Jump to content

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch


Recommended Posts

Canntt - Its not a personal attack; its YOUR OWN POSTS and they are either a correct or not.

 

* Were you a member of the class at the time of the vote - yes or no? You posted here you were not.

 

* Did you vote or attempt to vote on the matter of the rule change while you were not a member of the class - yes or no? You posted here that you did.

 

Posting BS and stirring is one thing; actually doing it in real life is another. I don't care if folks come to SA and this thread and post BS and stir... it is SA afterall and its entertainment; not reality. But you you kind sir apparently posted that in real life you entered a vote in a matter before a class that you knowingly were not a member of. If what you posted is in fact accurate it says a lot about you and frankly you have done Kirby no favor. If you and your actions are what he endorses I wish him well and wish him gone. But I doubt he does endorse you and the actions you claim and I doubt the Spencers do either, or anyone associated with them which is why you canntt back up your other claim related to imaginary friends.

 

Its 2 simple simple yes or no question Canntt. Can you manage to answer that? Yes or no. Tick, tock.

 

Que the crickets and smoke bombs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When are they going to make a decision? I need to know whether I should be training in my RS Aero or my Laser for Paris 2024.     

@WCB  i seriously doubt there is a soul contributing to this thread who honestly disagrees with my perceptions or the reasoning behind my effort to establish an AERO fleet in Texas and at my home

That is one version of the story but there are other views. Today, many years later, who seems intent on controlling what happens to money that does not belong to them and attacking those elected by

Posted Images

Frostbiting on Sunday it was hot as well Gouv.

 

Torrid - I took to Canntt because he canntt or wonntt answer a simple question but if you prefer and think it would help....

 

Gantt,

 

You posted and wrote you were not a member of class but yet you posted and wrote that you entered a vote regarding the class rule change.

 

* Might you be so kind to respond with a simple yes or no as to if it is true that you cast a vote in a matter before a class that you were not a member of?

* If no, why did you post that you did?

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

It perhaps gets tiresome to have somebody who is not a member of a class, tell the members of the class what it is they should do, how it is they should vote, and even how to spend their money (based on a personal opinion mind you, not any legal basis). I mean if some sanctimonious sack of shit (now that would be a personal attack) individual is going to preach from on high, claiming the moral ground, and cast ballots electing our church elders, I thought it might be fair game to inquire when he said he did something that most individuals would not (would you Torrid or JimC vote in a class you were not a member of - seriously?) if he actually did what he claimed (which might say someting about the integrity of his other claims).

 

Anyway, truth be told, I am liking Gouv's game and thinking of playing as well. How many pages could we make go away if we deleted them all Gouv?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody wants fair play, a well-run organization, better/cheaper boats and equipment, larger participation, lower taxes, better Medicare, a greener planet and the elimination of poverty. I bet Rastegar, the ILCA and BKI would support all these. But once you throw personal interest, egos and $ in the mix, everybody sees different solutions through the lenses they view such matters. Hence the lawsuits. And until these are settled, progress (on the sailing bits anyway) is on hold. The initial few hundred posts on what may or may not happen were kind of interesting, but it's been like summer reruns for months.

 

Redstar, you mentioned the other day how silly it was to make calls for the ILCA to be communicative in the middle of a law suit. I agree. Over and above Kirby's action and questioning the voting process for the fundamental rule change, there are concerns.

 

The annual Laser build figures haven't been posted to ISAF since 2010. The financials stopped being posted in Laser World. According to the ISAF website, Heine Wellmann is still the president of the ILCA, (http://www.sailing.org/classesandequipment/LSR.php) What's really going on? What I'm talking about regarding communication (from the ILCA) is far bigger than and a lot pre-date Kirby's legal action.

 

So let's take the annual build figures. Have they dropped? If they have dropped, then the ILCA's revenues will have been reduced.

 

The question of a well performing class association is bigger than the lawsuit.

 

Everything is not on hold. And it's a critical time for the ILCA because of the law suit.

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Wess, you got me, you know you have. The answer to both questions is yes, and because of that, everything I have said was wrong, my ethics are poor and you are right. There is no point addressing my ill founded and fairy tale posts on this forum, you are correct in attacking me personally. I deserve it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, if you support some model of opening up the Laser for all and having free-for-all on boats and parts, why don't you front up the organisation that would run this new class? Or do you just like trolling? I don't get why you would want to bite the hand that has fed the class so spectacularly well for so long, but if you really do just quit whinging and get on do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sosoomi - Well on this thread I admit I do like trolling because there is a fun troll that lives here that is easy to spool up, but I am serious about not minding a class model of it opening up to multiple manufacturers. That is not trolling. I think Gouv is actually a bit more passionate about that topic than I am (though I am a supporter). My posts on this (Gouv has since deleted his posts) were actually in response to him and noting that Kirby could do exactly what Gouv was asking for.

 

I'm not supportive of a free for all but rather more of an Opti model where its OD but there are different builders that compete. I am not opposed to SMOD per say, but the class is alas stuck in a situation where they are hostage to the trademark holders and I think most everyone would agree LPE performance has been less than satisfactory. And then there is the sail prices and part price mark-ups which many have noted. There is no way out though unless you are willing to part with the name LASER.

 

But as for why don't I... well that is pretty simple. I don't believe I have or should have the right to force or try to force my view onto the class. I express a view; I vote and I accept the decisions made as best for the class members broadly. Its also not like there isn't many used boats available at decent prices for those coming in at the club level. With used boats, generic sails, and generic parts, I think LASER is a pretty accessible game at the club level. I am a bit more energetic within the class about encouraging the generic stuff rather than squashing it but again I should only expect and get one vote. I don't believe in revolution; I believe in evolution and with respect to generic parts and sails at the club level I think the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back. At least I hope not.

 

But we have strayed a long way from the actual litigation.

 

And no Gannt,your admission does not make everything you posted wrong but I would be stunned - honestly stunned - if even 2 out of 100 people (or even 5 out of 100 here, LOL) I sail with would say they would do what you did and be willing to cast a vote on a class matter when they were not even a member of the class. No trolling here or attempt to wind you up. I honestly think that what you did is one of the saddest things I have seen. More than anything, I feel sorry for you. Somehow you let this take over your life to the point you can't se reality in front you or respect boundries that most folks (I would hope) would. You should go ask sailors you respect if they would do what you did.

 

Edit to add - I see Gouv beat me to it with his post above. He has a good game going so I will not quote him so he can continue in case his last one is also of invisable ink, LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should write fairy tales. You are good at it. No truth, no facts, just endless stream of BS. Actually its pretty cool. I don't think anybody has written the biography of the big bad wolf.

 

 

(...)

But we have strayed a long way from the actual litigation.

 

And no Gannt,your admission does not make everything you posted wrong but I would be stunned - honestly stunned - if even 2 out of 100 people (or even 5 out of 100 here, LOL) I sail with would say they would do what you did and be willing to cast a vote on a class matter when they were not even a member of the class. No trolling here or attempt to wind you up. I honestly think that what you did is one of the saddest things I have seen. More than anything, I feel sorry for you. Somehow you let this take over your life to the point you can't se reality in front you or respect boundries that most folks (I would hope) would. You should go ask sailors you respect if they would do what you did.

(...)

 

No Wess, you are right. It's no use saying that I was right about anything. There is no truth in anything that I have posted. It's an endless stream of BS. I should turn myself over the to the authorities for voting when I was a not member. (Who are the authorities, the FBI? The CIA? The ISAF?) The ILCA voting process was bullet proof. I did not say whether or not I voted in my own name, no point saying anything about that now, because nobody believes anything I say. The ILCA's actions are beyond reproach. You are particularly right to refer to the ILCA Exec as "church elders", they are that good. Everything I say can be verified as rubbish. The vote reflected the will of the members, and I, particularly as a non-member, particularly as someone of low moral fibre, have no right to question anything. I have let this take over my life. Your posts are righteous. Mine are pathetic. I am lying about everything, have no interest in Lasers, even forged the emails that I forwarded to Gouv - they, as you rightly point out are imaginary friends, and certainly not simple copies of correspondence verifying facts as I claimed.

 

Wess, I owe you a huge thank you for exposing me. I am relieved. Now I can rebuild my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Gouv's plan. Done right, it should create harmony on a global basis with a number of qualified builders committed contractually to strict one design principles. A properly (re)constituted ILCA could control change as directed by the membership. I like it. Fuck. I am falling into this rabbit hole...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I should turn myself over the to the authorities for voting when I was a not member. (Who are the authorities, the FBI? The CIA? The ISAF?)

Gantt

That was both illegal and highly unethical.

Either that or you were lying when you said you voted when you were not a member.

Either way you are a sanctimonious ********* and I don't know why we don't just call you out for what you are. You accuse long standing anarchists of being sock puppets. You talk pompous BS about fair play. You make all these statements that turn out to be plain wrong. When posters point this out, you temporarily back off and then 10 pages later you start spouting the same rubbish again. You tell people how much better that ILCA could be run if only they listened to you and worst of all, you try and tell us about your standards of honesty and fair play. Good grief.

You have inherited the mantle of being the single most annoying poster on sailing anarchy . Doug Lord was a saint compared to you.

I have always enjoyed Gouv's posts. He is a thorn in the side of the North American Laser class. First he has done so much for the class over the years that he has earned the right to be critical and frankly he keeps them on their toes. Plus he runs an awesome regatta each year.

You on the other hand are a ******* pool of negative energy. At times like this, I miss Lesbian Robot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Eyesailor for your positive contribution. Haven't you heard, I am a born again poster?

 

Your dear friend Wess has already shown the error of my ways. It's worse than what you say, because were I to come back ten pages later after being pointed out a mistake, then I would have only have made two mistakes. As Wess pointed out I have made no statements of truth. I lie and cheat and cannot be trusted. Don't single out any item where I am wrong, because it entails too much reasoning with insufficient returns for some upstanding as yourself to make the effort. Please, continue the personal attacks. Actually I am surprised you are even reacting to my posts, because I usually don't make any sense. I don't know who Doug Lord, or Lesbian Robot are, but if in your judgement they were bad then they must have been really really really really bad. In fact invite others to partake, because I deserve it.

 

______________________________________________________

 

I like Gouv's plan. Done right, it should create harmony on a global basis with a number of qualified builders committed contractually to strict one design principles. A properly (re)constituted ILCA could control change as directed by the membership. I like it. Fuck. I am falling into this rabbit hole...

 

It could work if properly managed and properly funded. The concern would be to ensure that the boats were as identical as possible.

 

A minimal royalty of say 5% of the value of a wholesale boat should fund the ILCA for the chief measurer to travel the world and inspect the boats, and the cost of a bureaucrat to setup and manage the contracts and pay the lawyers. The ILCA must have powers to terminate the builder at their discretion. Maybe the ILCA should own the moulds.

 

If not an amazing system that controls manufacturing then we'll need to go the same way as all other classes and have measuring prior to contests. The Finn class has a pretty good system to measure such things as the centre of gravity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Laser trademark has been genericised to the extent that the current rights-holder may not prevail if pressed. The mark no longer pertains to a specific supplier and many people consider any small cat rigged boat of a certain shape to be a "Laser".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

 

Hi Bluelaser2, you may have got your wires crossed a little about the relationship between the Trademark and the boat design.

 

The Trademark is separate to the boat itself, it's just the mark on the boat.

 

The 'design rights' for the cat rigged boat known as the Laser are the subject of a Legal action initiated by Bruce Kirby, and are defined in several contracts discussed in this thread. At the core of this dispute is whether or not the contracts are binding for one of the builders of the Laser, Laser Performance.

 

Only an approved Laser can sail in ILCA sanctioned events, so that approval process is very important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the one championing opening up the game to boats from anyone who builds toys that meet our specifications.

 

 

Ok, so put up a model and see if you can get someone to stand for a committee position using it as a platform.

 

I have no idea how the association can extricate it self from whatever contractual obligations it has, but surely there has been ample time (several years) to work on it, and at least two to go before it needs to be enacted (pretty soon after the 2016 Olympics would be nice). Time to get ISAF on board. Time to get sailors on board too.

 

The manufacturers will never come on board, but it's not their game. Without the support of ISAF/ILCA keeping the Laser as an Olympic class, it will die very quickly (to be replaced by the next SMOD Olympic single hander, there are a couple of contenders…).

 

Something along the lines of:

  1. Publish the construction manual

  2. Devise a suitable process for modifying and updating it (e.g. builders have input but no veto)

  3. Devise a suitable process for certifying builders and regular inspections for QA (probably very similar to what is done now)

  4. Devise a suitable fee for the plaques

  5. Require builders to support events with a fee based on the number of boats sold and held in trust, with a published amount to be distributed to event organisers based on the number of boats attending

  6. Require major event organisers to put forward proposals for events that are published, along with full costings and where all the money goes and how much of the association's money is put toward the event

  7. Give the boat a new name, e.g. "International 422" (since the boat is about 4.22m long) or similar. Trademark holders can still sell it as a Laser, but others as the new name

  8. Maybe pay Bruce Kirby a fee for each boat equivalent to the current royalty, a one–off $60/boat is not much. Let the membership decide.

  9. Think up a nifty name for the associated campaign: "The Gouv plan for Laser Greatness!!".

How is that for a start?

 

Sorry Gouv, but there must be a recognised "best" boat. It's the one that not only complies with the class rules, but is also ranked highest by sailors based on the quality of the finish and fittings, durability and after sales support with the final score weighted by purchase price.

 

Capitalism only works for consumers in properly regulated market. Otherwise you get a market dominated by greedy arse holes who would rather spoil the fun for everyone than let anyone else make a single sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is there are quite a number of is who would happily build a dozen to a hundred thousand generic Lasers annually.

However, this competent potential builder has zero interest in building toys his customers may not use in races.

Not necessarily..;)

 

http://ymlp.com/zXCKoL

 

For the last few years, in Argentina a boat builder has been selling a very popular dinghy sailboat, which is commonly known as the 99% Laser. It has all the Laser ingredients, races with the Laser, but does not display the Laser logo or name. The Argentinean program is a success as the boats are cheaper and parts are easily available.

Russians had Laser clones for ages.

 

Ukrainians have taken some different route. Hull lines look to be the same, but the transom is open.

 

http://ultra.kh.ua/foto/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think going to multiple builders would make things cheaper with the dreadful example of the Optimist - world's most expensive orange box - in front of you?

 

All the evidence I can see suggests that within classes competition between builders is on quality - boat speed almost always - and given the choice of two builders sailors pick the fast but expensive one.

Competition on price seems mainly to be between classes, so if class x is too expensive it's outsold by class y, even though class x is built to a very high standard and class y is built down to a price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

Its a good question and I am not sure anyone has an answer. I sure don't. The Opti proves the class structure can work but the benefit of competitive prices seems to not have materialized as you note. You could argue the exact same points using the Snipe class.

 

In the case of Laser, while its clear the structure can work (see Opti and Snipe) it of course could not be called laser as LPE and PSA own the trademark. Its also suggested a generic boat can be produced at competitive prices as the Laser knock-off the 99er shows (from ojfd above: http://ymlp.com/zXCKoL) and even Kirby could do it with the Torch. So structure wise it can be done and cost wise it can be done but yet it does not get done. The biggest surprise to me in the whole lawsuit thing is actually that this was the one thing that BKI said they would do that they didn't do. Really surprised the Torch turned out to be a 4th of July sparkler dud.

 

No clue as to why. Maybe distribution channels, maybe competition from used boats, maybe not enough money in it, etc... If anybody could do it, it would be Kirby. He has the whole name recognition and loyalty thing going for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So structure wise it can be done and cost wise it can be done but yet it does not get done.

But that's the whole point. A knock off is a different class, and different classes compete on price. After all WTF would anyone buy a knockoff you can't class race unless it was a shed load cheaper. If the Laser became a multi builder class it would be just like every other multi builder class in the world, quality would go up, price would go up, and sales would go down.

 

As for why Kirby is not promoting his new class more actively, I can only guess that he still has hopes of salvaging the Laser. My best guess would be that if he sees the lawsuit going badly the Torch will be back on the agenda. Most likely it was mainly to try and concentrate minds at the ILCA...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Torch was just a tactic by the lawyers for Kirby and the Spencer Family in their attack on the Laser class and the International Sailing Federation and the European and North American Laser builders. It was just a way of trying to claim, "We can destroy you and the game will still go on under a different name."

 

The Spencers could have easily started selling Torches manufactured by PSA in Australia. They even faked a few photos on the web with Torch stickers on Lasers. But has a single Torch been sold in Australia?

 

Kirby could have launched Torches in North America and Europe through his buddies in Canada and the Netherlands. Instead his Dutch buddies got caught trying to illegally import Lasers into Europe from one of the Spencers' companies in Austraila. WTF were they thinking?

 

I don't think Kirby will ever launch the Torch. He's 85. This whole mess was triggered because he tried to make some entirely sensible estate planning arrangements for his heirs, but he was so badly advised by his lawyers that he created more confusion and mayhem than he could possibly have imagined.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Torch was just a tactic by the lawyers for Kirby and the Spencer Family in their attack on the Laser class and the International Sailing Federation and the European and North American Laser builders. It was just a way of trying to claim, "We can destroy you and the game will still go on under a different name."

 

The Spencers could have easily started selling Torches manufactured by PSA in Australia. They even faked a few photos on the web with Torch stickers on Lasers. But has a single Torch been sold in Australia?

 

Kirby could have launched Torches in North America and Europe through his buddies in Canada and the Netherlands. Instead his Dutch buddies got caught trying to illegally import Lasers into Europe from one of the Spencers' companies in Austraila. WTF were they thinking?

 

I don't think Kirby will ever launch the Torch. He's 85. This whole mess was triggered because he tried to make some entirely sensible estate planning arrangements for his heirs, but he was so badly advised by his lawyers that he created more confusion and mayhem than he could possibly have imagined.

I didn't join The Torch, but I sent a supportive note, just because I think BK got screwed out of some royalties. So, Tiller Man, do you think a "simple" claim for owed royalties without all the other shit would have been more appropriate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't join The Torch, but I sent a supportive note, just because I think BK got screwed out of some royalties. So, Tiller Man, do you think a "simple" claim for owed royalties without all the other shit would have been more appropriate?

 

The whole issue of whether Bruce still has any real intellectuall property claims to royalties on the Laser any more has been well aired by IPLore and others on this forum. I have little to add to that debate.

 

Also, I think once Bruce sold BKI to the Spencers, and then the Spencers terminated BKI's agreement with LP, the intricate structure of agreements that had worked for 40 years was irrevocably shattered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think once Bruce sold BKI to the Spencers, and then the Spencers terminated BKI's agreement with LP, the intricate structure of agreements that had worked for 40 years was irrevocably shattered.

 

Agreed.

 

Proving that in court may be a challenge. First the sale needs to proven to be valid and completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you, Gouv, but no need to rip anybody a new one... What makes this more doable than other classes is no one is really complaining about the basic design of the boat; it seems the sail and top section are the only things that really need to be changed out. (Although a decent bailer set up would be nice). Anupgrade in cosmetics is also well overdue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could work if properly managed and properly funded. The concern would be to ensure that the boats were as identical as possible. Differences in building environment (temperature, humidity) for example may make a difference, so steps must be taken to stop these differences.



A minimal royalty should fund the class association for the chief measurer to inspect the builders / boats (travel costs), and the cost of a bureaucrat to setup and manage the contracts and pay legal costs. Maybe the class association should own the moulds and assign the builders the moulds.



It would have to have a strong system that controls manufacturing so the equipment is pre-approved.


Link to post
Share on other sites

......

I do believe some of you are deliberately ignoring my suggestion and arguing as though I suggested something entirely different than that which I have proposed.

 

To your ignorant (with respect to my proposal) claim that "it would become a quality competition" I must remind you,

Under my system, a builder who claimed to make a superior boat would lose his access to our strict one design competitions.

 

 

.

...your proposal is interesting,,but somewhat ignores what already was happening in the class,where those in the know,,and had the budget,,would shop amongst the various factories worldwide for the better hull from NZ,,spar from Brazil,,Sails from Hyde....etc. Let alone going into a local dealer to weigh,flextest ,C.G. and measure rake on hulls.

 

Manufacturers didn't have to claim to anything...the superior equipment was actively searched for. I can only think that a more open system as you're advocating would only magnify such a subculture within the class.

 

The more builders you have,the more chance of a wildcard like the story I heard from a fellow I met on a plane who had worked building lasers. He told me how the boss once came onto the floor and told him a fellow was going to help him buy a 'special' laser. :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, I think once Bruce sold BKI to the Spencers, and then the Spencers terminated BKI's agreement with LP, the intricate structure of agreements that had worked for 40 years was irrevocably shattered.

Agreed.

 

Proving that in court may be a challenge. First the sale needs to proven to be valid and completed.

Gantt, INCORRECT! Again.

 

We pointed out this out to you before. See post 2082 and others.

The sale does not have to be valid and completed. It is likely that BK grants "ostensible authority" to the Spencer's if he announces that he has sold BKI to the Spencers. BK was fairly public about the sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a legal perspective could the class association shift to a multi-builder model?

 

It would be tricky. The trade mark owners would almost certainly come after the association in both Australia Europe and US.Maybe there is a possible route. It would have to be after 2016 and the class would need ISAF's help to do this. Step one would be for ISAF to withdraw the Laser's status as an international class so no world championship that year. Obviously the name and class symbol is out of the window as well. The real challenge would be production standards and inspection without being in breach of confidentiality clauses.

 

Tough.....but always a risk for the trade mark owners that can be used to check the power of the trade mark owner.

 

As to non class legal generics, why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

.........the class would need ISAF's help to do this. Step one would be for ISAF to withdraw the Laser's status as an international class so no world championship that year. Obviously the name and class symbol is out of the window as well. The real challenge would be production standards and inspection without being in breach of confidentiality clauses...........

.

....that seems like a big 'ask' of ISAF...why would they bother?? Wouldn't they not just open things up to the brave new world of other SH'er options that have been developed in the current century!?

 

...Laser has been in sooo much trouble for sooo long,,,but there's alternatives now. :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think he should have seen this coming when he sold the "rights" to one builder over the other.

 

Good point torrid.

 

Much has been written on this thread about the advantages of having an independent owner of design rights. That went out of the window when Bruce Kirby sold BKI and the design rights (if they indeed still had any value) to the Spencer family, owner of one of the builders. From a purely commercial and estate planning point of view I can't fault Bruce from wanting to cash out, but from that moment on I don't think he has any right to claim any special role as a guardian of the Laser sailing game.

 

Especially as the Spencers then went on to terminate the agreement between LPE and BKI, attempt to build a dealer network in Europe (the territory of LPE) and to actually export Lasers to Europe in violation of LPE's ownership of the Laser trademark for that territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.........the class would need ISAF's help to do this. Step one would be for ISAF to withdraw the Laser's status as an international class so no world championship that year. Obviously the name and class symbol is out of the window as well. The real challenge would be production standards and inspection without being in breach of confidentiality clauses...........

.

....that seems like a big 'ask' of ISAF...why would they bother?? Wouldn't they not just open things up to the brave new world of other SH'er options that have been developed in the current century!?

 

...Laser has been in sooo much trouble for sooo long,,,but there's alternatives now. :mellow:

 

 

EDIT addition....I really gotta ask why even ISAF would think twice about putting the Laser to a 'torch'!?

....all they have to look at is the mess in the courts,,,the 'banter' here,,,look at the boat,,,look at the class organization**,,,,,think of alternatives available............really. it's time to move on!! :)

 

 

.........** is it really still being run from that fellow's basement in Falmouth???

. ...how many times has the mortgage paid for that house!? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I think he should have seen this coming when he sold the "rights" to one builder over the other.

 

Good point torrid.

 

Much has been written on this thread about the advantages of having an independent owner of design rights. That went out of the window when Bruce Kirby sold BKI and the design rights (if they indeed still had any value) to the Spencer family, owner of one of the builders. From a purely commercial and estate planning point of view I can't fault Bruce from wanting to cash out, but from that moment on I don't think he has any right to claim any special role as a guardian of the Laser sailing game.

 

Especially as the Spencers then went on to terminate the agreement between LPE and BKI, attempt to build a dealer network in Europe (the territory of LPE) and to actually export Lasers to Europe in violation of LPE's ownership of the Laser trademark for that territory.

 

Oh, I certainly don't blame him for wanting to cashing out. I was supportive at first because LPE was serving the class so poorly. However over time it became clear that the Spencer family is no more altruistic than Nasty Rasty himself, and I could no longer support his decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, I think once Bruce sold BKI to the Spencers, and then the Spencers terminated BKI's agreement with LP, the intricate structure of agreements that had worked for 40 years was irrevocably shattered.

Agreed.

 

Proving that in court may be a challenge. First the sale needs to proven to be valid and completed.

Gantt, INCORRECT! Again.

 

We pointed out this out to you before. See post 2082 and others.

The sale does not have to be valid and completed. It is likely that BK grants "ostensible authority" to the Spencer's if he announces that he has sold BKI to the Spencers. BK was fairly public about the sale.

 

I am not incorrect.

 

Yes IPLore did point it out. Again.

 

That does not make LP's version (the one that IPLore is most recently putting forward) as definitely the right one - or that I am "incorrect again!"

 

When IPLore said "It is likely..." IPLore was admitting that it must first be proven. It may be a challenge to do that, just like I said.

 

Anyone can read the public court material and when you do, there are two distinct presentations of the facts.

 

In the end, it is up to the courts to decide what is included and what isn't.

__________________________________________________________

 

There are references of a September 2011 letter from Kirby to Laser Performance saying that. Kirby's version does not include the sale to Global sailing because it's their view that it was not completed. Kirby was fairly public about that.

 

LaserPerformance says:

 

Moreover, the assignment and non-assignment of rights by Kirby, BKI and Global Sailing violated Kirby’s and BKI’s contractual obligations under the ISAF Agreement which required ISAF’s consent to the transactions. In flat violation of that agreement, Kirby and BKI failed to get ISAF’s approval.

(Source = http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LP-response-061213.pdf)

 

The IYRU Agreement is formally recognised in the builder's agreement and the court at some point may consider how important it is.

 

In my very brief comment, I was simply putting forward that it is a matter of dispute about the sale.

 

It's obvious that the sale wasn't dealt with a post by IPLore that says that LaserPerformance's perspective on "ostensible authority" is the correct take, and will be the version that applies.

  • LaserPerformance version says it doesn't matter if the assignment of rights took place, that the termination was effective May 10, 2010 and they don't owe royalties as a result. (LP talks a lot about Global Sailing's involvement via the transfer of rights, and does not admit anything on the matter of the termination clauses - except saying no royalties are due.)
  • Kirby version doesn't factor in the sale GS in their legal documents and publicly have said that it wasn't completed. They say LaserPerformance was advised November 15, 2012 (then again March 1, 2013) that their builder's agreement was terminated. Kirby says they not only owe the royalties up until then, and additionally the termination clauses apply.

Bottom line, LaserPerformance on one hand says it is ambivalent about the sale, that it doesn't matter, and Kirby is definite that the sale was not completed.

 

In the end, whether or not the sale was completed it's up to the courts to decide it's importance, particularly whether or not the termination clauses still apply. And it's up to the courts to decide what applies.

 

I agreed with Tillerman because the bigger meaning I took form what he was saying was correct from the respect that it's a mess, that the sale (or attempted sale) was when things appeared to change for the worse. Now I see that Tillerman is saying that the rights were voided with the sale. Clearly, I disagree Tillerman's certainty of that.

__________________________________________________________

 

Gouv's idea is very interesting. The discussion on how to get the boats more consistent. I wonder if there are creative ways to keep the subculture of sailors who seek out equipment variances to their advantage at bay. Of course minimizing the variances help - but what about other ways?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of using Quality (in the ISO9000 sense) techniques for a multi manufacturer one design was advanced by one of the participants in the ISAF skiff trials. The ISAF panel seemed of the opinion it wouldn't work in their write upp, and posters here agreed. I thought the idea might have legs, but I dunno, I think maybe they were right now. Its certainly very easy to imagine the kind of advertising copy that might be written to imply that one brand of sail or hull was much better than another. I can even imagine a company having a system by which they market sails that come out at one end or the other of the tolerances as being premium, and the others at standard price.

 

Its really amazing what you can get away with in terms of premium price for a product advertised as superior. Many years ago I worked for a company selling industrial cleaning solvents. One of their best contracts was with a very major car manufacturer for a cheap cleaner that had been passed by the manufacturer's labs as superior to kerosene for the job, and well worth the premium price. The manufacture process for the enhanced cleaner was as follows. A tanker full of kerosene arrived at our works. We withdrew one barrel of kerosene to make some space. Then we added one barrel of the special 109 additive, relying on the mixing effect in the tanker to distribute it easily. And what was the additive? Kerosene. As I heard it the manufacturer had issues a specification with a very tight price point. Unable to think of anything that would hit the priice point the lab had submitted, with tongue in cheek, a sample of Kero. To their utter astonishment, by some fluke, it happened to pass as superior to kero in the car makers lab...

 

I'm quite sure that, given a suitable set of rock star endorsees, exactly the same thing would happen with Laser sails and hulls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I think once Bruce sold BKI to the Spencers, and then the Spencers terminated BKI's agreement with LP, the intricate structure of agreements that had worked for 40 years was irrevocably shattered.

 

Agreed.

 

Proving that in court may be a challenge. First the sale needs to proven to be valid and completed.

Gantt, INCORRECT! Again.

We pointed out this out to you before. See post 2082 and others.

The sale does not have to be valid and completed. It is likely that BK grants "ostensible authority" to the Spencer's if he announces that he has sold BKI to the Spencers. BK was fairly public about the sale.

I am not incorrect.

 

Yes IPLore did point it out. Again.

 

That does not make LP's version (the one that IPLore is most recently putting forward) as definitely the right one - or that I am "incorrect again!"

 

When IPLore said "It is likely..." IPLore was admitting that it must first be proven. It may be a challenge to do that, just like I said.

 

Gantt . You are incorrect.

 

Irrespective of which side you are on, as a matter of law, the sale of BKI will not have to be proven nor will it have to be valid.

 

BKI is a corporation. The court will look to the principle of "ostensible authority" .

 

In the USA this principle protects us all from the owner or principle of a company subsequently denying that the company or officers of the company had the authority to act on behalf of a company. If owner A tells party C that party B is now owner of the company then he is granting ostensible authority to party B , Then C agrees with B signing a deal with the company, A cannot later say " Ha Ha , gotcha, I never really sold the company to B, I repudiate the deal" . A granted B ostensible authority to act on behalf of the company and the company will be bound by its agreement with C.

 

I say "if" because of course there will be discovery to establish what Bk and GS actually said to LP. I say " it is likely" because there are many permutations and we don't know the facts.

 

However I can say with confidence that you are incorrect in stating that someone will have to prove the sale was valid. They merely have to show whether GS had ostensible authority to terminate the contracts. Throughout this thread you make these statements with such an air of certainty and I merely wish to point out that they are technically incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I think once Bruce sold BKI to the Spencers, and then the Spencers terminated BKI's agreement with LP, the intricate structure of agreements that had worked for 40 years was irrevocably shattered.

Agreed.

 

Proving that in court may be a challenge. First the sale needs to proven to be valid and completed.

Gantt, INCORRECT! Again.

We pointed out this out to you before. See post 2082 and others.

The sale does not have to be valid and completed. It is likely that BK grants "ostensible authority" to the Spencer's if he announces that he has sold BKI to the Spencers. BK was fairly public about the sale.

I am not incorrect.

 

Yes IPLore did point it out. Again.

 

That does not make LP's version (the one that IPLore is most recently putting forward) as definitely the right one - or that I am "incorrect again!"

 

When IPLore said "It is likely..." IPLore was admitting that it must first be proven. It may be a challenge to do that, just like I said.

Gantt . You are incorrect.

 

Irrespective of which side you are on, as a matter of law, the sale of BKI will not have to be proven nor will it have to be valid.

 

BKI is a corporation. The court will look to the principle of "ostensible authority" .

 

In the USA this principle protects us all from the owner or principle of a company subsequently denying that the company or officers of the company had the authority to act on behalf of a company. If owner A tells party C that party B is now owner of the company then he is granting ostensible authority to party B , Then C agrees with B signing a deal with the company, A cannot later say " Ha Ha , gotcha, I never really sold the company to B, I repudiate the deal" . A granted B ostensible authority to act on behalf of the company and the company will be bound by its agreement with C.

 

I say "if" because of course there will be discovery to establish what Bk and GS actually said to LP. I say " it is likely" because there are many permutations and we don't know the facts.

 

However I can say with confidence that you are incorrect in stating that someone will have to prove the sale was valid. They merely have to show whether GS had ostensible authority to terminate the contracts. Throughout this thread you make these statements with such an air of certainty and I merely wish to point out that they are technically incorrect.

 

It all depends what documents/letters changed hands and what can and cannot be proven and what standard of proof is required. Unless of course 1 party then says that document A is forgery or had been altered....

 

This is likely to rumble on for years as I doubt very much that the initial case will settle it. This will almost certainly got to appeal unless 1 side gives up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gantt . You are incorrect.

Irrespective of which side you are on, as a matter of law, the sale of BKI will not have to be proven nor will it have to be valid.

 

BKI is a corporation. The court will look to the principle of "ostensible authority" .

 

[...]

 

IPLore, you take words and apply your interpretation and appear to disregard any other intended meaning, particularly the author's. Should what I said in response to Tillerman been phrased more explicitly for IPLore's benefit? The context of the compulsion was in terms of and conditional to Tillerman's premise that the sale had definitely taken place and had therefore resulted in the contracts being compromised.

 

I'll show you how easy it is to do:

________________________________________________________________________

 

The court will look to the principle of "ostensible authority" .

 

IPLore is WRONG AGAIN!

 

The court will make it's own decision of whether or not it will look to the principle of "ostensible authority" with any merit. For example, if the sale of BKI to GS is found to be legitimate, then LaserPerformance's argument of "ostensible authority" will not apply.

 

The principle of contract law is built on... [blah blah blah... insert lecture on basic legal stuff, then conclude by saying something like: ].

 

Throughout this thread IPLore makes these statements with such an air of certainty and I merely wish to point out that they are technically incorrect.

________________________________________________________________________

 

IPLore has been doing this for over a year and prior to me posting on this thread.

 

Finally:

It all depends what documents/letters changed hands and what can and cannot be proven and what standard of proof is required. Unless of course 1 party then says that document A is forgery or had been altered....

 

Well said Jeffers. There are all kinds of possibilities and discovery has yet to end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we could wrote up agreements with clear forfeiture or access to our game for any such behavior by any builder.

Trouble is if its not possible for your builders to attempt to differentiate the product on anything except price, haven't you then set the scene for a race to the bottom in terms of the cheapest possible far east manufacture, and the absolute bare minimum in terms of builder support etc?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, I think once Bruce sold BKI to the Spencers, and then the Spencers terminated BKI's agreement with LP, the intricate structure of agreements that had worked for 40 years was irrevocably shattered.

Agreed.

 

Proving that in court may be a challenge. First the sale needs to proven to be valid and completed.

Gantt, INCORRECT! Again.

 

We pointed out this out to you before. See post 2082 and others.

The sale does not have to be valid and completed. It is likely that BK grants "ostensible authority" to the Spencer's if he announces that he has sold BKI to the Spencers. BK was fairly public about the sale.

 

You are using logic and rational thought. To the end of days the earth will always be flat for him. The more you say "not so" he will scream "it is" and stow-away on a ship that is not his to scream it some more.

 

Brodie, pulled a "brodie" on the wrong guy LOL.

 

Happy thanksgiving to all; I see our resident turkey is still here. Lots to be thankful for at our place. Kid just got a call from USCGA coach that appointment was on the way. Parents knew it was to be expected but for the first time ever I got to see what combined shock and joy looks like on a 17 year old's face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are using logic and rational thought. To the end of days the earth will always be flat for him. The more you say "not so" he will scream "it is" and stow-away on a ship that is not his to scream it some more.

 

Brodie, pulled a "brodie" on the wrong guy LOL.

 

Happy thanksgiving to all; I see our resident turkey is still here. Lots to be thankful for at our place. Kid just got a call from USCGA coach that appointment was on the way. Parents knew it was to be expected but for the first time ever I got to see what combined shock and joy looks like on a 17 year old's face.

 

I am thankful for the logic and rationale of Wess, who again points out the errors of my ways in a considered and mature way. Yes I scream, because Wess says I do and Wess speaks the truth. Yes I do think the world is flat. Yes I am the resident turkey. Wess' dear dear friend IPLore is correct, because. I am a stow-away on a ship in that I am not a member of the ILCA. It does not matter that other non members pass comment on the ILCA, because. Wess, you are right to repost that I was incorrect, though why did you take so long? Everyone here was waiting for your positive contribution and while not posting their thanks at this time, know that your positive, well considered posts warm the hearts inspiring the thankfulness of many, because.

 

Wess, I am thankful for you. You are my personal Brodie. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brodie

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gannt!! Join the dammed class!! Pay up for two years on line today. Quit stalling. Sherri and Eric should be paid BY YOU for the time they spend dealing with the fallout from your endless posts

And

It really is bull shit to harp about how things are done in an organization when you are not even a member.

 

(I didn't say you shouldn't bitch about actions snd policies of the KKK, Republican Party, or Democrat Party without joining but unless you are a member, how they elect their officers, where they buy their robes and t shirts, or who they decide to support is none of your business.

 

Just join

Now

You won't even miss a meal because it is just soooo expensive

 

Then, as a member, you can do as I do and constantly remind everyone the class is being run in a manner that fails to accomplish That which you believe it its primary reason for existing.

 

Stop posting

Do it now

Don't reply again on this thread until you have joined

 

Or

Even though I often agree with you I will be obligated to follow many of your posts with Stfu up until you join the class

And

As a class member we would LOVE to have you come sail at the Regatta listed below!!!!!

Gouv,

 

I really don't care that he is not a class member. Lots of folks on this thread sail in the class but are not members. Few would cast a vote in a matter before a class they are not a member of but there will always be those types as well.

 

At some point you just accept that there are people that are going to tell you how to worship, how much to give and to whom and not join the church. Its the internet after all.

 

To me the bummer is that he gets so much wrong post after post. Just flat out 1 plus 1 does not equal 3 kind of basic stuff and its stops all the interesting, constructive and reality based discussion. Good posts by IPLore, Tillerman and others above. Lots of folks ended up right where Torrid is after learning a bit. But all discussion ends under assault from the lunatic fringe.

 

Class member or not no amount of talking will convince him the earth is not flat and spending endless hours to listening to him tell us it is... sigh... just ends every interesting turn the thread takes.

 

Hope you had/have a good holiday. We got 15 crammed in for 4 days. I hope my sailing on Sunday goes as well as the cooking so far.

 

Wess

 

PS - Bill the reason I sail in the fleet - any fleet - is the people (not the boat). Our Laser fleet is FANTASTIC. All kinds of different cats but a common bond is a love of OD racing and fair play. Young and old, guys and gals, newbies and very experienced folks. We will have about 30 boats out each week over the winter. Please don't wish him on us. Nothing kills a fleet (or a thread) as fast as a zealot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 is a nice number. So let's pretend this ILCA/BKI/Rastegar shit show (or any other reason for that matter) results in the elimination of the Laser as an Olympic class after 2016. All else being equal, what do you think would happen to the size of your fleet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

The 30 number is the size of the active frostbiting fleet. Fleet at the club and active in summer is larger. I would guess around 10 or so have ever travelled to a championship level regatta.

 

So its a guess but I doubt anything would happen to the size of the fleet if Laser was not in Olympics but its a guess. You are really asking how many at the club level care that its an Olympic class. There is some chance (guessing its small) that the fleet grows. Being free of Olympics means being free of the Laser name which opens the door to the Torch or 99er or Gouv's strategy of lower cost boats (which as Jim C points out might not even happen under a competitive manufacturer structure).

