Wess

ILCA gives LPE the boot... seeking new Laser builder

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Wess said:

  * For sake of the FRAND agreement, a.) what party is the ultimate arbitrator as to if the terms are "fair" or not, and b.) is it a requirement that the terms are the same for all the existing parties or can the parties each be looking for different "fair" licensing terms based on their different market positions going into this?

In principle, World Sailing is the "ultimate arbitrator" since it is their policy. I don't think they are going to decide if royalties for a trademark license are "Fair and Reasonable", only that if licenses are not being granted when requested (for whatever reason) then they will consider whether their Olympic Equipment Policy is being adhered to. 

It should be noted that the working document submitted by ILCA does try to facilitate this process by having everyone pre-agree to a table of royalty fees, and to set a collection and distribution scheme which removes artificial boundaries. The intent is to allow "interested and qualified" new parties to be able to properly formulate their business plan and remove the uncertainty associated with obtaining and costing a trademark license. So, it should automatically take care of the FR part of FRAND. 

 

3 hours ago, Wess said:

 Also, I take it the new IP agreement has not been executed yet, right?

That is correct and should be dealt with shortly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SFBayLaser said:

In principle, World Sailing is the "ultimate arbitrator" since it is their policy. I don't think they are going to decide if royalties for a trademark license are "Fair and Reasonable", only that if licenses are not being granted when requested (for whatever reason) then they will consider whether their Olympic Equipment Policy is being adhered to. 

It should be noted that the working document submitted by ILCA does try to facilitate this process by having everyone pre-agree to a table of royalty fees, and to set a collection and distribution scheme which removes artificial boundaries. The intent is to allow "interested and qualified" new parties to be able to properly formulate their business plan and remove the uncertainty associated with obtaining and costing a trademark license. So, it should automatically take care of the FR part of FRAND. 

 

That is correct and should be dealt with shortly. 

Hi Tracey,

When can we expect to hear about the results from today's meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Hi Tracey,

When can we expect to hear about the results from today's meeting?

I think that it might be :

(A) Unhelpful to the parties involved in the negotiations

(B) Unduly burdensome on Tracy

(C) fraught with some legal risks 

to expect a public update on the details of every meeting.  Sometimes the to and fro of discussions, and changing hard line positions without embarrassment is more successful behind closed doors, than in the public eye. 

There might be a break through and substantive positive news that Tracy can share with us....but we should also not be disappointed if we get a brief:

"negotiations are ongoing, the next meeting is........."

or "progress is being made on all sides,but we are not there yet"

But it might be "There is fundamental disagreement on substantive issues. We are discussing next steps and we will let you know what they are as soon as possible"   Personally. I hate to cease negotiations if there is even the smallest ray of hope. Negotiations are never over until they are over. But sometimes one has to prepare for the alternative so that the negotiations gain traction.

 

Fingers crossed !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the FRAND agreements address any limitations on to who the FRAND-licensed equipment may be sold? Would bespoke one-offs be disallowed?

I know that's probably an odd/ignorant question, but just wondering.

 

Share this post


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

In principle, World Sailing is the "ultimate arbitrator" since it is their policy. I don't think they are going to decide if royalties for a trademark license are "Fair and Reasonable", only that if licenses are not being granted when requested (for whatever reason) then they will consider whether their Olympic Equipment Policy is being adhered to. 

It should be noted that the working document submitted by ILCA does try to facilitate this process by having everyone pre-agree to a table of royalty fees, and to set a collection and distribution scheme which removes artificial boundaries. The intent is to allow "interested and qualified" new parties to be able to properly formulate their business plan and remove the uncertainty associated with obtaining and costing a trademark license. So, it should automatically take care of the FR part of FRAND. 

 

That is correct and should be dealt with shortly. 

Tracey - Thank you.  Last question (for now - sorry)...  as the above would appear to be the most likely and significant stumbling block.  Will note up front I presume you agree its hard for WS and ILCA to judge what is fair in terms of a royalty absent an in-depth understanding of all builders businesses and each of their financials (all of which I assume are confidential).  As I ask the following I am hoping you don't answer in whole or part that there are normal precedent royalties... because there has never been this kind of (essentially) forced change to a business plan and model.  I also noticed you didn't answer the part asking if ILCA or WS is insisting that royalty schedule apply equally to all the existing builders and am asking that because (absent some financial payment up front to get them all equal) that would appear on its face to be potentially unfair to some and hugely advantageous to others...

So assuming you can not or will not answer if that royalty schedule has to apply equally to all existing builders and trademark holders can answer...

  * Why does ILCA or WS think it can fairly set a fair royalty schedule (royalty table) absent an in-depth understanding of the business and financials of all the builders and most importantly if ILCA, WS, LPE, PSA, and PSJ really honestly do want to get this done... why not leave that (clear difficult stumbling block) part out as there is no specific requirement from anyone to put it in... more specifically which party if any is insisting it (the royalty table) be in the agreement?

Share this post


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

I think that it might be :

(A) Unhelpful to the parties involved in the negotiations

(B) Unduly burdensome on Tracy

(C) fraught with some legal risks 

to expect a public update on the details of every meeting.  Sometimes the to and fro of discussions, and changing hard line positions without embarrassment is more successful behind closed doors, than in the public eye. 

There might be a break through and substantive positive news that Tracy can share with us....but we should also not be disappointed if we get a brief:

"negotiations are ongoing, the next meeting is........."

or "progress is being made on all sides,but we are not there yet"

But it might be "There is fundamental disagreement on substantive issues. We are discussing next steps and we will let you know what they are as soon as possible"   Personally. I hate to cease negotiations if there is even the smallest ray of hope. Negotiations are never over until they are over. But sometimes one has to prepare for the alternative so that the negotiations gain traction.

 

Fingers crossed !

Sorry.  Should have been more specific.  Not looking for a dissertation.  Just the 10,000 foot level run down if possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wess said:

Why does ILCA or WS think it can fairly set a fair royalty schedule (royalty table) absent an in-depth understanding of the business and financials of all the builders and most importantly if ILCA, WS, LPE, PSA, and PSJ really honestly do want to get this done... why not leave that (clear difficult stumbling block) part out as there is no specific requirement from anyone to put it in... more specifically which party if any is, is insisting it (the royalty table) be in the agreement?

The builders (LP, PSJ and PSA) have all agreed to new contracts.

The stumbling block is that one of the three trademark owners (Velum, owned by Farzad Rastegar) has yet to reach agreement with World Sailing.

What Tracy can't tell you are the accusational tactics used in the meeting by Farzad Rastegar are challenging for all. I'm becoming less optimistic that an agreement will be reached.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Challenging because of people who repeat scurrilous rumours...just saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Wess said:

am asking that because (absent some financial payment up front to get them [the existing builders] all equal), that would appear on its face to be potentially unfair to some and hugely advantageous to others.

Even if the same "table of royalty fees" is applied to all builders, that table can be designed in a way that differentiates the royalty payments to and by different builders. Note that Tracy uses the word "table", which implies that the rules that determine the royalty fees per hull/part may not be simple rules and this table may have many rows and columns and even panels (criteria). One typical criterion is "volume"; and "quantity discounts" may be offered to new builders. Geographic (distance-based) distinctions may also be integrated into such a table. Payment terms offered to the new builders (exactly when the royalty fee is due) may also play a differentiating role.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Challenging because of people who repeat scurrilous rumours...just saying. 

We may look back on this to find the opposite to be true.

This is because the rumours to date, have had a significant negative effect. Because they were not dealt with resulted in misinformation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, drLaser said:

Even if the same "table of royalty fees" is applied to all builders, that table can be designed in a way that differentiates the royalty payments to and by different builders. Note that Tracy uses the word "table", which implies that the rules that determine the royalty fees per hull/part may not be simple rules and this table may have many rows and columns and even panels (criteria). One typical criterion is "volume"; and "quantity discounts" may be offered to new builders. Geographic (distance-based) distinctions may also be integrated into such a table. Payment terms offered to the new builders (exactly when the royalty fee is due) may also play a differentiating role.

Of course but that is why I am asking Tracey if the same royalty is being applied to all existing builder equally. 

A yes or no or non answer sort of suggests different things/priorities. 

Same as knowing which party if any is insisting that table (royalties) be included. It clearly could be left out and then it’s up to the various license holders and seekers (ie businesses) to attempt to negotiate same. That is actually safer from a legal perspective for both WS and ILCA as compared to them trying to set royalties. 

It’s interesting that Tracey said it’s WS that is the arbitrator of what is fair. I would have answered differently. Keep in mind WS claims it’s doing this to meet various legal requirement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, spankoka said:

Challenging because of people who repeat scurrilous rumours...

Ahahahaa :) This statement itself is "scurrilous"  = "with the intention of damaging someone's reputation." Funny! In fact, brilliant! Thanks, spankoka!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BruceH-NZ said:

The builders (LP, PSJ and PSA) have all agreed to new contracts.

The stumbling block is that one of the three trademark owners (Velum, owned by Farzad Rastegar) has yet to reach agreement with World Sailing.

What Tracy can't tell you are the accusational tactics used in the meeting by Farzad Rastegar are challenging for all. I'm becoming less optimistic that an agreement will be reached.

It's been my fear that Rasty deep 6's this thing out of spite.  It appears he's not too concerned about selling Lasers...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone else catch Tom Ehman interviewing John Bertrand speaking on ILCA and LaserPerformance?

Bertrand briefly touches on the history of the World Sailing changes and the impact Luca Devoti had to create the new World Sailing Olympic Equipment Policy which affects all classes.

Bertrand says that at the core of the dispute is that LaserPerformance wants to run the Laser class, and that ILCA are not willing to give up control.
 
Also mentioned is that LaserPerformance allegedly refused ILCA permission to perform an annual inspection, as required by contract. What is not mentioned is that the last annual inspection was in 2015, that the inspection dispute had been running for several years.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 6:27 AM, redstar said:

Did you type this five years ago, and just forget to hit the submit button until now? It's ok, happens to me with emails all the time. 

Hahaha, I wish. Let’s just say there is not a lot of both reliable and current sources on this subject. Edit should have included unbiased, too! (if there is such a thing)

Edited by Schteiny
Clarification

Share this post


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

Of World Sailing or  Laser Performance? 

 

Dunno... it didn’t seem to work for Gannt

call the boat a Torch and change ILCA to ITCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torch Internationally Trademarked Yachts, or TITY?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Of course but that is why I am asking Tracey if the same royalty is being applied to all existing builder equally. 

