being the victim of powers that be. It's rather weird, considering that most sailors are affluent white males who are actually the most powerful group in society, but the belief that the BBA is out there fucking things up runs to deeply and strongly through Olympic class debates that it affects the whole discussion. It's also significant that such claims are made quite often and accepted even when people don't provide any evidence at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curious said:

According to both "The Shape of Speed" (the Farr/Bowler bio) and contemporary Sea Spray magazines, Farr's concept for a singlehanded 12 Foot Skiff was banned once he went public with the idea. He may have "gone public" when the idea was mentioned in NZ Boating World Mag of March 1970, which says in an article about Miss Beazley Homes that the concept was for a boat with no jib but that it "would be essential to carry a spinnaker". The yardsticks for the 3.7 show it to be slower than a Cherub, and by that time the Cherubs were no longer competitive as 12s, so it's impossible to see a 3.7 winning the next Interdominions.

Apart from being pedantic, there's an underlying point here because the claims that the 3.7 was banned after winning the ID are just another example of the tendency for myths to be created, about events where the Big Bad Authorities did the wrong thing and banned a winner. We see the same thing in the claims about the FD trials being won by another boat, by the Soling being chosen for the Olympics instead of the much faster Etchells, the 470 being chosen despite being desired as a hire boat, etc etc etc. 

There seems to be a constant desire for sailors to portray themselves as being the victim of powers that be. It's rather weird, considering that most sailors are affluent white males who are actually the most powerful group in society, but the belief that the BBA is out there fucking things up runs to deeply and strongly through Olympic class debates that it affects the whole discussion. It's also significant that such claims are made quite often and accepted even when people don't provide any evidence at all.

Who said the 37 was banned after winning the Interdoms? My understanding is that it was used in a few club races - and back then, all 'open senior' started at the same time - so a prototype is very likely to start at the same time and sail the same course. Also, I'm relying less on media reports, and more on the people who were actually there (which was what the reports were based on).  I don't know if the 37 actually won any race, though I suspect all it needed to do was beat Jacko or JF once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gantt said:

Who said the 37 was banned after winning the Interdoms?

Its widely repeated.


The thing is, and this is quite congruent with C's point classes in general ban things because its not the game they want to play. A singlehanded boat would not have been capable of being remotely competitive until centre line foiling was made practical. A 12foot foiling Moth would certainly have been capable of winning the Interdoms, but nothing before. The 12s prohibited singlehanded boats because they decided it was not a game they wanted to play. Development rules are tricky because on the one hand you don't want to prohibit interesting ideas and you want to keep the rules as simple as possible, but on the other hand you want to have everyone in the same sandpit (otherwise what's the point) and you may want to limit expenditure and avoid having people waste effort on things that would be undesirable, whether practical or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimC said:

Its widely repeated.


The thing is, and this is quite congruent with C's point classes in general ban things because its not the game they want to play. A singlehanded boat would not have been capable of being remotely competitive until centre line foiling was made practical. A 12foot foiling Moth would certainly have been capable of winning the Interdoms, but nothing before. The 12s prohibited singlehanded boats because they decided it was not a game they wanted to play. Development rules are tricky because on the one hand you don't want to prohibit interesting ideas and you want to keep the rules as simple as possible, but on the other hand you want to have everyone in the same sandpit (otherwise what's the point) and you may want to limit expenditure and avoid having people waste effort on things that would be undesirable, whether practical or not.

I'm genuinely wanting to know who. (I competed in the 3.7s, plus knew a number of the 12 footer guys in the late 1970s and early 80s. Coincidentally, I also worked with skiff sailor Ted Bland when I worked at NZ News Group.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh its one of those tales you only ever hear umpteenth hand and in variations. Grahame Anderson's "Fast Light Boats" for instance claims that The 3.7 regularly beat Auckland Q Class in the hands of its designer. This is in a caption on p164. I like that book, and some of the research is great, but the photo captioning is woeful. I wonder, now I think of it, if it wasn't done by the author. I think also the story gets confused with that of the Kitty Cat and the 59 Interdoms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites