Jump to content

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch


Recommended Posts

I did too which is why it surprised me but on reflection maybe it's nothing - not a reversal. Maybe that change kicks in 2015?

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

@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

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.     

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

ICLA moves for dismissal:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.174.1.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.174.2.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.174.3.pdf

 

ICLA's lawyers seem to have problems submitting accurate documents. In the last document, the paragraph numbers jump from 10 to 18 because page 3 is missing.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that ICLA's lawyers have missed some arguments here:

 

The behavior that Kirby complains about is shipping plaques that contain his trademark, hence enabling terminated builders to continue selling lasers. It's important to focus on the specific action that Kirby complains about.

Option 1: ICLA has a license to use Kirby's trademark on the plaques, but has now violated the license. That's important because the license derives from the Kirby/IYRU/ICLA agreement that specifies binding arbitration for any disagreements. Hence the venue (CT courts) is wrong, they should be in arbitration in London. Hence dismissal for ICLA.

Option 2: ICLA never had an explicit license to the Kirby trademark, which means that Kirby consented to his trademark being used without permission for decades. Hence the trademark cannot now be enforced. Hence dismissal for ICLA.

 

ICLA can argue both points simultaneously. At this point in the proceedings, the approach is often to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Instead, ICLA seems to be saying: "IYRU got a dismissal, we should have one too".

 

I haven't seen anywhere in the documents that explicitly grants ICLA a license to the Kirby trademark, but I may have missed something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SM123

 

I think there are 2 flaws in your arguments. First, it is the ILCA, not the ICLA. :P

 

Second, I believe that the ILCA were distributing plaques on behalf of ISAF and it was ISAF that had the agreement over the use of Kirby's name/trademark. If you remember, it was ISAF that instructed the ILCA to stop distributing the offending plaques after BK went after them (and some time after BK first told them to desist) and it was ISAF who got the plaques changed. As such, BK has a case against the ILCA for distributing the plaques after being instructed by him to stop distributing plaques with his name on. Here are some facts

 

1. BK instructed both ISAF and ILCA to stop issuing plaques with his name on.

2. They chose to initially ignore that instruction.

3. Only after BK brought in lawyers did ISAF instruct ILCA to stop issuing the plaques, after concluding they had to follow BK's instruction on this.

 

Forgetting everything else, there is no doubt that ISAF and ILCA issued plaques with BK's name on after being told not to. ISAF subsequently received legal advise that they should stop issuing the plaques. Therefore, for a period of time, both of them were in breech. ISAF has managed to get off the hook (for now) by convincing the court that they don't fall with jurisdiction. Will the ILCA get away with the same thing to get the case thrown out? I think it is their best hope because they have effectively admitted they were in the wrong when ISAF instructed them to stop issuing plaques and they complied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon, it would appear the judge sees it differently. He addressed the plaques (in the second attachment on page 11) and the "daylight in the timeline between the moment when ISAF knew...and the moment when the Kirby name was deleted from the plaque" was not sufficient blah blah... They were asked to stop and they did this should hold true for ILCA as well as they did stop and removed the Kirby name

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon, it would appear the judge sees it differently. He addressed the plaques (in the second attachment on page 11) and the "daylight in the timeline between the moment when ISAF knew...and the moment when the Kirby name was deleted from the plaque" was not sufficient blah blah... They were asked to stop and they did this should hold true for ILCA as well as they did stop and removed the Kirby name

I think you are misreading it. He says there was "daylight" but not enough to give "personal jurisdiction". That is very different from saying they were asked to stop and they did. I think that in the right court, BK would have a case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

see the attachment that SM123 posted above

 

http://www.archive.o...99988.174.2.pdf

 

the end of page 9 and into page 10 (I had the page number wrong above). The fact that they stopped makes a big difference. Since it is the same judge that will rule on the ILCA motion I don't see how the outcome is going to be any different. I could be wrong...

I did read that. The judge states that there was daylight etc. but it wasn't long enough to make a difference to jurisdiction and yes, that might also apply to the ILCA. That doesn't mean that under the right jurisdiction, there isn't a case to answer and if i were BK, I would be looking to ensure that the case was heard under a jurisdiction that was more favorable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SM123

 

I think there are 2 flaws in your arguments. First, it is the ILCA, not the ICLA. :P

 

Second, I believe that the ILCA were distributing plaques on behalf of ISAF and it was ISAF that had the agreement over the use of Kirby's name/trademark. If you remember, it was ISAF that instructed the ILCA to stop distributing the offending plaques after BK went after them (and some time after BK first told them to desist) and it was ISAF who got the plaques changed. As such, BK has a case against the ILCA for distributing the plaques after being instructed by him to stop distributing plaques with his name on. Here are some facts

 

1. BK instructed both ISAF and ILCA to stop issuing plaques with his name on.

2. They chose to initially ignore that instruction.

3. Only after BK brought in lawyers did ISAF instruct ILCA to stop issuing the plaques, after concluding they had to follow BK's instruction on this.