As far from what I've seen here BKI had an agreement with 2% on the wholesale price what would be something like +/- 80 euros per boat, that maybe every builder or client has to pay per boat. Someone posted something about an offer of 1000000 € or $? as royalties for LPE per year that would mean 500-700 € per boat if the name Laser stays with the class. Since LPE as Trademark owner does not have to pay, but all other builders have to pay to LPE it could still be a somehow unfair competition between the new builders (and LPA/LPJ when they have to pay royalties to LPE for sales in their region) and LPE. I'm interested how ILCA and WS want to solve this. It would be much fairer in my opinion if the class would vote for changing the class rules like explained by Eric to avoid such unfair competition. LPE would already have enough advantage due to not having to invest in new tooling, marketing and building up a new dealer network.

Maybe Tracey can answer how this all fits together, and if my fears are true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:
 

 

 

23 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

We may look back on this to find the opposite to be true.

This is because the rumours to date, have had a significant negative effect. Because they were not dealt with resulted in misinformation.

But.........so much of the negative rumours, innuendo and misinformation is coming from you. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

But.........so much of the negative rumours, innuendo and misinformation is coming from you. 

I hope this is not interpreted as an open invitation (or challenge) to all those with similar insider information (or long-term memory). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was it that said he who lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas? 

For some reason that is stuck in my chrome dome. 

You know... free speech and all... right @drLaser?

:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the trade mark owners have in principle agreed to a OMOD structure with a licensing process in place based on FRAND principles, then the rubber really has to hit the road when they start negotiating the process for calculating the license fees.

It is going to be very difficult. I believe it could ultimately be successful with patience and calm, thick skinned leadership from the ILCA and WS but it will inevitably be acrimonious at various stages of the negotiations and the starting positions are likely to be wide apart.

Here are what I suspect will be some of the challenges:

1. As far as I am aware, there is no benchmark for SSO's adopting a FRAND policy on trademarks. In fact, quite the opposite. The SSO's usually adopt a FRAND policy on technology and encourage the members (manufacturers) to compete, each using their own brand with access to the same technology.  It is almost unheard of for an SSO to require a manufacturer to share their brand name with competitors (I truly cannot think of an example but if anyone on this forum has, let us know) .  So the parties in this negotiation are not only doing something new in sailing industry, they trying to establish a licensing process with almost no industrial precedent at all.

In hindsight, what Tracy and some of the ILCA leadership would have preferred is a more typical arrangement.....share the technology on a FRAND basis and let the builders compete with brand and service.  I think the class leadership could have portrayed the rule change NOT as a name change...but the adoption of an umbrella name for the class of Olympic Single Handed One Design Dinghy (OSHODD)...that would allow other brands IN ADDITION  to the Laser brand , not as a REPLACEMENT for the  Laser brand.   IMHO, one of the most insightful quotes from Tracy was :

On 6/26/2019 at 9:27 AM, SFBayLaser said:

The proposed rule change would simply un-brand the class rules only

IMO, it would be a simple and elegant solution.

But it is academic, because currently it seems the Laser consortium is going to try a more difficult and complex agreement of licensing the trade mark.

2. In a typical bilateral trademark licensing agreement without FRAND and without an SSO (which in this case is WS), the two parties, licensee and trade mark owner sit down to find if there is a mutually beneficial royalty fee, profitable to both parties. If there is not, there is no agreement....if there is, it often takes months to fine tune and document.  Trade mark licenses range widely depending on the value of the brand and margin on the product. I personally have experience only of very high margin brand names that commanded high  license fees that would probably surprise you .  ILCA's lawyers have obviously done some research on trade mark license fees and put out a first proposal. Its a starting point.  LP will likely come back with a different number.

3. What makes this difficult is that it is not ostensibly a bilateral negotiation with 2 known parties calculating the costs and benefits of licensing a the trade mark. The parties are trying to establish a fair licensing fee in the absence of knowing who the licensee is.

4. I say "ostensibly"  because I suspect this will at some stage devolve into a bilateral negotiation between LP and PSA. PSA will wants to export Lasers into LP's markets.  PSA will be negotiating for a low as possible royalty. LP will be negotiating for as high as possible royalty.  ILCA will be trying to mediate but obviously (representing its members) leaning towards a lower fee.   IT is this bilateral negotiation between LP and PSA that will make the proceedings so difficult because LP and PSA hate each other......and have been engaged in a bitter law suit with each other for 6 years. 

5. There is undeniably a personality issue. Farzad Rastegaar has the reputation of being a difficult personality in negotiation. I say this objectively not pejoratively, not taking sides , and not saying whether his position is right or wrong. I merely observe that negotiations with the owner of LP often tend to take a long time to reach a conclusion and tend to include some measure of acrimony along the way. It requires a certain skill to keep negotiations on track with this type of personality.

6. I would not be surprised if the starting points are far apart at the beginning. 

I find myself wondering, if the parties should agree in principle they are looking for a fair licensing agreement and then bring in an independent, professional mediator, experienced in trade mark law to try and help the parties arrive at a conclusion as to what that fair licensing agreement looks like

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

But.........so much of the negative rumours, innuendo and misinformation is coming from you. 

I don't think so.

First, even if that were true on this forum, Sailing Anarchy is a very small part of Laser sailing. Are you really putting forward for example that most of the misinformation at the European masters is coming from me?

Much has been said about me releasing what Rastegar allegedly said. By the time I released it, damage was already being done because of the people already talking about it. 

It is clear to me that there is a huge difference between accusations about impropriety and questioning whether or not impropriety exists. I have made the point that perceived impropriety can be just as damaging. I have several years of questioning whether impropriety exists, and you IPLore are now trying to promote that I am creating the same rumours myself? 

In actual fact IPLore, I am working hard to undermine misinformation. Here's an example of personal communication from a European sailor I was talking with.

Quote

I don't agree with the statement that the class represents the sailors... That's an ILCA view which IMHO isn't commonly shared amongst European Laser sailors.... BTW who is John Bertrand? And why do you go through such efforts to defend the ILCA position?

The statement he was referring to was by John Bertrand in the interview with Tom E. The individual had been indoctrinated by LaserPerformance, which is a very real problem the class faces right now, and a driver of the very real rift between EurILCA executive committee and ILCA World Council. 

Any legitimate attempts to deal with misinformation directly, necessitates that same misinformation to be 'outed' - then vigorously tested.

Here is an example of IPLore misinformation. First, what Tracy actually said was:

On 6/27/2019 at 1:27 AM, SFBayLaser said:

The proposed rule change would simply un-brand the class rules only and would allow the scenario you describe. If the current effort towards a procedure for approving new builders and licensing the Laser trademark is successful then all boats would continue to be Lasers even if we did change the class rules.

To which IPLore, having used a selected portion of the quote (in blue) said:

1 hour ago, IPLore said:

IMO, it would be a simple and elegant solution.

But it is academic, because currently it seems the Laser consortium is going to try a more difficult and complex agreement of licensing the trade mark.

Actually, it still is a simple and elegant solution.

Having all new builders licensed to use the Laser brand is also simple.

The notion to "un brand" the Laser class rules is now academic is misinformation, and will be until an agreement to use the Laser brand is reached.

---

IPLore has tried to promote that he/she is neutral, though throughout has consistently taken positions which benefit one trademark holder. This is very true in the above comment. 

The position IPLore promotes is complex, and deliberately ignores why World Sailing has created their Olympic Equipment Policy, and how that related to Luca Devoti's legal action. The policy includes but is not limited to FRAND. To comply with the World Sailing Olympic Equipment Policy, there needs to be more builders.

In relation to branding, having multiple builders means either retaining the Laser brand for all builders; or if a satisfactory agreement is not reached, using one or more alternate brands for the same design of boat.

At the heart is the notion that the brand is more important than the boat design, however the Laser brand is not critical to the sport. For all enterprises it the product and service which originally define and then drive the reputation of any brand, not the other way around.

Continuation of the Laser brand is desirable, but not critical. Two of the three Laser brand holders have already agreed. 

To facilitate using more than one brand, ILCA are proposing to remove the rule which requires the Laser brand to be used.

Those who have the best interests of the class at heart know this, and are right now serving the class well by not entering into an agreement which will significantly drive up the cost of the boat.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceH-NZ said:

 

Actually, it still is a simple and elegant solution.

Having all new builders licensed to use the Laser brand is also simple.

This is quite evidently rubbish. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

This is quite evidently rubbish. 

To clarify, what is simple is the licensing agreement itself - most are straightforward agreements. I did not infer that getting Rastegar to agree to the new terms is easy. 

Sometimes, simple is not easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

In actual fact IPLore, I am working hard to undermine misinformation.
 

 

Share this post


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

We are fixing this. 

I need one phone number. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jgh66 said:

. Since LPE as Trademark owner does not have to pay,

LPE is not the trademark owner and my uninformed guess is that they pay through the nose. The Trademark is owned by a separate and offshore organisation, Velum, albeit they both basically controlled by the same people. AIUI its not unusual in these cases for the trading company to pay a damn great whack to the IP owner as it makes for a favourable tax situation. My understanding is that its by no means unknown for companies in LPEs position to be paying IP fees that are a long way from fair and reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreeing a fair and reasonable fee will not be simple.  Rastegar will claim, with some justification, that he should not be out of pocket from the move to FRAND. That is,  the license fee paid to him should equal the net profit he would have made had he built the boat.  However there are at least two problems with this.

1. It may not be that simple to figure out the precise profit per boat he makes, given the complex business structure where his left hand is paying his right hand.

2. If newly licensed builders have to pay a fee big enough to cover Rastegar’s losses, the price of Lasers will go up, which will not be reasonable to anyone else.   New builders will not be able to compete on price, which is, almost by definition, unreasonable. 

Share this post


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

LPE is not the trademark owner

You are of course right. Though this makes no real difference to the commercial advantage the business owner finally has. Even if he moves money from one company to the other for tax or legal reasons he could either offer the boats cheaper than his competitors, or earn more money that could be spend for marketing or the like.... 

This FRAND stuff was about fair competition or ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IPLore's latest post all about me contains many factual errors, mostly falsely characterizes what I have said over the last few years. When IPLore said "You vacillate between the pros and cons and then throw in a totally irrelevant quote from someone you received a message from", it is incorrect in multiple ways. 

You seem angry IPLore. Maybe you are annoyed that I am trying to deal with misinformation outside of this forum? Maybe you are annoyed that I see through your attempts to promote the Laser trademark? I admire your post about the Laser trademark, which shows a very specific line of thinking. Incidentally it is remarkably similar to a line of thinking being shared in private.

What I oppose IPLore is your misinformation, and your attempts to reframe the conversation to justify a high license fee.

---

I'm not being vindictive here IPLore, but I'm happy to expose your tactics. Please, could you be so kind as to backing that up a quote of me being vindictive? Otherwise people here will continue to think you are full of crap.

I have an allegiance for PSA and Global Sailing? My allegiance was and remains with ILCA and then Bruce Kirby.

Mostly, I want ILCA to remain in the control of the sailors.

---

Here's some unpleasant words that we should take more notice of than IPLore's attempts to yet again focus on me:

Quote

ILCA CAUGHT SPREADING FAKE NEWS Meeting with EURILCA members, ILCA's Eric Faust makes a number of claims in this video that are false and are questioned by the well-informed European members. But the biggest false claim is that LaserPerformance has refused to negotiate with ILCA. We remind ILCA that at the November 2018 ILCA World Council LP requested an all-party meeting to discuss our pending contractual issues in Dusseldorf around 9 January 2019. When LP formally requested ILCA to meet, there was NO REPLY even though we sent a number of reminders. We could have settled our issues then and would not be where we are today, with Eric spinning the story his way to get votes to drop the Laser name. The strategy all along has been to get rid of LP and commercialize ILCA with PSA as a partner.

Note that Laser Performance say that what Eric said is false, but doesn't say exactly what is false. Actually, I don't believe that what Eric said was false at all.

Please, can anyone show me where PSA, PSJ, Global Sailing, Bruce Kirby or ILCA has said anything remotely as unpleasant (or untrue), then I will happily criticize them.

It is unfortunate that such unpleasantness is being echoed by some Laser sailors, who until recently have relied on very few sources of information.

---

1 hour ago, IPLore said:

I apologize if I am wrong,

Apology accepted.

---

56 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Agreeing a fair and reasonable fee will not be simple.  Rastegar will claim, with some justification, that he should not be out of pocket from the move to FRAND. That is,  the license fee paid to him should equal the net profit he would have made had he built the boat.  However there are at least two problems with this.

1. It may not be that simple to figure out the precise profit per boat he makes, given the complex business structure where his left hand is paying his right hand.

2. If newly licensed builders have to pay a fee big enough to cover Rastegar’s losses, the price of Lasers will go up, which will not be reasonable to anyone else.   New builders will not be able to compete on price, which is, almost by definition, unreasonable. 

Agreed more than not. (FRAND is not equivalent to World Sailing Olympic Equipment Policy, it is a part of it).

There is no agreement that the boat has to be branded Laser for ever. All of the agreements have exit clauses. 

There is a legal pathway to move forward without the Laser brand. What makes agreeing simple is that if the choice is made to no longer brand the boats "Laser" is made, then Rastegar will be even more out of pocket.

I believe that all ILCA World Council members are genuine when they say no longer using the Laser name would be a shame.

It is better for Rastegar to agree to licensing builders for free (or a small fee), rather than for the boat we currently call the Laser to use other brands.

For example, the brand "SailLaser", ("LaserPerformance has opened new SailLaser Centres on Lake Garda in Italy and in Berlin, Germany and aims to open new franchise centres globally on an on-going basis." Source.) . This and other uses of the Laser brand lose value if the name Laser is no longer a ubiquitous part of sailing.

Maybe as part of the deal Rastegar can have global rights to license merchandise (caps, jackets etc) and global rights to sell "SailLaser" franchises (Including Oceania, Korea and Japan) as they intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BruceH-NZ said:

The above by IPLore's latest post all about me contains many factual errors, mostly falsely characterizes what I have said over the last few years. When you said "You vacillate between the pros and cons and then throw in a totally irrelevant quote from someone you received a message from" is incorrect in multiple ways. 

You seem angry IPLore. Maybe you are annoyed that I see through your attempts to promote the Laser trademark? I admire your note which shows one line of thinking, which is incidentally remarkably similar to a line of thinking being shared in private. What I oppose IPLore is your misinformation, you attempts to reframe the conversation to justify a high license fee.

---

I'm not being vindictive here IPLore, but I'm happy to expose your tactics. Please, could be so kind as backing that up a quote of me being vindictive? Otherwise people here will continue to think you are full of crap.

I have an allegiance for PSA and Global Sailing? My allegiance was and remains with ILCA and then Bruce Kirby.

Mostly, I want ILCA to remain in the control of the sailors.

---

Here's some unpleasant words that we should take more notice of than IPLore's attempts to yet again focus on me:

Note that Laser Performance say that what Eric said is false, but doesn't say exactly what is false. Actually, I don't believe that what Eric said was false at all.

Please, can anyone show me where PSA, PSJ, Global Sailing, Bruce Kirby or ILCA has said anything remotely as unpleasant (or untrue), then I will happily criticize them.

It is unfortunate that such unpleasantness is being echoed by some Laser sailors, who until recently have relied on very few sources of information.

-

 

In case, Gantt/Bruce's post creates the misapprehension that I am communicating with him in private, I want to reassure other anarchists that I am not.

Neither have my position and opinions ever been biased in favor of Laser Performance...or for that matter biased in favor of PSA or Global sailing.

I will let my posts stand in comparison to Gantt's and the audience can judge which ones are informative and contribute some objective insight to the discussion, and which do not.

Have a great weekend and July 4th.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 and the audience can judge which ones are informative and contribute some objective insight to the discussion, 

One aspect of internet discourse that puzzles me is the way people think that persistent personal abuse and ad hominem attacks somehow reduce the credibility of the abused, rather than that of the abuser.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

One aspect of internet discourse that puzzles me is the way people think that persistent personal abuse and ad hominem attacks somehow reduce the credibility of the abused, rather than that of the abuser.

Really; I mean its so hard to pick between facts and unbiased opinion and lies and slander. As pointed out in the last thread, one idiot reportedly runs a marketing company based on misleading polls.The other dude accurately predicted what was going to happen with the litigation long before it happened.  One I ignore and the other is always an interesting and insightful read even when I disagree with him. 

But hey this is pretty simple.

The parties will agree or they wont.

If they wont there will be a vote and the class will vote to keep or boot LPE.

If they vote yes we go to court, the class fractures, and life sucks.

If they vote no at a minimum life sucks for some who want to buy Laser outside of Europe.

So lets hope the parties agree and someone who canntt ever tell the truth or come to the table with an open mind (or any mind at all) grows up.

Are we bored by the lack of news or solid information from anyone yet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Really; I mean its so hard to pick between facts and unbiased opinion and lies and slander. As pointed out in the last thread, one idiot reportedly runs a marketing company based on misleading polls.The other dude accurately predicted what was going to happen with the litigation long before it happened.  One I ignore and the other is always an interesting and insightful read even when I disagree with him. 

(In case anyone thinks Wess is referring to me, I have never run a marketing company based on misleading polls. My companies have had very to do with any type of polls.) According to Wess, IPLore is interesting and insightful? AND in addition, the personal attacks on me are consistently liked by Tillerman.

3 hours ago, IPLore said:

Neither have my position and opinions ever been biased in favor of Laser Performance...or for that matter biased in favor of PSA or Global sailing.

I will let my posts stand in comparison to Gantt's and the audience can judge which ones are informative and contribute some objective insight to the discussion, and which do not.

I can believe that IPLore does not have a bias towards "the aussies", though has had one adainast for sure. Never in favor of Laser Performance? Try this:

On 6/20/2013 at 3:14 AM, IPLore said:

If the class reintroduced a rule saying that a builder needed permission and an agreement from BKI/GS we all know that BKI/GS would not give that permission to a European and American builder. At least not one that would also be approved by the trademark holder and ISAF. 9.1 "Further builders may only be appointed with the prior written approval of BKI, Trade Mark Owner and the IYRU " The effect of introducing the "Gantt rule" would be that LP would be suspended as a class legal builder and there would be a deadlock on appointing a new builder until the case is resolved. No class legal boats could be built. In the meantime LP would sue ILCA for tortious interference.

This is a positioning statement by IPLore designed to support Laser Performance. There are many to choose from, and nearly as many claims by IPLore to have no bias. IPLore's claims of having no bias were in response of a number of people suggesting that he/she did.

I don't expect to ever find out who IPLore is, and how closely or not he/she is related to Laser Performance. In the end it does not matter.

---

What matters is that IPLore is trying to promote a case that justifies a fee for using the Laser trademark. Contained in that post is misinformation and it attempts to steer readers in a specific direction in favor of one of the three Laser trademark owners, which IPLore has been doing for several years.

---

Note that IPLore has deleted / hidden his/her at least one of his/her posts above. Particularly the post liked by Tillerman which included the word "vacillate", basically an attack on me and containing many inaccuracies. Posting inflammatory content then deleting it is a common technique used to 'troll' people.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Of World Sailing or  Laser Performance? 

 

Dunno... it didn’t seem to work for Gannt

now that's funny right there

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

 

I can believe that IPLore does not have a bias towards "the aussies", though has had one adainast for sure. Never in favor of Laser Performance? Try this:

On 6/19/2013 at 11:14 AM, IPLore said:

How can anyone argue with a straight face that it benefits Laser sailors to pass a rule saying that builders worldwide need to be approved by Global Sailing/BKI?

 

If the class reintroduced a rule saying that a builder needed permission and an agreement from BKI/GS we all know that BKI/GS would not give that permission to a European and American builder. At least not one that would also be approved by the trademark holder and ISAF. 9.1 "Further builders may only be appointed with the prior written approval of BKI, Trade Mark Owner and the IYRU " The effect of introducing the "Gantt rule" would be that LP would be suspended as a class legal builder and there would be a deadlock on appointing a new builder until the case is resolved. No class legal boats could be built. In the meantime LP would sue ILCA for tortious interference.

This is a positioning statement by IPLore designed to support Laser Performance. There are many to choose from, and nearly as many claims by IPLore to have no bias. IPLore's claims of having no bias were in response of a number of people suggesting that he/she did.

I don't expect to ever find out who IPLore is, and how closely or not he/she is related to Laser Performance. In the end it does not matter.

-

 

I will probably regret resuscitating this discussion from the Torch thread with Gantt. However for the purposes of consistency, I will reaffirm that I believe my position in 2013 was both factually accurate, unbiased and consistent with my position today.

I believe that the Class Association took the correct position on behalf of class members in 2013 and did so in a legally astute and ethical manner.  I believe that the best possible position for the sailors is that builders and commercial interests do not control the class. I argued that, in the case of the Laser, no one builder should control the class by having the sole right to appoint builders around the world.......and I believe that whether it be Laser Performance or Global Sailing (PSA) or BKI .

In contrast, Gantt's position does indeed appear to have vacillated. In 2013 he argued that the ILCA was wrong to revoke the rule which would have allowed GS to control the class.  In 2019 he argues that ILCA is right to revoke a rule which allows LP to control the class in Europe and NA. .

For the sake of consistency, is Gantt ready to admit that he was wrong in 2013?  He was wrong to have suggested that the class took a decision that was not in the best interest of class members? He was wrong in his prediction that there would be dire legal consequences for the class and most especially he was wrong to imply that class officers had acted in unethical and suspicious manner.

Coincidentally (??), the only consistent thread in Gantt's posts is his support for GS's position. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will probably regret resuscitating this discussion from the Torch thread with Gantt. However for the purposes of consistency, I will reaffirm that I believe my position in 2013 was both factually accurate, unbiased and consistent with my position today.

I believe that the Class Association took the correct position on behalf of class members in 2013 and did so in a legally astute and ethical manner.  I believe that the best possible position for the sailors is that builders and commercial interests do not control the class. I argued that, in the case of the Laser, no one builder should control the class by having the sole right to appoint builders around the world.......and I believe that whether it be Laser Performance or Global Sailing (PSA) or BKI .

In contrast, Gantt's position does indeed appear to have vacillated. In 2013 he argued that the ILCA was wrong to revoke the rule which would have allowed GS to control the class.  In 2019 he argues that ILCA is right to revoke a rule which allows LP to control the class in Europe and NA. .

For the sake of consistency, is Gantt ready to admit that he was wrong in 2013?  He was wrong to have suggested that the class took a decision that was not in the best interest of class members? He was wrong in his prediction that there would be dire legal consequences for the class and most especially he was wrong to imply that class officers had acted in unethical and suspicious manner.

Coincidentally (??), the only consistent thread in Gantt's posts is his support for GS's position. 

 

 

IPLore - I have always appreciated your contributions to these threads combining as they do expert analysis of the legal issues involved and excellent commentary on the negotiating strategies of the various parties, all from an unbiased perspective.

Please keep up the good work.

Share this post


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

I will probably regret resuscitating this discussion from the Torch thread with Gantt. However for the purposes of consistency, I will reaffirm that I believe my position in 2013 was both factually accurate, unbiased and consistent with my position today.

I believe that the Class Association took the correct position on behalf of class members in 2013 and did so in a legally astute and ethical manner.  I believe that the best possible position for the sailors is that builders and commercial interests do not control the class. I argued that, in the case of the Laser, no one builder should control the class by having the sole right to appoint builders around the world.......and I believe that whether it be Laser Performance or Global Sailing (PSA) or BKI .

In contrast, Gantt's position does indeed appear to have vacillated. In 2013 he argued that the ILCA was wrong to revoke the rule which would have allowed GS to control the class.  In 2019 he argues that ILCA is right to revoke a rule which allows LP to control the class in Europe and NA. .

For the sake of consistency, is Gantt ready to admit that he was wrong in 2013?  He was wrong to have suggested that the class took a decision that was not in the best interest of class members? He was wrong in his prediction that there would be dire legal consequences for the class and most especially he was wrong to imply that class officers had acted in unethical and suspicious manner.

Coincidentally (??), the only consistent thread in Gantt's posts is his support for GS's position. 

9 minutes ago, tillerman said:

IPLore - I have always appreciated your contributions to these threads combining as they do expert analysis of the legal issues involved and excellent commentary on the negotiating strategies of the various parties, all from an unbiased perspective.

Please keep up the good work.

Quad erat demonstrandum.

Yet again, IPLore makes false statements about what I have said, though I admit in that, IPLore has shown consistency.

---

Another example IPLore. I referenced that Hieni Wellmann made a statements about the builder's contract's content to which IPLore responded:

On 6/24/2016 at 3:28 AM, IPLore said:

The main point that Heini was making was that the ILCA was not a party to the builders agreements. It was an entirely valid and truthful point that was relevant to class members. He added that the Class did not know the "exact content" of the contract.

What I was referring to was Heini Wellmann's statement which appeared on page 7 of Laser World Dec 2011:
"ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder."

Hieni Wellmann did not say "exact content". IPLore made that up, as sure as "IPLore" is not the writer's real name.

---

We know that Hieni Wellman's statements in 2011 were misleading.

We now all know that the ISAF agreement, signed by ILCA contained clauses that prescribed content in the builder's agreement. We know that annual inspections were performed by ILCA as a direct consequence of the builder's contracted obligation, both well before and after Heini Wellmann's statements in 2011.

Further, ILCA more recently terminated Laser Performance for not fulfilling their contracted obligation for annual site inspections in 2016, 2017 and 2018. My understanding is that in 2019, Laser Performance has still not had a site inspection.

---

We also know of the rift EurILCA executive committee and ILCA World Council. There are unresolved issues, some dating back a while.

Heini Wellmann has a seat on the ILCA World Council as immediate past president.

Heini Wellmann was a signatory to the petition calling for Tracy Usher and Eric Faust's resignation. 

---

In my view, one of the valid concerns raised by Laser sailors in Europe concerns transparency and communication.

I am one of many current, paid up ILCA members who are satisfied that Eric Faust and Tracy Usher are open and committed to battling misinformation - Eric showed us that at the European Master's meeting and Tracy shows that here in this forum.

What we don't know is the exact content of the minutes of the ILCA World Council. They stopped being widely circulated while Heini Wellmann was ILCA president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

What matters is that IPLore is trying to promote a case that justifies a fee for using the Laser trademark. Contained in that post is misinformation and it attempts to steer readers in a specific direction in favor of one of the three Laser trademark owners, which IPLore has been doing for several years. 

Factually, that is blatantly inaccurate.

I submitted a post that outlined 6 challenges that will have to be overcome in order to reach a licensing agreement on the trademark (based on 25 years of representing one of the world's most iconic trademarks). I hope and trust that some anarchists found the post to be interesting, objective and unbiased. At the very least, I hope it is a caution not to be too hopeful that all the issues will be resolved in one or two meetings.

In that post, I remarked in passing (in italics),  that the simpler solution (that I personally support) is the Class proposition to revoke the trademark rule.  It is my opinion, confirmed by Tracy U, that this does NOT do away with the name of the Laser but merely "unbrands" the class rules and allows other brands to supply boats as appropriate.

In my "radical proposal" outlined before Tracy's update, I proposed:
 

Quote

 

Step Three: The ILCA announces that it is proposing a rule change to drop the requirement of the 14' boat to have the trademark name "Laser"  . Instead it is going to be called the Kirby 14  or the Bruce 14 .  This announcement is unanimously supported by all members of the council who explain to members that this is in their interest, because it puts them in charge of their own destiny.


 

How on earth Gantt has the temerity to suggest that I (or Tracy) am proposing a case that is in favor of one of the three trade mark owners is beyond me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, BruceH-NZ said:

We know that Hieni Wellman's statements in 2011 were misleading.

 

Here we go again.

You were never able to support your comments about Hieni,Jeff and others then. Please do not try again now. You accused and intimated that class officials were somehow unethically under the influence of LP. You accused and intimated that contributors on this forum, who supported the class association (including Tiller, myself and others) were somehow associated with LP.  Since I am 100% sure that neither Tiller or myself are under the influence of LP, I long ago decided your rumors and innuendo had zero credibility.  

The simple fact remains.....you opposed the class association revoking a rule, a rule which would have put the class under the control of Global Sailing/BKI.  The Class members voted in favor of revoking that rule. It was the right thing to do!  

If you continue to think that builders should only be appointed if they are approved by a NZ company called Global sailing and have a contract with a company called BKI (controlled by GS)....you are entitled to that opinion. 

To some of us, it seems inconsistent with a position supporting the class now and it is not clear whether you have changed your mind or not

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Agreeing a fair and reasonable fee will not be simple. 

Correct!

It can be done. But it will be complicated and certainly not simple or easy.

Share this post


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

 You accused and intimated that contributors on this forum, who supported the class association (including Tiller, myself and others) were somehow associated with LP.  Since I am 100% sure that neither Tiller or myself are under the influence of LP, I long ago decided your rumors and innuendo had zero credibility.

 

I am (not) really Bill Crane and Tillerman and many others here and indeed I was and still am under the influence of LPE.  And our sole purpose in life is to infuriate Canntt, Gannt, and Bruce the sheep F-er or whatever he calls himself today.  Our plan is simple... we don't have to make and supply boats.  While GS/PSA tries to take over the Laser world in various unethical manner we plan to bankrupt PSA/GS by having them pay the sheep F-er to chase Bill you, me, Tiller, we (we really are (not) all the same person) around the internet.  It slows their evil plan and also keeps the sheep safer.

Seriously, why do you guys bother even responding to him?  Anyone stupid enough to believe his drivel gets what they deserve. The ignore tool is your friend.

Good grief we need some real news.  Or a legal filing we can sink our teeth into.

I am (not) Bill Crane and I approved this message.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Wess said:

I am (not) really Bill Crane and Tillerman and many others here and indeed I was and still am under the influence of LPE.  And our sole purpose in life is to infuriate Canntt, Gannt, and Bruce the sheep F-er or whatever he calls himself today.  Our plan is simple... we don't have to make and supply boats.  While GS/PSA tries to take over the Laser world in various unethical manner we plan to bankrupt PSA/GS by having them pay the sheep F-er to chase Bill you, me, Tiller, we (we really are (not) all the same person) around the internet.  It slows their evil plan and also keeps the sheep safer.

Seriously, why do you guys bother even responding to him?  Anyone stupid enough to believe his drivel gets what they deserve. The ignore tool is your friend.

Good grief we need some real news.  Or a legal filing we can sink our teeth into.

I am (not) Bill Crane and I approved this message.

I like Mark Twain's advice on such matters...

mark-twain-9512564-1-402.jpg

 

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

There is a legal pathway to move forward without the Laser brand. What makes agreeing simple is that if the choice is made to no longer brand the boats "Laser" is made, then Rastegar will be even more out of pocket.