 

But again; all a guess. For me personally it makes no difference but broadly, its not really knowable.

 

I am curious what others think.

 

Wess

 

PS - I doubt it happens though. BKI has no way to force that change; he gave up on the litigation (trying to take down the trademark) and the commercial strategy (Torch) that led this way. The class at the same time has shown zero interest in un-aligning with the trademark holders, I presume for this reason (retain name = retain Olympics). Why else stay w a builder hat performs so poorly? So while I expect there is a good chance there will be more (another round) of litigation from our hero I don't think the class leaves the Olympics (due to any litigation). I have no clue as to if the Olympics leave the class or want to...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it would reduce fleet sizes either, but it seems there are those that think it would have a detrimental effect. I think the whole Olympic thing puts undue pressure on the class. I have seen various posts regarding the inability of the class to make changes leading up to Olympic years. This benefits no one and is another shackle preventing necessary change. I believe the Laser being in the Olympics is a bigger benefit to the IOC than it is to the Laser. There are very few Olympic events that attract "real" competitors from as many countries as does Laser racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few Olympic events that attract "real" competitors from as many countries as does Laser racing.

 

Well said there, certainly in sailing classes the the 470 in the UK are non-existant unless you are doing an Olympic campaign. The 49er does OK as does the Finn but the rest are practically non-existent.

 

Although I know a fair few international classes have actively kept away from trying to gain Olympic status as they feel it damages the class rather than enhances it.

 

As for the Laser I know of several regional sailors and series co-ordinators who have moved out of the class and in to other with the current state of the class being one of the deciding factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I agree with you Bill. With Jeffers too. So best guess is little impact on local fleets but perhaps significant impact/decline on ILCA if Olympics were lost (but I could be wrong about this... keep hearing about ties to college sailing but don't know anything about that). Either way it seems the Olympics don't want to lose LASER and ILCA does not want to lose Olympics and LASE name and I don't think there is a thing the BKI action that is still ongoing could do about that. His litigation to take down the trademark would have but he gave that up.

 

All in all this is why I don't think the old class rule ever comes back, why the class took the steps it did, why the class sticks w LPE despite their poor performance, and why any talk of cheaper LASERs like the 99er or Torch will never exist other than as a stand-alone class that accepts LASERS. But nobody seem willing to do more than talk about that and honestly that to me at least is where Kirby was most likely to have success but it seems not to be anything more than internet fodder.

 

I am curious to see if BKI takes another run at changing that path in a round 2 litigation.

 

Hey Jeffers do you know why those sailors moved out of the class with the current state being a deciding factor. Not understanding this. What impact is the litigation having?? There is no practical effect at all at least where I sail. What are you folks experiencing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

getting 5 ring status was the clever brand refresh which the builders secured when their product was getting stale. That they were able to do so without reforming some of the crappy rules and build issues is a testament to their ability and the inability of the IYRU. Now that Sunfish is no longer a competitor for most built series they have the heft of numbers in their favor for continuing, even though there is actually little connection between the Walter Mittys and the 5 ring aspirants around the course, by and large. So it becomes a mature cash cow brand, why Rastegar bought it, along with Maclaren, good ROI.

For the casual sailors this is all irrelevant once the silly insistence on 1 design purity at the local level goes away, much of this is due to the overweening pretensions of junior programs the world over, the rest to deluded needle dicks who imagine they are aspirants. Most of the rest of us know that the boats performance varies depending on conditions, equipment, and ability, and deal with it one way or another.

 

I find it amazing how much time can be devoted to something that is not particularly complex but then maybe it is winter. good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It really is bull shit to harp about how things are done in an organization when you are not even a member.

 

I recommenced sailing Lasers in 2011 after some years break and did not rejoin the ILCA because of personal circumstances.

 

Some people are making a fuss about me voting while not being a member, and rightly so. I voted with the intention of joining shortly after. Shortly after voting, my life was tuned upside down. The reason I can recall the circumstances so vividly, was that they lead to my marriage dissolution, which has lead to me moving house since then, more times than I'd care to admit. Sometimes life isn't all about sailing.

After sleeping on it, I now choose not to rejoin the ILCA because of political reasons.

 

These issues include:

  • Questions about the validity of the vote for the fundamental rule change, specifically misinformation about contracts being historical, calls made by the UKLA to delay voting, and media reports on the eve of the vote stating that the vote is no longer needed. (these have been questioned since 2011).
  • Minor questions relating to the establishing whether or not votes cast were in fact by members as claimed.
  • A commitment to publish properly written ILCA Exec meeting and World Council meeting minutes for members to view. (I can verify this through active members I know).
  • A commitment for the full personal and personal financial disclosure of Laser officers and staff of their past and current relationships with: Laser builders, Laser trademark owners, the Laser designer and their owners and representatives. This should be made available to members.

These are in no way intended to be accusatory, but steps that help lead to an ILCA that I wish to actively support.

 

I shall refrain from rejoining the ILCA until I can see that my vote as a member supports a local ILCA NA representative (or candidate) more committed to making improvements above.

 

If that means foregoing participation in ILCA NA events, then so be it.

 

To those who believe my membership status preclude me commenting about the ILCA in this open forum, or make personal attacks, I'd encourage them not to, as the consequence is that then becomes the focus. I shall post only once per day on this thread for the next 7 days in the hope that the subject is less about who is making the post.

 

This thread should not be about me at all. Those focussing on me rather than my message, have made it so.

 

Last time I checked, I live where personal freedoms are held in high regard. That includes the freedom to care about the ILCA and to allow the individual expression of that freedom.

 

I started watching this thread then joined this forum because of my interest in this subject.

 

My very first post on 1 May 2013 came in reaction to Wess who in his steadfast support to the ILCA and their actions, posted:

 

Its OK to like the guy and hate those running the class. Have your bromance w Bruce - its all OK. By all means, carry the tourch for him and even feel free to send him all your money to ensure he is not destitute.

But you may want too re-read this. A few times. Really carefully.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011 RULE CHANGES - VOTING ENDED 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011
IMPORTANT Rule change
This rule change is very important for the future of the class. The change and the explanation have been approved by the Laser Class World Council and the Laser Class Advisory Council. Please do not delay your vote.

For 40 years the ILCA Class Rules and associated agreements concerning the management of the class have given the sailing world the most successful youth and adult racing class in history with over 200,000 boats built and racing in over 125 countries.

This success, we believe, is based fundamentally on the ILCA Class Rules, which requires that a builder of class-legal boats must (among other things) (i) manufacture the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual and (ii) have the Laser trademark rights.

In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these Kirby agreements.

Unfortunately, a dispute has arisen between parties who claim to be representing Kirbys interests: a New Zealand company called Global Sailing; and Laser Performance Europe (LPE), one of the manufacturers, which holds the Laser trademark rights for Europe, South America, Africa and Asia (excluding trademark rights owned by Performance Sailcraft Japan for Japan and South Korea). The dispute centers on whether a valid design rights holder agreement exists with LPE. Under the current ILCA Class Rules, if there is not a valid building agreement, then a manufacturer, even a trademark owner, would not meet the requirements to be an International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and International Laser Class Association (ILCA) approved builder.

Each of the parties to the conflict has threatened ILCA in various ways Global Sailing has said it may form a new class association for a Kirby Sailboat. LPE informed the ILCA that it intends to form its own Laser class. We may therefore end up with three different classes and may lose the Olympic status. The one design / out of the box principle would also be threatened.

One other possible result of this conflict is that due to uncertainty over ISAF and ILCA approval, there may not be a sufficient quantity of new Laser boats compliant with the ILCA Class Rules available in Europe and other countries in 2011 and beyond to satisfy the demand of its current and future ILCA members.

The class officers made numerous attempts to get the two conflicting parties to end their dispute: meetings were held in different parts of the world and written compromise proposals were made, unfortunately with no success. While discussions between the two parties continue we are unsure of the outcome and running out of time.