 

Forgetting everything else, there is no doubt that ISAF and ILCA issued plaques with BK's name on after being told not to. ISAF subsequently received legal advise that they should stop issuing the plaques. Therefore, for a period of time, both of them were in breech. ISAF has managed to get off the hook (for now) by convincing the court that they don't fall with jurisdiction. Will the ILCA get away with the same thing to get the case thrown out? I think it is their best hope because they have effectively admitted they were in the wrong when ISAF instructed them to stop issuing plaques and they complied.

Whoops. Yes, of course ILCA.

 

But I don't think that you have really addressed my points. The question is not whether or not ILCA violated BK's trademarks, but whether ILCA violated the BK/IYRU(ISAF)/ILCA/"Trademark holder" agreement. That's how ILCA should be attempting to frame the argument, because that clearly makes Connecticut courts the wrong venue -- instead BK should take it to arbitration in London.

 

The second point that ILCA should (IMHO) put forward, is that BK has allowed ongoing violation of his trademarks, which make them unenforcible. The beauty of this argument is that it forces BK to point to a license for the trademarks, which only exist (as far as I can tell) in the agreement I refer to above, which puts BK and the others back into arbitration in London.

 

The problem with not arguing venue early on is that judges won't accept arguments about venue later into the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rare I agree w Simon's stuff re A cats or Lasers but I think he has a point re the plaques and ILCA. I read it in a similiar way. Not saying it impacts on BKI's ability to keep ILCA in the case or even if there is a valid actionable claim, but yes, I agree w Simon and was reading the "daylight" comment the same way.

 

AND we have an invite to go sail w the Devil and use generic sails! Not something that happens every day. Do we think he is the fleet captain; do we think the Devil is a member of ILCA?!

 

OMG the Devil sails a Laser in CT and has maybe done the case in!? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, we have all been sailing. Some of us with the Devil - who lives in CT - apparently.

 

But the thread is no fun anymore without the Gouv.

 

We all keep waiting for this...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, we have all been sailing. Some of us with the Devil - who lives in CT - apparently.

 

But the thread is no fun anymore without the Gouv.

 

According to the nut job in PA who was attacking the Gouv, I am Gouvernail's sock-puppet.

Gouv may be gone for good. He had an anonymous group of stalkers attacking not just his on line imaginary character but going after his real life business.

 

If somebody started trying to mess up my transport business I would be out of here in a New York Second.

 

Gouv was always posting as a very well known member of the sailing community and he certainly brought on his share of flaming posts from his own penchant for spouting his opinions but, when the attacks became personal and came from people he was unable to identify, he made the sensible decision to get the fuck outta here.

 

Note: Gouvernail never has not and never will write any of my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ha, we have all been sailing. Some of us with the Devil - who lives in CT - apparently.

 

But the thread is no fun anymore without the Gouv.

 

According to the nut job in PA who was attacking the Gouv, I am Gouvernail's sock-puppet.

Gouv may be gone for good. He had an anonymous group of stalkers attacking not just his on line imaginary character but going after his real life business.

 

If somebody started trying to mess up my transport business I would be out of here in a New York Second.

 

Gouv was always posting as a very well known member of the sailing community and he certainly brought on his share of flaming posts from his own penchant for spouting his opinions but, when the attacks became personal and came from people he was unable to identify, he made the sensible decision to get the fuck outta here.

 

Note: Gouvernail never has not and never will write any of my posts.

Ah geeze. Thanks for the update and sorry to hear that. We sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed, but it was alway fun banter w Gouv. This place always gets personal - which is OK to a point - but its one thing telling somebody they are an ass or a liar its another thing entirely going after somebody's business, kids, spouse, etc... which is sometimes seen here too. Wish the Ed would drop the hammer on that kinda crap. Love em or hate em folks like Gouv are what makes this site fun. I think I have Gouv's email. I gotta look him up and say hi.

 

Anyway, we gots lots of snow and ice and many Lasers (and ICs) sailing this weekend.

 

Go sailors!

Go ILCA!

Screw BKI, GSA, and LPE and any other associated lawyered up entity!

 

Gotta stir a bit in Gouv's honor... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ha, we have all been sailing. Some of us with the Devil - who lives in CT - apparently.

 

But the thread is no fun anymore without the Gouv.

 

According to the nut job in PA who was attacking the Gouv, I am Gouvernail's sock-puppet.

Gouv may be gone for good. He had an anonymous group of stalkers attacking not just his on line imaginary character but going after his real life business.

 

If somebody started trying to mess up my transport business I would be out of here in a New York Second.

 

Gouv was always posting as a very well known member of the sailing community and he certainly brought on his share of flaming posts from his own penchant for spouting his opinions but, when the attacks became personal and came from people he was unable to identify, he made the sensible decision to get the fuck outta here.

 

Note: Gouvernail never has not and never will write any of my posts.

Well that sucks! I could only follow/have time to read about half of his posts but an entertaining character. And he certainly is spot on for his passion for OD racing.

 

Did he do a final post and say he was out of here? Did he delete his account?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv is completely gone except in a few replies with him in quotes.

One of his socks (the only one I'm sure of..) is still in the memebers list, but all the posts are deleted.

 

 

That pretty much sucks. He is an entertaining guy whether you agree with him or not...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wow. If all the posts are gone too there has to be a ton of old Laser threads that would be funny as shit to re-read.

 

"Who on earth are they all talking to?" :blink:

 

I hope he at least gets a kick out of that.

 

So now I actually have to go to Texas for Easter brunch and race for some stupid bunny so to hear his opinions? Should have known he would find a way to get his hands on my money. :P

 

Come back Gouv. Find a creative sock and come back. You know you want to respond to that last line.

 

But seriously, I hope all is well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv doesn't strike me as someone who gives up. This won't be the first time he's deleted his posts etc.

 

Don't know what's behind all the PA stuff. Ancient history? I think people are better defined by their actions, less what they talk about or their social aptitude.

 

There seems to be some movement on Kirby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair bit of action on the court docs last week. Most of it hasn't made the public list I look at yet and quite a bit is sealed - ie won't be public.

 

*IF* I read the followig correctly it seems Quarter Moon's attempt at the last second to claim that actually they don't make Lasers anyway so you can't sue us may have failed at least in part.

 

 

ORDER. The motion to amend/correct answer (Doc. #[173]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted insofar as it seeks without objection to add an affirmative defense. The motion is denied for lack of good cause shown insofar as it untimely seeks to amend a factual admission in response to Paragraph 7 of the complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/21/2015. (Norman, D.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The price of charter boats for the Laser Worlds doubled, foils don't come with the charter (a first?) and the Standard Men can now bring their own foils (another first?). Welcome to the future of Laser sailing. I suppose it's one way to help defray LP and ILCA's legal costs? Bend over class members, here it comes.

 

2015 Laser Standard Men – World Championship

Monday 29 June 2015 - Wednesday 8 July 2015

 

Charter Boats

This is a supplied boat, mandatory charter regatta. Charter boats will be supplied by LaserPerformance.

 

The boats will be 2015 Laser XD models, supplied on a launching trolley as a hull with self-bailer, XD padded hiking strap or equivalent, spars (mast top section, appropriate bottom section and a boom), mainsheet side cleats, control line deck block fitting with blocks and control line deck cleat fitting with cleats.

 

Sailors will have the option to provide their own foils (centerboard and rudder) or charter a set for use during the regatta.

 

Charter boat and foils fees:

 

Regatta (29 June – 8 July, 10 days)

· Charter boat: US$1250

· Charter foils: US$250

·

Pre-Regatta (22 June – 29 June, 7 days)

· Pre-Regatta Charter boat: US$500

· Pre-Regatta Charter foils: US$175

 

 

2015 Laser Masters – World Championships

Friday 10 July 2015 - Saturday 18 July 2015

 

Charter Boats

A limited supply of 160 charter boats will be supplied by LaserPerformance. Charters will be allocated to sailors based on membership numbers of the national Laser Class Association and applications received from each country.

 

The boats will be 2015 Laser XD models used in one previous regatta, supplied on a launching trolley as a hull with self-bailer, XD padded hiking strap or equivalent, spars (mast top section, appropriate bottom section and a boom), mainsheet side cleats, control line deck block fitting with blocks and control line deck cleat fitting with cleats.

 

Sailors will have the option to provide their own foils (centerboard and rudder) or charter a set for use during the regatta.

 

Charter boat and foils fees:

Regatta (10 – 18 July, 10 days)

· Charter boat: US$1250

· Charter foils: US$250

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots more documents posted last couple of days, including several for summary judgement.

 

I am not a lawyer, esp not a Us lawyer, but AIUI...

 

This is the expected next stage of the game AAIU. first we had the rash of claims, most of which would have been wildly speculative on both sides.

Next, which has just finished, we had discovery, which was where each side had to produce evidence and show it to the others lawyers. Very rarely at that stage a claim might get dropped because it was quite clearly nonsense.

 

Now I think we have the summary judgement phase in which both sides go to the judge and say 'there's no evidence at all for some of the claims throw them out'. Some of the really extreme allegations might get chucked out at this point.

 

At the same time the lawyers are also reading all the documents and getting some idea of what might have gone on, and will probably start negotiating for a settlement when they get an idea of how the trial might pan out.

 

All this will take time so we will probably see the lawyers agree for the trial to be postponed in order to have more time to bill the clients.

 

So don't get excited about summary judgements for one side or another, doesn't mean anyone's going to win based on them, just some froth bring blown off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of interesting details could be found in those court documents, if one reads them carefully. Like this one, for example:

To the extent that Mr.Kirby s renamed Laser is a competitor (the Kirby Torch ), he claims that not a single Kirby Torch has been built.

According to Mr. Kirby, it is nothing more than an idea at this point. Mr. Kirby stated that there is no torch and that it does not exist. p. 48, 51, Kirby Depo (Ex. 2, Allentuch Declaration).

Docket No. 187, pages 26 and 27.

 

What do you say now, Torch class members? A belt and a T-shirt?

 

:D :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A lot of interesting details could be found in those court documents, if one reads them carefully. Like this one, for example:

 

To the extent that Mr.Kirby s renamed Laser is a competitor (the Kirby Torch ), he claims that not a single Kirby Torch has been built.

According to Mr. Kirby, it is nothing more than an idea at this point. Mr. Kirby stated that there is no torch and that it does not exist. p. 48, 51, Kirby Depo (Ex. 2, Allentuch Declaration).

Docket No. 187, pages 26 and 27.

 

What do you say now, Torch class members? A belt and a T-shirt?

 

:D :D :D

????

I say

That is EXACTLY what I thought and EXACTLY why I joined the Torch Class.

 

Do you, ojfd, have done other idea about the Torch??

Careful Mr. Devil, Sir!

 

You may have snoookered the ILCA and doomed them to hell (err, home) with that CT Laser fleet, but you will not help your grey haired CT brother by noting you joined a class for something he says does not exist.

 

You folks still frostbiting up there? Looks like you might need some fire and brimstone to beat back the snow and ice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting claim by Kirby in the latest documents:

In October of 2010, ILCA principles traveled to Connecticut at
LaserPerformance’s expense for a two-day meeting at LaserPerformance headquarters in
Norwalk, Connecticut. At that meeting, ILCA and LaserPerformance agreed on a plan to
eliminate Bruce Kirby from the Kirby sailboat business and to render his builder agreements
worthless. The direct result of this scheme hatched at the Norwalk meeting enabled
LaserPerformance to continue building plaqued boats without authorization of Bruce Kirby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any solid evidence that this meeting took place?

 

If the meeting did take place, is there evidence that this plan was hatched?

In my amateur opinion, ILCA has terrible lawyers. With bad lawyers, it's possible that the meeting did take place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hey Gouv.

 

Like the new form!

 

Not up to much other than frostbiting! This thread was always just a fun place to stir and see what floated to the top.

 

There was never anything in the case that had any realistic chance of impacting me or my fleet. Always said, if I got a vote it would be to kick BKI, GSA and LPE all out of the game. Either way, I think the class is better off once its all done assuming the existing rules stay in place which is really all that matters and I think highly likely.

 

The Devil from CT looked to be fun and given all the snow they got we could have worked a Charlie Daniels joke into the thread but my heart is not into it wthout Cannt and Gouv (in old form). Plus there is an outside chance I could go frostbiting with the Devil this winter (headed up that way a lot visiting Academies w the kid) and I didn't want to spoil that. Messin w the Devil just seems wrong...

 

Stay warm!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's a fair bit of action in the case but very few documents posted on plainsite. Quite a lot of new documents posted are "sealed", ie confidential to lawyers only, so we wouldn't see them anyway.

 

Any solid evidence that this meeting took place?