I believe that all ILCA World Council members are genuine when they say no longer using the Laser name would be a shame.

 

 

Again, just to be factually accurate.

The proposed ILCA rule change to revoke the trademark rule was NOT "a pathway to move forward without the Laser brand".

The ILCA is NOT suggesting "no longer using the Laser name".

It is these kind of posts and suggestions that confuse Laser sailors and European Laser class members.

The ILCA rule change would merely have unbranded the class rules.  It would define the boat and the rules without a trade mark. PSA , PSJ and LP would be allowed to continue supplying boats, and continue calling their boats a Laser ...PROVIDED they complied with the LCM and class rules.  One analogy is the F18 class rules, where the class rules are for an F18 but Hobie Tiger enthusiasts can continue to buy and sail a Hobiecat brand.  The difference is that the OSHOD 14 (Olympic Single Hander One Design) class would be identical from every builder and brand.    Many sailors will still want to buy a Laser brand boat from their local Laser distributor....and they would still be able to.....but there would be options where appropriate.

I still think that the rule change is the simplest and most elegant solution.....but I think there are two good reasons why Tracy and his team are  first pursuing the option to see if a trademark licensing agreement can be obtained. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Wess said:

I am (not) Bill Crane and I approved this message.

Sorry Wess, I didnt mean to make you feel left out. Yes I recall that Gantt also accused you of working with LP. I just couldnt find the post.

FWIW, Bill Crane wears a T shirt nowadays which says "I am not Wess" on the front.......

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How on earth Gantt has the temerity to suggest that I (or Tracy) am proposing a case that is in favor of one of the three trade mark owners is beyond me. 

I very much doubt that it is beyond you IPLore.

Again, IPLore mischaracterizes what I said. I did not suggest that Tracy favors one of the three trademark owners, nor do I believe he does.

IPLore does not address my primary criticism of IPLore's post, and now tries to deflect attention.

1 hour ago, IPLore said:

You were never able to support your comments about Hieni,Jeff and others then. Please do not try again now.

My comments above show the exact quotes and explain in further detail what I was saying. IPLore yet again mischaracterizes what I have said and personally attacks me.

IPLore's responses deflect attention away from addressing IPLore's own misquoting and deliberate attempts to misinform.

Outlined in my previous post above shows clear and incontrovertible evidence that IPLore misquoted Heini Wellmann to push an agenda.

IPLore is lying about what people say to push an agenda, again.

---

54 minutes ago, IPLore said:

The proposed ILCA rule change to revoke the trademark rule was NOT "a pathway to move forward without the Laser brand".

The ILCA is NOT suggesting "no longer using the Laser name".

Now IPLore mischaracterizes what ILCA are saying. There is a possibility that if agreement is not reached for use of the Laser trademark, then the Laser trademark will not be used.

The consequence of removing this possibility is that the importance and value of the Laser trademark is elevated.

If the Laser trademark must be used for all boats, then Velum / Rastegar can charge a premium for its use.

I'm wondering if any Laser sailor would be happy to pay an additional 5%, 8% or even 10% for use of the Laser brand for their new boat? Would dealers be happy?

IPLore said in response to Tracy's comment re the removal of branding as a requirement:

22 hours ago, IPLore said:

But it is academic, because currently it seems the Laser consortium is going to try a more difficult and complex agreement of licensing the trade mark.

 In fact, the opposite is true - it is not academic because the existence of the possibility to not use the Laser brand simplifies the negotiation.

Either an agreement to use the Laser brand is reached, or the class moves forward without it. It genuinely is that simple. And as IPLore knows, Rastegar's time is up. 

IPLore also spoke previously about a potential lawsuit. To be clear, using the Laser brand is not a legal requirement set in concrete. All the relevant contracts have exit clauses. The potential changes are entirely legal. The best interests of the Laser class are being served by the ILCA World Council.

---

Thank you IPLore for your best efforts. I want you to know that as a direct consequence of your personal attacks against me; and because of your obvious agenda, I have increased my focus on this topic. Keep pushing your agenda IPLore, and I shall keep pushing back. Maybe even step up my efforts a little.

Share this post


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

Sorry Wess, I didnt mean to make you feel left out. Yes I recall that Gantt also accused you of working with LP. I just couldnt find the post.

FWIW, Bill Crane wears a T shirt nowadays which says "I am not Wess" on the front.......

:rolleyes:

LOL not feeling left out at all. Just wonder why you guys bother responding. It’s like arguing with a toddler. 

Oh and Bill (didn’t) wore that shirt the last time we (didn’t) have dinner. I would gladly break bread with him though. Be interesting to get his take on this.

Odds of parties reaching agreement; 1 in 4. Odds of vote passing; 3 in 8. Odds were get some litigation to track and follow.... really good!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

I very much doubt that it is beyond you IPLore.

Again, IPLore mischaracterizes what I said. I did not suggest that Tracy favors one of the three trademark owners, nor do I believe he does.

IPLore does not address my primary criticism of IPLore's post, and now tries to deflect attention.

 

My comments above show the exact quotes and explain in further detail what I was saying. IPLore yet again mischaracterizes what I have said and personally attacks me.

IPLore's responses deflect attention away from addressing IPLore's own misquoting and deliberate attempts to misinform.

Outlined in my previous post above shows clear and incontrovertible evidence that IPLore misquoted Heini Wellmann to push an agenda.

IPLore is lying about what people say to push an agenda, again.

---

 

Now IPLore mischaracterizes what ILCA are saying. There is a possibility that if agreement is not reached for use of the Laser trademark, then the Laser trademark will not be used.

The consequence of removing this possibility is that the importance and value of the Laser trademark is elevated.

If the Laser trademark must be used for all boats, then Velum / Rastegar can charge a premium for its use.

I'm wondering if any Laser sailor would be happy to pay an additional 5%, 8% or even 10% for use of the Laser brand for their new boat? Would dealers be happy?

IPLore said in response to Tracy's comment re the removal of branding as a requirement:

 In fact, the opposite is true - it is not academic because the existence of the possibility to not use the Laser brand simplifies the negotiation.

Either an agreement to use the Laser brand is reached, or the class moves forward without it. It genuinely is that simple. And as IPLore knows, Rastegar's time is up. 

IPLore also spoke previously about a potential lawsuit. To be clear, using the Laser brand is not a legal requirement set in concrete. All the relevant contracts have exit clauses. The potential changes are entirely legal. The best interests of the Laser class are being served by the ILCA World Council.

---

Thank you IPLore for your best efforts. I want you to know that as a direct consequence of your personal attacks against me; and because of your obvious agenda, I have increased my focus on this topic. Keep pushing your agenda IPLore, and I shall keep pushing back. Maybe even step up my efforts a little.

Honestly, it seems to me that IPL is very restrained in his responses to Bruce/Gantt's diatribes.

IPL  corrects him, which Gantt immediately interprets as a personal attack.   

Gantt must think we have very short memories if we cannot remember his attacks on the ILCA class officers. 

I cannot be bothered to go back to the Torch forum but I remember Gantt arguing for page after page that the ILCA were a party to the contracts between BKI and the builders.

Then when some of the contracts became publicly available, and IPL and others proved beyond any doubt that ILCA were not party to the contracts, Gantt started arguing that even if the ICLA were not a party to the contract Heini must have known what the content was.

5 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

What I was referring to was Heini Wellmann's statement which appeared on page 7 of Laser World Dec 2011:
"ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder."

Of course, any of us can speculate about the general content of the contracts, but Heini's point was obvious to me, that ILCA were not a party to the contract and was not privy to the actual content. To this day, I see nothing misleading about Heini's statement. I see nothing misleading about IPL trying to explain that to you. 

Anyway, why dwell on the details.  IPL has asked Bruce and Gantt a straightforward question. Let me ask it in even simpler way. Have you changed your position since 2013? Do you still think the class should reintroduce a rule requiring GS/BKI to approve builders?  Do you still think GS/BKI should collect a fee from all builders?

3 questions. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The simple fact remains.....you opposed the class association revoking a rule, a rule which would have put the class under the control of Global Sailing/BKI.  The Class members voted in favor of revoking that rule. It was the right thing to do!  

If you continue to think that builders should only be appointed if they are approved by a NZ company called Global sailing and have a contract with a company called BKI (controlled by GS)....you are entitled to that opinion. 

To some of us, it seems inconsistent with a position supporting the class now and it is not clear whether you have changed your mind or not

 

Bruce.....will you clarify whether you have changed your position on this?    Do you still oppose revoking the rule which would require Global Sailing to approve all builders and collect a fee from them? or Do you think the class members were right to revoke that rule?   Enquiring minds would like to know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I still think that the rule change is the simplest and most elegant solution.....but I think there are two good reasons why Tracy and his team are  first pursuing the option to see if a trademark licensing agreement can be obtained. 

Hmmmm.

IPL, what are those two good reasons?   

You had me convinced by your earlier argument in favor of simply doing away with the trademark rule, that I was surprised to see this comment at the end.

Share this post


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

Gantt must think we have very short memories if we cannot remember his attacks on the ILCA class officers. 

Please show an example my "attacks on the ILCA class officers" and I shall unreservedly apologize. I have been subjected to several years of a smear campaign, with hundreds of comments which mischaracterize what I actually said. 

Also, to show your balance here, please comment on IPLore's misquoting of Heini Wellmann. Do you agree with it? Do you think it was intentional or not?

Further, do you have a position on why Heini Wellmann allegedly signed the petition calling for Tracy Usher and Eric Faust?

50 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

I cannot be bothered to go back to the Torch forum but I remember Gantt arguing for page after page that the ILCA were a party to the contracts between BKI and the builders.

Then when some of the contracts became publicly available, and IPL and others proved beyond any doubt that ILCA were not party to the contracts, Gantt started arguing that even if the ICLA were not a party to the contract Heini must have known what the content was.

Respectively, I have not changed my position on this. The IYRU agreement which ILCA was a party to, was incorporated into the builders contract. The builder's contract and the IYRU are both available for anyone to check. The IYRU prescribed some of the content of the builder's contract.

My main point for raising the above was to show that IPLore misquoted Heini Wellmann. I have many examples of IPLore misquoting me.

50 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Have you changed your position since 2013?

Yes and no. Where I have changed my position results from developments since then. For example, World Sailing have introduced their Olympic Equipment policy, which in no small way presses the 'reset button' for the contracts.