We also took legal advice. The above rule changes were deemed the only possible solution in order to promote the uninterrupted supply of class legal Laser boats and to maintain ILCA in its current set-up. The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired.

Therefore, we are proposing to change the rule to eliminate the building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc requirement. Manufacturers who have trademark rights and who build in strict adherence to the ILCA Rules and to the Construction Manual, which is controlled by ILCA, will continue to have the right to build Class legal boats. We believe that this change will eliminate uncertainty over ISAF and ILCA approval, give manufacturers continued reasons to support the class and satisfy the demands of current and future class members.



Why should you vote YES?
1.To promote the uninterrupted supply of class-legal Laser boats all over the world to meet the demands of current and future sailors.
2.To maintain the International Laser Class Association in its current set-up.
3.To preserve the one design / out of the box principle, which is assured by the mandatory adherence to the Laser Construction Manual by all builders as defined in the fundamental rule.
4.To maintain ISAF recognition and Olympic status.
Heini Wellmann,
Laser Class President
Jeff Martin,
Laser Class World Executive Secretary








It is proposed that the following rule changes be adopted. The additions are underlined. The deletions are crossed through (strike through). They are:
Class Rule changes to the Fundamental Rule
CLASS RULES, PART ONE
FUNDAMENTAL RULE
Current Rule
The Laser shall be raced in accordance with these rules, with only the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sail and battens manufactured by a licensed builder in accordance with the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual) which is registered with ISAF.

Proposed new rule with changes
The Laser shall be raced in accordance with these Rules, with only the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sail and battens manufactured by a licensed an International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and International Laser Class Association (ILCA) approved builder in accordance with strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual) which is registered with ISAF.

Current Rule
A Builder is a manufacturer that has a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. to build the Laser and has the rights to use a Laser trademark and has been approved as a Laser Builder by each of the International Sailing Federation and the International Laser Class Association.

Proposed new rule with changes
A Builder is a manufacturer that has a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. to build the Laser and has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as a Laser Builder by each of the International Sailing Federation and the International Laser Class Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The patent line you focus on does not say they are or are not Laser patents. Keep in mind that patents list claims. It is possible that some of the claims listed in a patent for a 2 sail boat may apply to the hull, spars, sail, foils or what have you, of a 1 sail boat like a Laser for example. We have no way to know if these or any patents were thrown up as being relevant or not. The simple fact is if he has any valid rights (trademarks, patents, etc...) he will be paid (up front or via damages) and deserves to be paid.

Now keep in mind that ISAF and ILCA is not party to the contracts in dispute between BK and the builders. So tey don't know what it says or what rights BK claims with them. So cover all the bases...

I would and did read the ILCA statement differently than you have and as typical legal stuff covering all bases. They noted the Laser trademark was controlled LPE and gathered they then did the usual CYOA of searching for any BK patents that might even loosely apply and noted that any such patents had expired. Note they never call them Laser patents.

From there what is left is what BK has always claimed which is the construction manual. Interestingly the class statement says that is "registered" with the ISAF. Not clear what registered means and exactly what rights if any either BK, the class, or the builder has to this. I am also going to guess that over the years it has evolved fairly significantly from that BK(?) - or the original byuilder - originally wrote to something heavily modified (guessing by the current and past manufacturers - ie folks other than BK) as constrction techniques, tolerances, and materials were changed so I am not sure that BK could or does own the current version of the construction manual or if the class or current builder(s) does.

The patents and statements around them are nothing to hang your hat on and I would be surprised if its anything more than lawers covering all the bases. Its also not about the Laser trademark or statements around that. All the parties seem to concede its valid and controlled by LPE (for the territories in dispute).

The fight is going to be around the construction manual and contracts and statements related to that AFAIK. Oh, and the BK name trademark which seems to have caught everyone by surprise.

But by all means continue your bromance. Personally I think they all (BK, LPE, GSA) deserve a kick in the nuts as they say. I am standing with ILCA and wish they had the power to kick all these bums out and take control of the builders (they don't because of who owns the Laser trademarks which means we are stuck w LPE).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see something other than a plain white hull. In fact, the red is rather tempting. But what's with the "lighter weight hull" and "optimum mask rake" shit? Beyond the one-design implications, it implies some sort of quality control in the build process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see something other than a plain white hull. In fact, the red is rather tempting. But what's with the "lighter weight hull" and "optimum mask rake" shit? Beyond the one-design implications, it implies some sort of quality control in the build process.

That is a classic summary of the rather variable nature of Laser construction. Variable weights, variable stiffness, variable mast rake, and lots of other stuff. Would this mean the days of going to the warehouse and weighing hulls to find the lightest would be over? And would they be light and durable? Or remain light and disposable?

 

If that number was in US Dollars it would be attractive, in UK Pounds not at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe there's Laser Performance logo on the ad.

I suppose it's not surprising that if the maze of contracts that supported the tight one design status of the Laser is put aside, then with the checks and balances gone this sort of thing happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sameness of the boats is an illusion and always has been, once a degree of sailing proficiency is achieved. The trim point of the sail is determined by the rake of the mast and the age of the sail, because there is a two block hard stop in most conditions.

 

Add the cheapness of the cloth, the speed with which it ages, and difficulty in actually getting consistent rake with a ~10 to 1 exaggeration at the tip of the mast. Laser sailing [racing] is a rich man's sport above a certain level.

 

If one wants the reality to match the marketing one believed at the demo: 1) get rid of the hard stop, 2) upgrade and control the cloth used in the sail to say 4.5 ounce, and 3) make an excellent 'bought and paid for' sail design. "Once you have bought the boat you can do anything you want with it," - including putting a completely different sail on it.

 

Sell the sail for $199. Forget the name, improve the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the ILCA's claim that the rule change would:

 

"…preserve the one design / out of the box principle, which is assured by the mandatory adherence to the Laser Construction Manual by all builders as defined in the fundamental rule."


has failed to achieve the desired outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the ILCA's claim that the rule change would:

 

 

 

 

 

"preserve the one design / out of the box principle, which is assured by the mandatory adherence to the Laser Construction Manual by all builders as defined in the fundamental rule."

has failed to achieve the desired outcome?
If you look at all the words reinforcing the myth that are included in the quote you provided, it starts to get kind of obvious that is was never true in the first place (once a level of sailing proficiency is achieved):

 

"Preserve... principle... assured... mandatory adherence to the [ ] by all builders as defined in the fundamental rule."

 

It feels like we should all be around a campfire talking about a snipe hunt. It just feels that way.

 

The more I look at it the more I see that the Laser is indeed a truly brilliant design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The sameness of the boats is an illusion and always has been, once a degree of sailing proficiency is achieved.

Not really no, because when you get to the top of the game you have to use supplied boats. That's the ultimate guarantee because if you train with some weirdo boat that is at all the extremes you're stuffed when it counts most.

has failed to achieve the desired outcome?

No, it's just that some are more equal than others. It's a shame really, because if manufacture has got more precise, or if they have a Qa process that enables them to measure boats etc more accurately they could have reduced their tolerances to be smack down the middle, and marketed it as 'laser now more equal than ever' which would surely have been better in the long term.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The sameness of the boats is an illusion and always has been, once a degree of sailing proficiency is achieved.

Not really no, because when you get to the top of the game you have to use supplied boats. That's the ultimate guarantee because if you train with some weirdo boat that is at all the extremes you're stuffed when it counts most.

I only trust round robin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>Yes but - and I really am not arguing for change (just that change could be OK) - for the vast majority of folks racing Laser those minor differences just don't matter.  Put our fleet champ in the oldest, softest boat with the oldest sails and the rest of us in brand new one, and he will still be fleet champ.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For the vast majority of Laser racers (note I did not say class members; that may be a higher level sub-set where it might matter) its their skill that determines the finishing order and not differences in gear.  And most are smart enough to realize that.  To some extent they are also PERHAPS forced to pay for those tighter tolerances beyond what they need for fair competition and that you argue for would cost them even more.  I offer for consideration that the widespread allowed use (and actual use) of generic sails and parts at the fleet level supports this argument.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So for many, maybe, less tighter tolerances could be traded for lower prices and improve the game for them.  Maybe.  But those in ILCA may well disagree.</p>

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It really is bull shit to harp about how things are done in an organization when you are not even a member.

 

I... did not rejoin the ILCA because of personal circumstances.

 

Some people are making a fuss about me voting while not being a member, and rightly so. I voted with the intention of joining shortly after. Shortly after voting, my life was tuned upside down. The reason I can recall the circumstances so vividly, was that they lead to my marriage dissolution, which has lead to me moving house since then, more times than I'd care to admit.

 

This thread should not be about me at all.

 

 

 

 

Priceless! :(

post-13399-0-63048200-1417279284_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Optimum rake - decided by the top sailors". I call bullshit. And why does it cost 50 quid to get your sail rolled? But I agree with you, Eyesailor, the Laser remains good fun for the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And why does it cost 50 quid to get your sail rolled?

1 increased storage and shipping costs/inconvenience.

2 because folk will pay.

Cracks me up. It seems most wouldn't piss on a Laser sail even if it was on fire, yet others will pay to have it rolled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lighter boats are usually faster than heavier ones, with less pitching in chop and they plane earlier.

 

The mast rake makes a difference to the amount of bend the mast and the power in the sail when you go block to block.

 

The mast rake and hull weight mean that boats have slightly different performance characteristics.

 

Even if the differences are very small or non existent, it plays on the minds of laser sailors and is at odds with the Laser class philosophy. Even advertising those differences is a worry.

 

The cheating section in the ILCA class rules read:

In our sport in every club and class there is the odd person who needs to cheat to win. Cheating is doing something that you know is illegal. Whether you gain an advantage or not is irrelevant.

Our class is strong and popular because we believe in a strict one design and our sailors want to know that they are racing on equal terms. ILCA takes a very strong line with Laser sailors who do not sail according to the rules. There have been cases in the past where sailors who have sailed with illegal boats have been banned from sailing a Laser. Such a ban can be for life.

If action is also taken under the racing rules, the ban can cover racing in any boat.

Our class is much bigger than the odd person who wants to gain advantage by illegally changing the Laser or its equipment. They can sail in other classes where the rules allow changes to a boat to get an advantage. We do not want them with us.

 

There is a suggestion on another list that the UKLA should declare these boats as against the spirit of the class rules and not allow them in official events. I wonder if the plaques can be 'revoked' for these boats.

 

In response to JimC's comment, I hope the ILCA gets to the bottom of whether on not Laser Performance is involved, and gets and is seen to get very communicative and loud about this.

________________________________________________

 

That being said, the last two races I was in the other day was won by a 40 year old club boat (no turbo vang) with a Rooster sail, second place was in two different properly set up newer boats respectively with all ILCA approved gear, the winning margin was less than 3 seconds in both races. (It was great racing). There was a combination of Vanguard and Australian hulls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The mast rake and hull weight mean that boats have slightly different performance characteristics."

 

1) Gee, Gannt, thanks for this gem. Who the fuck knew?

2) Do people really expect that boats will be ABSOLUTELY indentical? How much would that really cost?

3) I would suggest that one decent tack and one wave caught downwind would make up for any of these minor differences.

4) Pizza? Sign me up!

 

Now back to my rum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way in hell I am willing to go out with a boat that is one shift or tack off the normal pace.

 

You must buy an awful lot of kit... How long do you reckon it takes a) a sail and B) a hull to deteriorate by one bad tack's worth of boat speed?
Link to post
Share on other sites

.

The lack of objection could be construed as acceptance

Question for lawyer types like Iplore:

If it is true there have been more laser races in the USA this year than Laser races, could a legal case be made that anyone can sell boats as lasers ( although maybe not yet as Lasers)???

Sadly if you tried to sell a boat similar to the Laser and call it the laser, the trade mark owner would sue you and he would prevail.

 

BUT

 

This might interest you. In trademark law there is a principle called "Acquiescence". At the risk of simplification, if you are using someone's trademark in certain ways without specific permission and the trademark owner knows about this , then after a period of time, the trademark owner is considered to have acquiesced to the use of the trade mark and cannot sue for damages or revoke the use.

 

So Gouv, if you were to design a logo for your Easter Regatta that incorporated the Laser starburst symbol and if you published announcements for your regatta incorporating your logo in prominent places that LP could not miss, then after a number of years LP could not object to you using the Laser name and symbol. Have a few flags made up, take lots of pictures during the regatta and submit them to every media outlet that you can think of. Invite your local LP dealer to present the awards etc etc (feel free to reach out to me for other suggestions).

 

Even if LP reads this post and sends you a cease and desist order, you have the satisfaction of knowing that you distracted their lawyers and ran up a few hours of legal bills on their behalf. Then of course you help your friends in the neighboring club design a logo for their July 4 Laser regatta ....

 

Brand owners are manic about protecting their trademark. Jaguar Cars spends a healthy sum every year on protecting the Jaguar symbol. All their dealers and part suppliers have to sign a contract acknowledging Jags sole ownership of the trademark, if you so much as use a picture of the leaping cat in a catalogue you will get a cease and desist. The jaguar drivers club has specific permission to use the trade mark.

 

So here is the interesting question. Does the ILCA have a contract allowing them to use the starburst symbol and name or have the trade mark owners acquiesced to the Class Association having free use of the name and symbol?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But none of those maneuvers can force the class to accept boats without a plaque. You have to change the class rules. Class is a voluntary association, don't think you can take legal action to force class to change rule.

If you can change the class rule, the maneuvers are not needed (unless you insist on calling the boats Laser).

 

BTW, seems ILCA held trademark for Laser use in context of race promotion in some places? Possibly were just licensed by TM holders. LP/shell companies held Laser trademark for sailboats, parts, etc.

A lot of pages back, that. Maybe I am extending the 3 parties interwoven rights and obligations one step too far in my feeble old brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon the description in the preceding post, I see two scenarios

A. It was clearly described and understood by all those involved that the event was not a Laser race

B. The event was freely described by one and all as a laser

 

 

If in fact the B scenario is freely tolerated by the Trademark holder, ILCA, and ISAF the event would be one more nail in the coffin for burial of exclusivity with respect to those rights.

 

With respect to this thread as evidence:

Someone who is NOT a member of the ILCA has written that he participated with no mention of objection by hosts, participants, or the ILCA.

Sails that were not supplied by the trademark holder participated with no objection from the mention of objection by the Trademark holder, ILCA, organizers, or participants.

.

The lack of objection could be construed as acceptance

 

In the race Gouv was speculating about, it was a club race. The class was referred to by the OOD as "Lasers" then later as "seniors". There was one non 'Laser'. All of the three club boats used had Roosters sails, so you could say that the club was not just OK, but promoting their their use.

 

Interesting was the boat who placed fourth in the second race. He was the only ILCA member in the race (I've know him since we were kids) and he was using a really tired non ILCA approved practice sail custom made in the 1990s.

 

With regards to the Christmas Special boats, it will attract those who are trying to win at all costs for all the wrong reasons. It also amplifies the differences. In certain conditions, these so called small differences become very important, particularly when everything else is equal. It's against the Laser philosophy.

 

What I love is the guys and gals that go out in old boats and win, if not by being first over the finish line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add another thing into the mix many UK people got the below through their email from the UK dealer:

 

Laser.png

 

For those who are interested I am told that if you follow the trail through companies house Sailboats and LP are owned by the same person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We Apologies for the Laser Avert being incorrectly sent last Friday as this has caused confusion between Sailors. We would like to make clear this advertisement is misleading due to the Strict One Design Laser and boat advertised does not exist. The Marketing information in regards to Hull Weight and Mast Rake was written for the New Z420 Advert in which our Marketing Department edited incorrectly. Sailboats try our best to communicate the correct information at the time but sadly on this occasion we failed to do so. Please accept our sincere apologies for this error. Sailboats are independent of LaserPerformance and we pride ourselves on being the UK’s largest Dealer for LaserPerformance Europe LTD

 

http://www.sailboats.co.uk/media/eshots/SA20141201.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I especially like the twisted use of English making it appear as though the apology was written by someone for whom English is a second language.

An Iranian perhaps?
Link to post
Share on other sites