 

If the meeting did take place, is there evidence that this plan was hatched?

Seems to me that the plan in question must have been the fundamental rule change. We know that PSA were pressuring ILCA to implement it, and we know that it was intended to enable PSA to put plaques on boats without authorisation from Kirby.

 

 

I thought it was LP and LPE who were pushing for the rule change? PSA were happily paying royalties (and still are to the best of my knowledge).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There's a fair bit of action in the case but very few documents posted on plainsite. Quite a lot of new documents posted are "sealed", ie confidential to lawyers only, so we wouldn't see them anyway.

 

Any solid evidence that this meeting took place?

 

If the meeting did take place, is there evidence that this plan was hatched?

Seems to me that the plan in question must have been the fundamental rule change. We know that PSA were pressuring ILCA to implement it, and we know that it was intended to enable PSA to put plaques on boats without authorisation from Kirby.

 

 

I thought it was LP and LPE who were pushing for the rule change? PSA were happily paying royalties (and still are to the best of my knowledge).

 

 

You're quite right. The last two posts I've typed PSA when I meant LP(E).

 

I'll remove them and repost since I can't edit

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a fair bit of action in the case but very few documents posted on plainsite. Quite a lot of new documents posted are "sealed", ie confidential to lawyers only, so we wouldn't see them anyway.

Any solid evidence that this meeting took place?

 

If the meeting did take place, is there evidence that this plan was hatched?

Seems to me that the plan in question must have been the fundamental rule change. We know that PSA were pressuring ILCA to implement it, and we know that it was intended to enable PSA to put plaques on boats without authorisation from Kirby.
Don't forget good lawyers spin everything to put the worst possible interpretation on it. Lets rephrase...

"At the routine meeting between ILCA and Laser Performance amongst other topics discussed was a contingency plan to enable Laser construction to continue whilst the legal issues were sorted out. As with all such meetings Laser Performance paid the ILCA Representatives expenses."

I'm making an assumption that such meetings with all the builders are regular and expenses paid, but I should have thought they need to meet.

Don't get me wrong, I think ILCA were wrong and their conduct of the ballot disgraceful, but that doesn't mean that meeting was as much a conspiracy as clever writing implies.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also told from an internal source at LP/LPE that the PSA boats are not being built to the construction manual. This may just be some shit slinging on their part as nothing has surfaced about measurement issues recently....

This also might be the part of information/desinformation war and you just became the weapon of it by spreading the rumour.

 

If you, guys, are getting bored, take a look a BK's Laser trademark cancelling attempt. There's a lot of reading material.

 

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92057217&pty=CAN

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered if Charlie Brown would have done Lucy as a teenager or he would still be chasing the Little Red Haired Girl. But I bet he would have been a BK supporter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am at it...

Couchsurfer played Eddie Haskel on Leave it to Beaver

Poopie Pants is actually Jeffie from Family Circus

Gannt and IPlore each have a "perry mason" complex

Wess is Dobie Gillis

Gouvernail was modestly based upon a character played by George Burns in a movie released October 7,1977

 

Gov, you are definitely beginning to lose it. Suggest you take a break for your own sake.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred, you are getting seriously deranged.

 

 

@¥£ , you are getting seriously deranged.

Did you just attempt to use the real name of a poster here??

And include a personal attack??

 

Wanna post your name and address as well??

 

I have requested you be permanently banned from this site.

We shall now see if the rules apply to you.

 

 

.....maybe you should request that you're banned!? :mellow: in effect just outed yourself! :wacko::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Praying for rain was Gov. Perry's solution.

 

 

Why not rain-dancers? Are there no native Americans who could be drafted in for this essential task?

 

But seriously, why do people vote for idiots who think that praying will make it rain?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was also told from an internal source at LP/LPE that the PSA boats are not being built to the construction manual. This may just be some shit slinging on their part as nothing has surfaced about measurement issues recently....

This also might be the part of information/desinformation war and you just became the weapon of it by spreading the rumour.

 

If you, guys, are getting bored, take a look a BK's Laser trademark cancelling attempt. There's a lot of reading material.

 

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92057217&pty=CAN

 

 

I am pretty sure it is shit slinging, as would most people be. Neither side is covering themselves in glory and are both doing more damage than good. It is the RYA Dinghy Show this weekend, I might go and wind up LPE over their training sail....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was also told from an internal source at LP/LPE that the PSA boats are not being built to the construction manual. This may just be some shit slinging on their part as nothing has surfaced about measurement issues recently....