50 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Do you still think the class should reintroduce a rule requiring GS/BKI to approve builders?

No. Only because of recent developments. For the Laser class, my preference under the new system is for the ILCA to select the builders. The Laser class is an unusual case because it has the capacity to pay staff to do that.

50 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Do you still think GS/BKI should collect a fee from all builders?

Yes.

Bruce Kirby Inc had clear rights for the design of the Laser, and their were contracts which governed those rights. The royalty is modest (2% of the wholesale boat) and the entity Bruce Kirby Inc is a saleable asset, which can be bought by another entity, in this case Global Sailing. For now, there is no rule which deals with any conflict of interest, however in the future, maybe there should be.

Designer's royalties apply for other designers of other classes as well, like the 49er and the Nacra 17.

---

I hope that clears up a few things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has become like a bad trip down memory lane.

Slowly but surely people will leave Bruce to his own ramblings and this thread will become tumbleweed as the discussion moves elsewhere. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

This is like a bad trip down memory lane.

Slowly but surely people will leave Bruce to his own ramblings and this thread will become tumbleweed as the discussion moves elsewhere. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BruceH-NZ said:

 I have been subjected to several years of a smear campaign, with hundreds of comments which mischaracterize what I actually said. 

Amazing how there are hundreds of comments that have it wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bill4 said:

Amazing how there are hundreds of comments that have it wrong.

Yup. You Bill have made relatively few, most quite recently about what I said I was told Farzad Rastegar said on May 22. My reference to hundreds is specifically the comments made by IPLore, Wess and Tillerman.

The rest are a mix.

I don't pretend to get everything right.

My short term want is to address the misinformation that is the foundation to the rift between EurILCA and ILCA. How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bill4 said:

Amazing how there are hundreds of comments that have it wrong.

 

1 hour ago, BruceH-NZ said:

Yup. You Bill have made relatively few, most quite recently about what I said I was told Farzad Rastegar said on May 22. My reference to hundreds is specifically the comments made by IPLore, Wess and Tillerman.

The rest are a mix.

I don't pretend to get everything right.

My short term want is to address the misinformation that is the foundation to the rift between EurILCA and ILCA. How about you?

Short term? Well, SailFlow tells me it’s going to be blowing 12-15 tomorrow from noon on with temps in the mid 70’s. It is our Canada Day holiday, so I am going to have a two-boat sailing afternoon with some time in my Laser and some time in my Lightning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bill4 said:

blowing 12-15 tomorrow

Blowing? 

Just a mere zephyr.

(I'm a little jealous. Winter here. My highlight was lighting the fire, and being warmed by it while sipping a hot cup of creamy mushroom soup. My fantasy is that someone steps up and does the hard fact finding work needed to get EurILCA and ILCA singing kumbaya in harmony, and I'm just a spectator. Two boats in one day is just plain greedy. Love it.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bill4 said:

 

Short term? Well, SailFlow tells me it’s going to be blowing 12-15 tomorrow from noon on with temps in the mid 70’s. It is our Canada Day holiday, so I am going to have a two-boat sailing afternoon with some time in my Laser and some time in my Lightning.

that sounds like a good afternoon! have fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bill4 said:

 

Short term? Well, SailFlow tells me it’s going to be blowing 12-15 tomorrow from noon on with temps in the mid 70’s. It is our Canada Day holiday, so I am going to have a two-boat sailing afternoon with some time in my Laser and some time in my Lightning.

Enjoy!
 

 

Share this post


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

IPLore - I have always appreciated your contributions to these threads combining as they do expert analysis of the legal issues involved and excellent commentary on the negotiating strategies of the various parties, all from an unbiased perspective.

Please keep up the good work.

IP, Wess, Tiller and Bruce. 

I think it's great  that you all come to the point now, and that you explain what you are standing for. This makes it much easier to understand why and what you are posting here. 

IP: seems you are fighting hard against GSL and PSA. You can do that, I have no problem with that. But I don't think that it's correct to run a defamation campagne against people like Bruce and me,  and post things that are incorrect while you must know better if you really have some experience with international IP law. What I mean are your comments to the legal situation in europe and also on the current legal case in the USA. To me it seems like you are prefering to support LPE if this can help to support your point of view. Maybe you can explain what Berne means and when GER FRA and USA signed that contract.... just as a starting point. 

Bruce: you seem to support GSL, and you have leaked some internal stuff like Alex B and Jean Luc are taking money from LPE, and that this is the reason of the conflict between ILCA and EURILCA. As you all have seen in the Roses video it is more likely that Alex is just representing the position of the majority of the sailers. I don't think that this kind of unproven leaked information does help in solving the conflicts between ILCA and EURILCA. 

I would love to read a fair discussion, proper legal information and not strongly biased halftruths and defamation campains here. The way you are running the discussion here does not help the Laser Class to come out of the mud, I believe. 

GSL is part of at least of the LCMA as TU explained so nobody can do anything about that at the moment. 

My point of view: If the ballot is coming up a full set if true and valid informations on the whole situation should be availible, so that class members can make a proper decision to vote on changing the class rules. I found this forum, as this seems to be the only place where there is an ongoing discussion on the disputes, and I was looking for some more infos than what ILCA, EURILCA and the german class were posting on their pages. 

As a former boatbuilder, technical director of a former SMOD manufacturer and boatdesigner I might be a little bit biased to generally support the rights of designers, but I would not try to post "alternative facts" to support this. I can accept that BK has sold his rights to GSL if he believes that this is the best for the class, while I don't really like that the rights are in the hands of one single builder, that may also have very own commercial interests. 

 

Ah, we had some great Laser racing yesterday,39 deg Celsius, gusting up to 25kn.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

Please show an example my "attacks on the ILCA class officers" and I shall unreservedly apologize. I have been subjected to several years of a smear campaign, with hundreds of comments which mischaracterize what I actually said. 

You could start by apologizing to Jeff Martin's family and friends for all your suggestions that Jeff was in some way corrupted by LP and that the announcements from the class were misleading and that his intentions were not in the best interest of class members.  If I could quote from his obituary on the ILCA website:

"Jeff’s dedication to the sport of sailing was unparalleled, having served as the Executive Secretary of the International Laser Class Association for 40 years. Jeff was a cornerstone of Laser events, having worked at every Laser Open World Championship except the first one in 1974 where he was a competitor. "

Forty years of service to the sport!  Perhaps you can start by finding in your heart the courage to make an "unreserved apology"  to JM.  Whether you thought the ends justified the means its time to apologize now for your campaign of innuendo and muck spreading..

Also, to show your balance here, please comment on IPLore's misquoting of Heini Wellmann. Do you agree with it? Do you think it was intentional or not?

Yes!  I 100% agree with IPL's characterization of HW's comment.

  You suggested that ILCA was a party to the builders contract and you were wrong.  You suggested that HW did know the content of the builders contracts and then started sliding around like a puck on ice to suggest he knew some of the content or the general content.......all of us reading HW's letter understood it to mean that the ILCA could not get involved in deciding the conflict because ILCA was not a party to the contract and ILCA did not know the actual content, the precise content or the exact content. Call it what you will. I agree with IPL's characterization of what HW was saying  and not yours.

Further, do you have a position on why Heini Wellmann allegedly signed the petition calling for Tracy Usher and Eric Faust?

NO I do not. Because it is "alleged".....and it is alleged by you, a notoriously unreliable source. 

However I will comment on the "fact" that Robert Scheidt  and Beat Heinz signed the petition because both of them have publicly announced that they signed the petition (which only got 650+/- signatures).  I do not think that Robert Scheidt is a bad person and I certainly do not think he is corrupted by LP. Frankly, he is a hero to the sport. If you read why they signed the petition, it is because they are worried about losing the Laser name. It has huge nostalgic value for many Laser sailors.    Which says to me that Tracy and the ILCA need to improve their communication with laser sailors and should have been more consultative with regional leaders before announcing the possible changes.  Gouv nailed this point about 20 pages earlier. 

Respectively, I have not changed my position on this. The IYRU agreement which ILCA was a party to, was incorporated into the builders contract. The builder's contract and the IYRU are both available for anyone to check. The IYRU prescribed some of the content of the builder's contract.

The builders contract was not available until after the case started!!!!!!

My main point for raising the above was to show that IPLore misquoted Heini Wellmann. I have many examples of IPLore misquoting me.

Wow. That's your main point????

Yes and no.

Uh oh, here goes the ice puck again.

Where I have changed my position results from developments since then. For example, World Sailing have introduced their Olympic Equipment policy, which in no small way presses the 'reset button' for the contracts.

No. Only because of recent developments.

So , just to be clear , before the ice puck curves away again. If WS had not introduced their FRAND policy, you still think that Global Sailing is the best person to appoint builders?  If ILCA and WS, approve a builder, you think that a New Zealand company that owns the Australian builder should have a right of veto of who builds Laser in North America and Europe???

That is still your view?   And you are unbiased?

For the Laser class, my preference under the new system is for the ILCA to select the builders. The Laser class is an unusual case because it has the capacity to pay staff to do that. 

Well a majority of Laser sailors think that the ILCA and WS have sufficient independence and knowledge to approve builders without the obviously conflicted input or veto power of GS....both then and now.

Yes.

Bruce Kirby Inc had clear rights for the design of the Laser, and their were contracts which governed those rights. The royalty is modest (2% of the wholesale boat) and the entity Bruce Kirby Inc is a saleable asset, which can be bought by another entity, in this case Global Sailing. For now, there is no rule which deals with any conflict of interest, however in the future, maybe there should be.

Designer's royalties apply for other designers of other classes as well, like the 49er and the Nacra 17.

---

I hope that clears up a few things.  Not really

Your post suggests that you would still have liked to see Global sailing control the Laser class, and that only the introduction of WS's FRAND policy changes your mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your post suggests that you would still have liked to see Global sailing control the Laser class, and that only the introduction of WS's FRAND policy changes your mind.

I have to admit I don't know much about Global Sailing other than that
a)  GS owns Performance Sailcraft Australia.
b)  GS is owned by the Spencer family of New Zealand.
c)  In 2010 GS advertised for dealers in Europe to become distributors for "the Bruce Kirby designed Olympic Sailing Dinghy."
d)  GS bought BKI from Bruce Kirby.

As he is from New Zealand, I assume that Gantt probably knows a little more about Global Sailing and the Spencers than I do, so I wonder if he could share any knowledge he has about them.