 

This also might be the part of information/desinformation war and you just became the weapon of it by spreading the rumour.

If you, guys, are getting bored, take a look a BK's Laser trademark cancelling attempt. There's a lot of reading material.http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92057217&pty=CAN

I am pretty sure it is shit slinging, as would most people be. Neither side is covering themselves in glory and are both doing more damage than good. It is the RYA Dinghy Show this weekend, I might go and wind up LPE over their training sail....

Be careful they don't set the lawyer's on you. You know what their like, just ask Mr kneewreaker :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I was also told from an internal source at LP/LPE that the PSA boats are not being built to the construction manual. This may just be some shit slinging on their part as nothing has surfaced about measurement issues recently....

This also might be the part of information/desinformation war and you just became the weapon of it by spreading the rumour.

If you, guys, are getting bored, take a look a BK's Laser trademark cancelling attempt. There's a lot of reading material.http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92057217&pty=CAN

I am pretty sure it is shit slinging, as would most people be. Neither side is covering themselves in glory and are both doing more damage than good. It is the RYA Dinghy Show this weekend, I might go and wind up LPE over their training sail....

Be careful they don't set the lawyer's on you. You know what their like, just ask Mr kneewreaker :)

 

 

Let em try..... "Excuse me can you tell me why, as an official builder (subject to court case) you feel it is appropriate to sell non-class legal parts for the boat you build?"

 

Although I might decide I really can't be bothered....or use the foredeck of their display one as an impromptu changing table for my youngest :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I was also told from an internal source at LP/LPE that the PSA boats are not being built to the construction manual. This may just be some shit slinging on their part as nothing has surfaced about measurement issues recently....

 

This also might be the part of information/desinformation war and you just became the weapon of it by spreading the rumour.

If you, guys, are getting bored, take a look a BK's Laser trademark cancelling attempt. There's a lot of reading material.http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92057217&pty=CAN

I am pretty sure it is shit slinging, as would most people be. Neither side is covering themselves in glory and are both doing more damage than good. It is the RYA Dinghy Show this weekend, I might go and wind up LPE over their training sail....

Be careful they don't set the lawyer's on you. You know what their like, just ask Mr kneewreaker :)

Let em try..... "Excuse me can you tell me why, as an official builder (subject to court case) you feel it is appropriate to sell non-class legal parts for the boat you build?"

 

Although I might decide I really can't be bothered....or use the foredeck of their display one as an impromptu changing table for my youngest :D

Think your last idea is the best one :)

Lasers have been so good for sailing for so long, is a shame to see it end up the way it has. At least there are two good alternatives in the market now. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Zero February Gantt posts. ??

 

Yup. Been kinda busy. Also, there was very little worth responding to, except this:

 

Interesting claim by Kirby in the latest documents:

In October of 2010, ILCA principles traveled to Connecticut at

LaserPerformance’s expense for a two-day meeting at LaserPerformance headquarters in

Norwalk, Connecticut. At that meeting, ILCA and LaserPerformance agreed on a plan to

eliminate Bruce Kirby from the Kirby sailboat business and to render his builder agreements

worthless. The direct result of this scheme hatched at the Norwalk meeting enabled

LaserPerformance to continue building plaqued boats without authorization of Bruce Kirby.

 

 

Any solid evidence that this meeting took place?

 

If the meeting did take place, is there evidence that this plan was hatched?

 

I don't think any of the parties are denying or will deny that the meeting took place, though I expect the content of the meetings will be fiercely debated! I don't know of any specific evidence that Kirby has, though expect that there would be emails discussing it and even minutes taken for the meeting.

 

On 24 Jan 2012 there was correspondence from ILCA President (Heini Wellmann) to Farzad Rastegar that said (snip):

"I am equally sorry that I could not participate in your phone call with Jeff Martin, but I was neither made aware of this call beforehand nor of your wish that I participate. I am still available anytime to discuss this matter with you over the phone; please let me know your wishes."

Rastegar responded on the same day:
"Dear Heinl,
I find this exchange incredibly unfortunate. In a sense, it is also offensive. I do believe that you seeking a sponsorship
is confused with you demanding financial support. The attitude, the form and the substance are all regrettable. It is
equally unfortunate that you were not disposed to participate in the long telephone conversation with Jeff Martin on
this topic. Let me just remind you for the avoidance of doubt: any attempts to violate LP or any group intellectual
property by way of any scheme that ILCA or its agents would devise would be vigorously defended and anyone who
perpetrates any initiative to violate our rights would be equally challenged. I hope this is very clear and unlike your
message, there are no veiled threats in there.
This all surreal. If I were you, I would be lining up behind the doors of Maclaren to get a sponsorship rather than embark
on threats and demands.
Be guided accordingly.
Respectfully
Farzad"
I wonder what was going on with the ILCA between Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann behind the scenes? Is Farzad Rastegar defending Jeff Martin by contradicting Heini - by saying that Heini was not "disposed to participate"? This exchange took place shortly after the controversial 2011 vote to change the fundamental rule.

 

Finally, February 2015 saw Margo Kirby get involved. Why is that?

 

Lots of motions, some motions to seal that were effective, and therefore limits our ability as interested bystanders to know what's going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero February Gantt posts. ??

 

I swore off the thread for sailing but then some supreme being saw fit to freeze all our F-ing water. And then when a chance to quote one of your posts popped up I could not resist! :P

 

Your other puppet is cuter though.

 

 

 

 

Finally, February 2015 saw Margo Kirby get involved. Why is that?

 

 

 

I think I was maybe told by a guy from Texas with crazy hair that she was given two choices. She could either sail a Torch or get involved. But it turned out that even SHE couldn't get a Torch out of BK despite all the promises! Its possible that bit is completely divorced from reality and made up by my sailing deprived mind which is sinking ever further into a depression due to the hardened state of our water.

 

OK, now I have to think about how to work the Gov. Perry line a few posts up into the GB threads. Those couch sailors are fun to poke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, I can't follow your logic. It's really clear what the situation is with the Torch; it's not available until the legal action is exhausted and is still a viable option for the future.

 

Bruce Kirby has not broken any promises with the Torch.

 

Maybe this can help you shed some light: http://www.wickedlasers.com/torch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, I can't follow your logic.

 

It's really clear what the situation is with the Torch.

 

Bruce Kirby has not broken any promises with the Torch.

I know you Canntt.

 

Yes he promised a boat and a class.

 

But that apparently got him into legal trouble so then he had to break his promise.

 

All in my warped demented soft water deprived mind's opinion and purely for entertainment purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wess, I can't follow your logic.

 

It's really clear what the situation is with the Torch.

 

Bruce Kirby has not broken any promises with the Torch.

I know you Canntt.

 

Yes he promised a boat and a class.

 

But that apparently got him into legal trouble so then he had to break his promise.

 

All in my warped demented soft water deprived mind's opinion and purely for entertainment purposes.

 

 

From an entertainment perspective, I am underwhelmed.

 

When did he break the promise, next year? (I am really struggling with your logic Wess.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wess, I can't follow your logic.

 

It's really clear what the situation is with the Torch.

 

Bruce Kirby has not broken any promises with the Torch.

I know you Canntt.

 

Yes he promised a boat and a class.

 

But that apparently got him into legal trouble so then he had to break his promise.

 

All in my warped demented soft water deprived mind's opinion and purely for entertainment purposes.

 

 

From an entertainment perspective, I am underwhelmed.

 

When did he break the promise, next year? (I am really struggling with your logic Wess.)

 

So sorry to have not met your expectations Canntt.

 

With not joining the class, but yet voting on class matters, you set the bar at a level I can never achieve so I fear you will continue to be underwhelmed. This may also explain why we view the actions w re the Torch differently.

 

Glad you are back though. Wish it was sooner. You cost me a case of beer (on a bet you would not last 2 weeks without posting). I was sure Gouv would drag you back but then he bailed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My hope was that we can discuss things of relevance regarding the Kirby case on this forum, instead of dragging this down into the sewer of personal attacks. Wess, I do realise that you have a vested interest, that you (Wess) are happy that Kirby is cut out of the picture, however the consequence is that we go elsewhere to chat about this case.

 

So, just for the record, I was previously a fully paid member of the ILCA. The only thing that is relevant about me is that I have been sailing Lasers since the 1980s and have an interest in the boat Kirby designed. Like the majority of Laser sailors, I am currently not a member of the ILCA though in my case, it is in protest of the ILCA's actions. At this time, I just can't bring myself to be supportive of an organisation that treated Bruce Kirby in the manner they did.

 

According to Wess, Kirby did not fulfill the promise of the Torch! Exactly what was the promise that was unfulfilled Wess?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that is relevant about me is that I have been sailing Lasers since the 1980s and have an interest in the boat Kirby designed. Like the majority of Laser sailors, I am currently not a member of the ILCA though in my case, it is in protest of the ILCA's actions. At this time, I just can't bring myself to be supportive of an organisation that treated Bruce Kirby in the manner they did.

 

I knew you couldn't resist.

 

You want to talk about the case, the vote and ILCA... but its not relevant that you said you were not a class member but you voted in class matters? Must be more hard water logic. Seems relevant to me.

 

* Current manufacturers of the Kirby sailboat under the Laser brand are in the process of converting over to manufacture the Kirby sailboat under the Kirby Torch brand. The process is expected to take a few months after which Kirby Torch builders will be the only licensed manufacturers of the Kirby sailboat throughout the world.

 

Three questions:

 

1.) when was it said?

2.) who said it?

3.) how long is a few months?

 

Come on... you can make up for all those missed posts in one day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly how is whether or not I voted relevant to Kirby's case? Do you think it changes facts? That it somehow invalidates a long line of critics of the ILCA's actions? That it means that Bruce Kirby was treated fairly by the ILCA?

 

Glad that you were able to present Kirby's "promise". An expectation of the duration of a process is promise?

 

Wess, your attempts to engage are pathetic. I'll return when there are some actual developments, or when someone actually makes a contribution. Wess, that is very likely to rule you out based on your past history.

 

On a separate note, and about the Kirby action, I'm still curious as to why Margo Kirby is involved. I hope Bruce is OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't go Canntt!

 

I canntt figure out who said:

 

Through the Kirby Torch brand, sailors will be able to maintain access to hulls, parts and the one-design aspect which is the touchstone of the Kirby sailboat design.

 

I canntt figure out who posted the picture of a Torch?

Here Comes the Kirby Torch!

posted May 15, 2013, 9:59 AM by Kirby Torch

 

 

CLICK HERE for a few pictures of the first Kirby Torch sailboats.

 

 

I canntt figure out who said that these are the Torch builders?

 

Builders

THE AMERICAS
540 Elizabeth Street
Midland, Ontario L4R2A3
Canada

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA
p/o Burg. Hendrixstraat 56
2651JV Berkel en Rodenrijs
The Netherlands
ASIA, OCEANIA
P.O. Box 5022
Chittaway Bay NSW
Australia 2261

 

I canntt figure out who was selling and entering into inter-state commerce with all the Torch stuff I see everywhere?

 

Kirby Torch Store Open; Proceeds to Support Class

posted May 13, 2013, 6:55 AM by Kirby Torch

 

I canntt figure out who runs the Torch class...

 

http://www.kirbytorch.com/members

 

You mean it was all just a trick Canntt? You mean that they posted those pictures of a boat and said they were preparing to manufacture in a few months and told us who the builders were and took money for all that stuff they sold, and had people join a class and put out a class constitution and they did all that 2 years ago and none of it was real? It was all just a trick? You mean there is no Torch? But he had pictures posted! I have seen boats sailing with Torch branding. Have we been tricked? Are they not Torches? Are you saying Torches don't exist and it was all a trick to get our money? Are you saying he duped us all with the Torch? Wow, I thought you were Bruce's friend.

 

And why wouldn't Bruce be OK just because both sides apparently went after anything that had a pulse?

 

I though you said you were in contact with the key players?

 

Come on man. I count on you for my insights to this case.

 

Oh and I see you said I have a vested interest again. Does that mean I am back to being Crane? Hope so. I get much better seating when the reservation is in that name.

 

This is fun but I hope the water thaws soon! Sailing is more fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Wess, what exactly was the promise made that Kirby broke?

 

I can understand it's difficult for you to answer without fabrication or posting stuff that we already know that doesn't answer the question.


 

On a separate note, and about the Kirby action, I'm still curious as to why Margo Kirby is involved.


No secret there - she's BK's bookkeeper.

 

Thanks ojfd. Didn't know that. Not sure why she needs to be subjected to a disposition. I'm sure it will come out eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it does answer it Canntt. You might not like the answer but it does answer it.

 

So what will you do if BKI does not win and wipe ILCA off the face of the earth? Will you will sail your Laser in the class if the rules are not forced back to BK's liking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So explain it to me Wess, exactly what was the promise made that Kirby broke? Please just sum it up in one or two sentences because your attempt to state what Bruce Kirby's promise was has so far failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Je suis le chargeur de trolls!)

 

Interesting how the ILCA relocated to Texas, though currently still has it's main office in the UK. The plaques were ordered in the UK, and now are ordered in Texas.

 

I wonder how many of the functions will transfer to the Texas office, and whether the ILCA can sustain having two offices.

Link to post
Share on other sites