What is it about Global Sailing that has made Gantt such a strong supporter of them? Does he know any of the Spencer family personally?

I would even turn off my "ignore" of Gantt to read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the LP Facebook Page:

LASERPERFORMANCE – INTERNATIONAL LASER CLASS ASSOCIATION TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT SIGNED TODAY

Similar to the document signed by LP and the Sunfish Class, this Agreement is in the form that LP has been asking for in the last 3 years. A big THANK YOU to World Sailing for facilitating the process. We have again invited World Sailing and ILCA to inspect the UK-based Laser Manufacturing facilities. Let’s hope the inspection can happen as soon as possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You could start by apologizing to Jeff Martin's family and friends for all your suggestions that Jeff was in some way corrupted by LP and that the announcements from the class were misleading and that his intentions were not in the best interest of class members. 

No problem. Just show me where I said that Jeff Martin was corrupted by LP.

With the deepest respect Eyesailor, what you are saying about me is incorrect.

2 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

The builders contract was not available until after the case started!!!!!!

That's 100% correct, though it was not all about the builders contracts. In 2011 there were people who voted early who wanted to change their vote because they felt they were mislead by ILCA.

I didn't just say that the ILCA statements in 2011 leading up to the vote were just misleading, from 2013 I said that ILCA made incorrect or false statements. I think that you would be hard pressed to change people's minds about this. Here's a post by Mr Clean which was made before I made any statement that ILCA made false statements:

On 4/27/2013 at 11:50 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

interestingly enough, the libel argument seems silly until you see that (a) the ILCA made at least one verifiable false statement of fact (when introducing the builder-change vote) and ( B) it straight-up damaged Kirby in quantifiable ways - that's pretty much the definition of libel, and is the first thing I'm seeing that really puts the ILCA in a bad legal spot.

And here's the sort of thing I was saying:

On 6/28/2016 at 9:43 AM, BruceH-NZ said:

Again, this does not talk in any way about intentions of Jeff Martin or Heini Wellmann whose names appear under these false statements, it just means that the statements were false.

Maybe you are referring to statements like this?:

On 4/1/2013 at 10:59 PM, Otterbox said:

It seems quite possible at least one person, whose initials JM are on lots of contract documents, had either forgotten that he had signed them or had his head buried in the sand. (Remember we ILCA members were told of the opinion formed that the `patents' had expired by the ILCA`s Lawyers who breathtakingly admitted they had not seen all the contracts, when providing the ILCA that advice.) Note too that JM had a role both in the ILCA and ISAF - some might see that as an interesting conflict too.

 Note that the contracts were publicly available in 2013.

2 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Yes!  I 100% agree with IPL's characterization of HW's comment.

This does not address my question. I asked about IPLore misquoting Heini Wellmann. I'm fairly sure you are not agreeing with the practice of misquoting. My real question is whether or not you thin IPLore deliberately misquoted Heini or not.

2 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Further, do you have a position on why Heini Wellmann allegedly signed the petition calling for Tracy Usher and Eric Faust?

NO I do not. Because it is "alleged".....and it is alleged by you, a notoriously unreliable source. 

The reason I said alleged is because someone could easily pretend to be Heini Wellmann on the petition site. I grabbed a screen shot showing Heini's name appearing.

image.png.71e625ce6c9a7d98159bb14a4899a0dc.png

The petition and it's exact wording is here.

2 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

So , just to be clear , before the ice puck curves away again. If WS had not introduced their FRAND policy, you still think that Global Sailing is the best person to appoint builders?  If ILCA and WS, approve a builder, you think that a New Zealand company that owns the Australian builder should have a right of veto of who builds Laser in North America and Europe???

That is still your view?   And you are unbiased?

Thank you for clarifying your question. Personally, no I never believed Global Sailing should have right of veto of builders. In my view that is a conflict of interest. I think the best entity to select builders is the ILCA. 

No, I am not unbiased, nor claim to be. I have a bias towards Bruce Kirby (and Ian Bruce) for designing, developing and promoting the Laser in the first place. I also have a bias towards the ILCA as an organisation, and want to see it run as professionally as reasonably possible. To a large extent, I believe Tracy Usher and Eric Faust are doing exactly that, and I have said so many times. Regarding Jeff Martin, I have been consistently thankful for his many years of tireless service to the class, and my approach for the most part was to vigorously question what the heck happened in 2011. Heini Wellmann also volunteered his time and his commitment is there for all to see. We owe all ILCA World Council members a vote of thanks for their best efforts, particularly over the last 10 years or so. And yes, that includes Jean Luc and Alex. Having a bias towards the ILCA does not mean I am mindless in my support. If something is questionable, then you bet I am going to question it. I was first a member of the ILCA in 1983. After some years away from the class, I rejoined more recently.

I have a bias towards PSJ and PSA who I believe do a good job. I don't know much about Global Sailing, other than it shares stakeholders with PSA. I am very familiar with NZ and Australian business structures, and Global Sailing is a separate entity to PSA; Global sailing does not own PSA.

I also admit to having a bias against Farzad Rastegar (and his group of companies) for LaserPerformance not complying with contractual obligations, and leading a company which has made multiple public accusational statements which in my view are not in the best interests of the class.

2 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Your post suggests that you would still have liked to see Global sailing control the Laser class, and that only the introduction of WS's FRAND policy changes your mind.

No, you misunderstand what I wrote above so I shall clarify.

First, a small mistake Eyesailor, I was talking about Global sailing selecting builders, not controlling the Laser class as you put forward. I have never, ever supported the notion of any commercial interests controlling the Laser class and have said so previously. Specifically, I do not support Global Sailing running the Laser class. Nor do I support LaserPerformance, Velum, SailLaser, LaserPerformance United, MacLaren or any other entity owned by Farzad Rastegar controlling the Laser class.

Under the old contract system, I believe that in the same way that builders can change ownership, Bruce Kirby Inc could too. The way it was set up in the early 1970s Bruce Kirby Inc was to select builders worldwide. Under the old contracts, I believe they were designed to allow transfer with conditions in the IYRU agreement spelling out how. So in my view, the attempts made to transfer ownership were legitimate.

Because two owners of Global Sailing are also stakeholders of PSA, in my view GS selecting builders is a conflict of interest.

The World Sailing Olympic Equipment Policy which was formed in 2018 and ratified earlier this year changes that, and replaces the old contracts. I think it will be revealed shortly (if it hasn't already) that ILCA will be responsible for selecting builders.

I support ILCA selecting builders. 

1 hour ago, tillerman said:

I have to admit I don't know much about Global Sailing other than that
a)  GS owns Performance Sailcraft Australia.
b)  GS is owned by the Spencer family of New Zealand.
c)  In 2010 GS advertised for dealers in Europe to become distributors for "the Bruce Kirby designed Olympic Sailing Dinghy."
d)  GS bought BKI from Bruce Kirby.

As he is from New Zealand, I assume that Gantt probably knows a little more about Global Sailing and the Spencers than I do, so I wonder if he could share any knowledge he has about them.

What is it about Global Sailing that has made Gantt such a strong supporter of them? Does he know any of the Spencer family personally?

I would even turn off my "ignore" of Gantt to read that.

I had never heard of Global Sailing until 2013, and most of my information has come as a result of the legal action. The Spencers are mentioned from time to time in NZ media, in recent times not so much. (Also my focus has been more international in recent years; I spent more outside of NZ during 2014-2018 than in it).

No, I do not know any of the Spencer family personally, and have never knowingly met or personally communicated with any.

---

I see you Eyesailor are based in Bordeaux. I was based nearby just south of Auch for a couple of months in 2018.

---

3 hours ago, jgh66 said:

Bruce: you seem to support GSL, and you have leaked some internal stuff like Alex B and Jean Luc are taking money from LPE, and that this is the reason of the conflict between ILCA and EURILCA. As you all have seen in the Roses video it is more likely that Alex is just representing the position of the majority of the sailers. I don't think that this kind of unproven leaked information does help in solving the conflicts between ILCA and EURILCA. 

I hope the above clears up my approach to Global Sailing.

I was told multiple times by people who were there what Farzad Rastegar allegedly said at a meeting on 22 May about Alex B and Jeff Martin (not Jean Luc). I was aware of others talking about it, and that some who were part of the meeting (video link etc) did not hear Farzad Rastegar say it. In my view, the consequence of the statements were driving ILCA and EurILCA further apart. I think you will find that my publicly releasing it played a small part in dealing with what was already a destructive element. I was correct in that the focus did shift back to Rastegar, who at a later meeting had an explanation. (If you want further details, please talk to someone who was there).

I am very motivated to heal the rift between ILCA and EurILCA.

3 hours ago, jgh66 said:

My point of view: If the ballot is coming up a full set if true and valid informations on the whole situation should be availible, so that class members can make a proper decision to vote on changing the class rules. I found this forum, as this seems to be the only place where there is an ongoing discussion on the disputes, and I was looking for some more infos than what ILCA, EURILCA and the german class were posting on their pages. 

As a former boatbuilder, technical director of a former SMOD manufacturer and boatdesigner I might be a little bit biased to generally support the rights of designers, but I would not try to post "alternative facts" to support this. I can accept that BK has sold his rights to GSL if he believes that this is the best for the class, while I don't really like that the rights are in the hands of one single builder, that may also have very own commercial interests. 

Excellent!!!!

3 hours ago, jgh66 said:

Ah, we had some great Laser racing yesterday,39 deg Celsius, gusting up to 25kn.

39 degrees in Germany?!?!?!! Wow. Too hot for a wetsuit, though the water would cool you for sure.

25 knots is fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Looper said:

From the LP Facebook Page:

LASERPERFORMANCE – INTERNATIONAL LASER CLASS ASSOCIATION TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT SIGNED TODAY

Similar to the document signed by LP and the Sunfish Class, this Agreement is in the form that LP has been asking for in the last 3 years. A big THANK YOU to World Sailing for facilitating the process. We have again invited World Sailing and ILCA to inspect the UK-based Laser Manufacturing facilities. Let’s hope the inspection can happen as soon as possible.

Thanks for posting some actual noteworthy information!  In and of itself it does not mean much but its at least not a step backwards.  A step forward maybe.  Maybe its a sign that they all agree to punt on the challenging parts of FRAND terms and just put a wallpaper agreement in place and let the businesses and courts (if it ever got there) decide if terms offered were fair and reasonable or not. That is one - maybe the only - face saving way out for all of them.  They can says its FRAND never reveal the details of the contracts and life goes on...

... except the US supply problem would still be a problem.

Be interesting to see what ILCA says if anything.  Hello @SFBayLaser and or @aroy210677.  Got milk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jgh66 said:

IP,

IP: seems you are fighting hard against GSL and PSA. You can do that, I have no problem with that. But I don't think that it's correct to run a defamation campagne against people like Bruce and me,  and post things that are incorrect while you must know better if you really have some experience with international IP law. What I mean are your comments to the legal situation in europe and also on the current legal case in the USA. To me it seems like you are prefering to support LPE if this can help to support your point of view. Maybe you can explain what Berne means and when GER FRA and USA signed that contract.... just as a starting point. 

 

Ah, we had some great Laser racing yesterday,39 deg Celsius, gusting up to 25kn.

 

 

Hello jgh,

First of all, if I have created any impression that I wanted to denigrate your contribution to this forum, you have my truly sincere apologies. I enjoy your contribution.  I tried to find where I created that misunderstanding.  You asked why BKI and GS did not bring an authorship suit in Germany. In reply, I gave three likely reasons why. Possibly my answer was misunderstood. The answer was not meant to discourage you or insult you, simply to explain my educated opinion.  Thus far nobody has brought a suit in Germany,(possibly due to Jurisdiction and that corporations cannot claim authorship in Germany).  If they do we can revisit....but I assure you that I was only sharing my opinion, and if the construction of my language caused any offense then that is my fault and you have my apology.   

I am not fighting against GS and PSA. On the contrary, I hope that PSA continue to build Lasers, continue to use the brand name and prosper. I even suggested in an earlier post in this same thread that there was an opportunity for PSA to supply Lasers to the West Coast USA, hardly the post of someone fighting against PSA. 

Six years ago, I leveled one criticism at GS, which I felt was fair. I criticized their support (instigation?)  of the law suit against the Class Association. I think the class did the right thing and I felt the law suit  was based on a very weak claim (tortious interference) which would be thrown out. It was subsequently summarily dismissed. It was not based on taking sides, merely an objective opinion.   Its ancient history.

I have criticized BOTH  GS and LP for failing to settle their longstanding contractual law suit. Since both sides think they are right, GS doubtless thinks I am against them ...and LP thinks I am against LP.  I think the 6+ year law suit is asinine. They are both damaging the class and their businesses more than any possible result from the case. Since we do not know who is causing the settlement discussions to fail, we cannot place the blame at either of them, merely both.We have heard enough to know that Rastegaar finds it difficult to compromise but we dont actually know why the case drags on.

It is public knowledge that LP and PSA have a terrible dysfunctional relationship based on distrust at the moment. There are two consequences. 1. The Class suffers and 2. It is going to make it much harder to arrive at a licensing agreement

I doubt that LP think I am preferring them!!  I was virulent in my criticism of how they attacked the Sunfish class. I have advocated removing the trademark rule in the Laser class .

"The problem with being neutral is that both sides think you are a traitor". :mellow:

The Berne convention was first signed in 1886 (a couple of years before I graduated from law school :)). Folks would be falling off their seats in boredom if we started to explain it . Here is a link https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jgh66 said:

IP, Wess, Tiller and Bruce. 

I think it's great  that you all come to the point now, and that you explain what you are standing for. This makes it much easier to understand why and what you are posting here. 

IP: seems you are fighting hard against GSL and PSA. You can do that, I have no problem with that. But I don't think that it's correct to run a defamation campagne against people like Bruce and me,  and post things that are incorrect while you must know better if you really have some experience with international IP law. What I mean are your comments to the legal situation in europe and also on the current legal case in the USA. To me it seems like you are prefering to support LPE if this can help to support your point of view. Maybe you can explain what Berne means and when GER FRA and USA signed that contract.... just as a starting point. 

Bruce: you seem to support GSL, and you have leaked some internal stuff like Alex B and Jean Luc are taking money from LPE, and that this is the reason of the conflict between ILCA and EURILCA. As you all have seen in the Roses video it is more likely that Alex is just representing the position of the majority of the sailers. I don't think that this kind of unproven leaked information does help in solving the conflicts between ILCA and EURILCA. 

I would love to read a fair discussion, proper legal information and not strongly biased halftruths and defamation campains here. The way you are running the discussion here does not help the Laser Class to come out of the mud, I believe. 

GSL is part of at least of the LCMA as TU explained so nobody can do anything about that at the moment. 

My point of view: If the ballot is coming up a full set if true and valid informations on the whole situation should be availible, so that class members can make a proper decision to vote on changing the class rules. I found this forum, as this seems to be the only place where there is an ongoing discussion on the disputes, and I was looking for some more infos than what ILCA, EURILCA and the german class were posting on their pages. 

As a former boatbuilder, technical director of a former SMOD manufacturer and boatdesigner I might be a little bit biased to generally support the rights of designers, but I would not try to post "alternative facts" to support this. I can accept that BK has sold his rights to GSL if he believes that this is the best for the class, while I don't really like that the rights are in the hands of one single builder, that may also have very own commercial interests. 

 

Ah, we had some great Laser racing yesterday,39 deg Celsius, gusting up to 25kn.

 

 

And I am not ignoring you but I honestly don't know what you are asking or how to answer the question.  This is honesty not intended as an insult but I can't even begin to understand how you could possibly read what IPLore has written in this and the last thread and conclude he support LPE and does not not PA or GS.  Its like reading Karl Marx and saying he believes in capitalism.  I don't always agree with IPLore (though I often do and he has often been proven to be accurate in his analysis) but you and I lack some basic common context or understanding if you can come to the view you (apparently) have.  So how do I answer what I stand for... uh generally I guess I would summarize it this way...

* That class volunteers should be given a benefit of the doubt as of all the parties involved they have the least vested interest.

* That class actions should be and were in the last go around very much aligned with their members interests.

* I do not mean that class volunteers should not be above (reasonable and fact based) question and in fact I have expressed some reservation that the actions they took this time around may not have been in the best interest of their members or even Laser sailors generally... that was not my view initially but I was surprised to learn that many of our European Laser sailors hold LPE in high regard and don't want them gone... while I may disagree being in the US where the situation is different it seems clear to me that ILCA had to know that many of their members would potentially not be supportive of their proposed changes.  So the basic thing I stand for is the class should follow the will of its members and in this case I was surprised to learn that our members in the majority may have differing views of the class.  I guess my bottom line is this never should have gotten so far that a vote would actually be in doubt.  That was knowable it seems and class leadership maybe moved too far too fast without taking or considering the temperature of its members.  That does not mean that I think for a moment that they are not doing what they think best and right. But as I learned what I think best and right (ditch LPE) may in fact not be best and right for most members especially in Europe.

* I think LPE sucks as a Laser supplier in NA and I would love to see them gone. On the flip side I suspect in so doing the class would be fractured, the class would be dragged into court and members dues used (out of necessity) to pay legal bills rather than to advance Laser sailing.  Both those things I am opposed to.  I also have to grudgingly admit that LPE is a legitimate business that makes a good product (when you can get it... couldn't resist) at a fair price and has certain legal rights that I suspect WS and GS/PSA are attempting to trample on.  To what extent ILCA is a witting or unwitting participant in that I don't know and couldn't guess. I can just say that clearly the relationship is broken between ILCA and LPE such that LPE at least clearly sees ILCA as the villian.  That is a stunner to me also after the last go around in court.  My guess and its purely a guess is that WS and ILCA are sick of LPE (and LPE sick of them) and just want the mess to go away and PSA is walking the same path they did in the first go around where they try to expand their business into what is factually LPE territory.  Now... my guess is this is where and why you might say that I or other are LPE supporters but that is far from truth.  Already clearly said I would like them gone.  But unlike others who post here I am not going to lie or twist facts to suit my view.  I have to fairly admit that many in Europe have a different view, that LPE has certain rights, that PSA appears to have certain ambitions (tracking same direction for many years), and WS and ILCA would likely love less drama in their lives and LPE seems to equal drama.

Come to think of it after a lightening strike and resulting mess to our cruising trimaran this weekend I would like less drama too!

Now what do YOU stand for?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceH-NZ said:

Thank you for clarifying your question. Personally, no I never believed Global Sailing should have right of veto of builders. In my view that is a conflict of interest. I think the best entity to select builders is the ILCA. 

Agreed

No, I am not unbiased, nor claim to be. ..I have a bias towards PSJ and PSA who I believe do a good job...I also admit to having a bias against Farzad Rastegar (and his group of companies)

Fair enough, you are entitled to your biases.

 I have never, ever supported the notion of any commercial interests controlling the Laser class and have said so previously. Specifically, I do not support Global Sailing running the Laser class. Nor do I support ...any entity owned by Farzad Rastegar controlling the Laser class.

Because two owners of Global Sailing are also stakeholders of PSA, in my view GS selecting builders is a conflict of interest.

I support ILCA selecting builders. 

Great. The ILCA did the right thing in 2011-13. We can all sit around the fire, singing kumbayah and hug each other.

I see you Eyesailor are based in Bordeaux. I was based nearby just south of Auch for a couple of months in 2018.

I just drink the stuff. I am not based there. Im jealous. I hope they were the summer months.

25 knots is fun.

Too much fun for these old bones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Looper said:

We have again invited World Sailing and ILCA to inspect the UK-based Laser Manufacturing facilities. Let’s hope the inspection can happen as soon as possible

Whats's about their chinese facilities, that they have mentioned in their Anti Trust document? Does anybody know anything about that? Who is controlling that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jgh66 said:

Whats's about their chinese facilities, that they have mentioned in their Anti Trust document? Does anybody know anything about that? Who is controlling that? 

Getting ready to swamp the Australian market with cheap Chinese manufactured Lasers just as soon as the trademark requirement is removed?

 

 

:D Don't worry, Im jest kidding. Pass the marshmallows and lets have another round of Kumbaya.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jgh66 said:

Whats's about their chinese facilities, that they have mentioned in their Anti Trust document? Does anybody know anything about that? Who is controlling that? 

They make Sunfish and other boats there now. If A FRAND world is forced on them it would likely make a lot of business sense to move Laser production there as well if quality can be maintained.  Sunfish from there initially had issues if I recall but they seem to be past that (as well as severe shortages that plagued that class).  YMMV.

You ask many questions (that could appear biased) do you answer them as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites