Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The cost of misinformation As an ILCA World Council member, I am alarmed at some "news stories" in the The Sailor's Voice (Facebook), specifically those posted by Jean-Pierre Kiekens. His comments

https://www.sailing.org/news/90895.php#.YHkHCy2ZNN0 Laser Radial sailor Nethra Kumanan has become the first ever female Indian sailor to qualify for the Olympic Games.

And edition 40 of our 6 hour laser relay race (you switch every lap with your team mate) is close to having 40 boats (80 sailors). All that on a tiny lake in the south of Amsterdam. If you read D

Posted Images

1 hour ago, tillerman said:

Today's date is Thursday August 1, 2019.

Wasn't something supposed to happen today?

August Fool's Day?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Laser rule change. Will it be yes or no?
This question is on a lot of Laser sailor's minds, many are simply relieved the vote is over.
The rule change is very simple, it removes the requirement for builders to use a Laser trademark.
I'm unclear when the results will become available, though we know there is a process to verify that each vote was legitimately cast.
---
In the mean-time, Mr Rastegar has posted 'proof' that he meets all the World Sailing requirements.
There are two perspectives I want to comment from.
1) The documents presented and negotiations
The contracts presented (see link below), his interview in Sailing Illustrated have provides a glimpse into the communications and 'tactics' that Mr Rastegar has engaged in. From those directly involved, they tell me Rastegar's approach has made the process incredibly frustrating. Mr Rastegar's continuously shifting positions are favorably described as 'creative'.
How that works in meetings is that the other parties wait to see what Mr Rastegar will present next - whether it is a new set of proposals, or existing proposals sent back as agreed with text changes, altering the meaning of what was previously agreed to. Attempts to make progress have been described as thwarted by Mr Rastegar tendency to grandstand, and when not getting his way, walking out of meetings or terminating calls. Attempts to reach agreement started as early as November 2018.
The License agreement Mr Rastegar posted grants ILCA to use the Laser trademark, so ILCA can now operate as a class association and use the Laser trademark. But ILCA is not a boat builder. I'm unclear if Mr Rastegar genuinely things he's done everything needed, or is mischievously attempting to misinform.
2) The agreements needed
Once one pulls back from what Mr Rastegar has presented and looks at what is needed, a different picture emerges.
Rastegar was talking about the contracts that he says he has agreed to, and that no more are needed. There is a mix of documents posted, and none are the actual agreements important to the continuation of using the Laser trademark on the boat by new builders, AND complying with World Sailing's new policies.
What is still needed in the very least is an undertaking by the owners of the Laser trademark for use on the boat. It is referenced - though an agreement or even a statement of intent is absent.
What Mr Rastegar has presented to the world are pieces to a puzzle, while pretending that it provides clarity. For example, we don't know exactly who the parties to the Laser Construction Manual Agreement are, let alone the conditions it contains.
If the Laser trademark is to be used on the boat, then clarity from the Laser trademark owners is needed, who are:
  • Velum
  • PSA
  • PSJ
What Mr Rastegar provides is no statement of any consequence representing Velum for new builders to use the Laser trademark.
---
It is crystal clear is that without a clear pathway to using the Laser trademark on the boat, another pathway for appointing new builders must be found without the trademark.
And without the permission, that means the possibility of building boats without the Laser trademark.
Velum, PSA and PSJ can still grant permission for the Laser trademark to be used.
---
With a yes vote, new boat builders are no longer required to use a Laser trademark. If boats are built without the Laser trademark becomes commonplace, the capital value of the Laser brand will diminish significantly. (Meaning the biggest loser will be Rastegar himself).
With a no vote returned, things are less clear, in spite of Mr Rastegar wanting us to believe otherwise.
So I'm hoping for a yes vote.
And we wait.
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:
The Laser rule change. Will it be yes or no?
This question is on a lot of Laser sailor's minds, many are simply relieved the vote is over.
The rule change is very simple, it removes the requirement for builders to use a Laser trademark.
I'm unclear when the results will become available, though we know there is a process to verify that each vote was legitimately cast.
---
In the mean-time, Mr Rastegar has posted 'proof' that he meets all the World Sailing requirements.
There are two perspectives I want to comment from.
1) The documents presented and negotiations
The contracts presented (see link below), his interview in Sailing Illustrated have provides a glimpse into the communications and 'tactics' that Mr Rastegar has engaged in. From those directly involved, they tell me Rastegar's approach has made the process incredibly frustrating. Mr Rastegar's continuously shifting positions are favorably described as 'creative'.
How that works in meetings is that the other parties wait to see what Mr Rastegar will present next - whether it is a new set of proposals, or existing proposals sent back as agreed with text changes, altering the meaning of what was previously agreed to. Attempts to make progress have been described as thwarted by Mr Rastegar tendency to grandstand, and when not getting his way, walking out of meetings or terminating calls. Attempts to reach agreement started as early as November 2018.
The License agreement Mr Rastegar posted grants ILCA to use the Laser trademark, so ILCA can now operate as a class association and use the Laser trademark. But ILCA is not a boat builder. I'm unclear if Mr Rastegar genuinely things he's done everything needed, or is mischievously attempting to misinform.
2) The agreements needed
Once one pulls back from what Mr Rastegar has presented and looks at what is needed, a different picture emerges.
Rastegar was talking about the contracts that he says he has agreed to, and that no more are needed. There is a mix of documents posted, and none are the actual agreements important to the continuation of using the Laser trademark on the boat by new builders, AND complying with World Sailing's new policies.
What is still needed in the very least is an undertaking by the owners of the Laser trademark for use on the boat. It is referenced - though an agreement or even a statement of intent is absent.
What Mr Rastegar has presented to the world are pieces to a puzzle, while pretending that it provides clarity. For example, we don't know exactly who the parties to the Laser Construction Manual Agreement are, let alone the conditions it contains.
If the Laser trademark is to be used on the boat, then clarity from the Laser trademark owners is needed, who are:
  • Velum
  • PSA
  • PSJ
What Mr Rastegar provides is no statement of any consequence representing Velum for new builders to use the Laser trademark.
---
It is crystal clear is that without a clear pathway to using the Laser trademark on the boat, another pathway for appointing new builders must be found without the trademark.
And without the permission, that means the possibility of building boats without the Laser trademark.
Velum, PSA and PSJ can still grant permission for the Laser trademark to be used.
---
With a yes vote, new boat builders are no longer required to use a Laser trademark. If boats are built without the Laser trademark becomes commonplace, the capital value of the Laser brand will diminish significantly. (Meaning the biggest loser will be Rastegar himself).
With a no vote returned, things are less clear, in spite of Mr Rastegar wanting us to believe otherwise.
So I'm hoping for a yes vote.
And we wait.

Bruce- Have you heard if PSA and PSJ have agreed to all documents?  Is LP the only hold out?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tillerman said:

Today's date is Thursday August 1, 2019.

Wasn't something supposed to happen today?

Well, ILCA should have completed a vote - but hasn't - and WS was supposed to make a decision - but wont.  But hopefully everybody voted no so we can absolutely positively LASER!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Wavedancer II said:

Mr Rastegar may not be a sailor, but he sure does a lot of tacking irrespective of the wind shifts. Moreover, he appears to have forgotten where the windward mark is.

There has been a change of course. The race was scheduled to finish today  but the RC has lengthened the course under Rule 30330 to allow the losers to win.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Bruce- Have you heard if PSA and PSJ have agreed to all documents?  Is LP the only hold out?

It would be an incorrect characterization to frame it that way, though quite a few have. 

It would be more correct to say that PSA and PSJ are completely on board with the World Sailing process, and despite what Mr Rastegar says in public, what he has said privately indicates the exact opposite. (So how do you deal with that? In my view the other parties have showed huge restraint.)

Never the less, Laser Performance appears to be more on board than not.

Velum on the other hand, even though are critical to the continued use of the Laser trademark, have not reached an agreement.

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

Well, ILCA should have completed a vote - but hasn't - and WS was supposed to make a decision - but wont.  But hopefully everybody voted no so we can absolutely positively LASER!

you should be praying for a yes vote. I have really good scotch. ask @RobbieB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tillerman said:

There has been a change of course. The race was scheduled to finish today  but the RC has lengthened the course under Rule 30330 to allow the losers to win.

ooo, debate humor! nice

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

you should be praying for a yes vote. I have really good scotch. ask @RobbieB

Damn!  You are correct Sir.  How is it that this Ivy leaguer was out smarted by some dang redneck hick?? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wess said:

Damn!  You are correct Sir.  How is it that this Ivy leaguer was out smarted by some dang redneck hick?? 

Over a nice glass of the 16yr old scotch this past Saturday night I enjoyed an in depth discussion on Brexit with said "redneck".  He's a lot smarter than he looks and has excellent taste scotch.  Just shows that not all of us from the South are slow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the pieces of misinformation is that Laser Performance will no longer be able to builder Lasers.

This seems to have come mostly as a result of the sustained campaign of the conspiracy theory, that ILCA, Global Sailing and PSA were gunning for the demise of Laser Performance being a builder.

This in turn has been conflated with a yes vote being returned 'ruining the class' (among other things) - when in fact, all a yes vote does is removes the rule requiring builders to use a Laser trademark.

If the yes vote prevailed (and it sounds like it did) there will be a clear pathway for the Laser to be retained as Olympic class. 

New builders can be appointed.

Finally, the vote needs to be verified, and the announcement will be made as soon as the information is available - the vote ended 48 hours ago, please be patient, the announcement won't be far away.

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

I wish people would stop with this misinformation campaign about the Laser and the Olympics having something to do with the un-branding  vote.

If the Laser is no longer the singlehanded racing Sailboat used for most of the world’s Class sanctioned racing,  I doubt World Sailing will keep the Laser in the Olympics.

What are you talking about Gouv.

The way it works is this:

World Sailing has a new policy which includes having new new builders - it is called the Olympic Equipment Selection Policy. 

The class rules must be met, currently there is a Laser class rule that requires a builder to use a Laser trademark on Laser class boats

Currently, the Laser trademark holders are unwilling or unable to reach an agreement which provides for new builders to use the Laser trademark.

It looks likely that World Sailing will agree that because the rule change has been made, the Laser class will be used in the 2024 Olympics.

Got it?

---

42 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Remember the ILCA decide many months ago, equipment supplied by the only Laser builder will no longer be considered to be legal racing equipment 

Yes. That was March 27th, 2019.

Since then, an application under the new contracts by Laser Performance has been accepted. I have no reason to assume that Laser Performance won't be able to meet the requirements to build official boats for the Laser class - do you?

45 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Also, there have been references made to the production of non-class Legal Lasers by the currently disenfranchised fir racing builder. There may never again be Lasers available for racing on most of the planet. 

On what basis? The rule change says that the Laser brand no longer has to be used on Laser class boats, not that it can't be used.

48 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

The way I see it, when I cast my Yes vote, I was saying, “OK. The hell with trying to have a Laser game. I am placing my confidence in the ILCA officers to create a new and successful Dooseythinghy Dinghy Class.”

I'm glad to hear that you cast a yes vote.

The Laser class is still going to be called the Laser class (or is there are proposal for changing the name that nobody else knows about?)

Be cool for the three Laser trademark holders to allow the continued use of the Laser brand on all Laser class boats. Not going to hold my breath though. In the next few days, expect some announcements, that will create a little more certainty.

Great to hear Andy mention elsewhere that the ILCA membership grew in 2018. That sounds absolutely positive for the Laser class to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The voting result hasn't been announced yet, it still hasn't been fully verified. I am unclear what has or has not been communicated to World Sailing, though there is a confidence that ILCA will have met the requirements, and the Laser class will be retained as Olympic equipment for the 2024 Paris games.

We should get confirmation of that shortly after August 5, when World Sailing meet next.

The class is still the Laser class, and only new builders will have boats not branded Laser if the three trademark owners still haven't reached an agreement. (Still a possibility).

No agreement? Then the new builders will be forced to not use the Laser band on the boats they build.

That is a little time off. PSJ, PSA and Laser Performance have a different pathway.

---

Now that Mr Rastegar has outed himself on Sailing Illustrated, especially with his aggression showed towards ILCA, there are some lingering questions surrounding Heini Wellmann, Jean-Luc Michon and Alex Behrens. 

Do Heini Wellmann, Jean-Luc Michon and Alex Behrens support Mr Rastegar's apparent want to take legal action against ILCA? (Announced on Sailing Illustrated).

If they do, then is it appropriate that they remain on the ILCA World Council, since any defense would be discussed by the ILCA World Council.

---

Also remaining is the conflicts of interest question. Though less pressing than the vote counting or any response to legal action, it still important in my view.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

I think promoting Dooseythinghy  Dinghies as though they are Lasers is the sort of misbehavior  Rastagar has been mentioning.

Then the writers of every contract for the boat we race are in hot water.

That is the precise misinformation that Mr Rastegar has been promoting.

The trademark holder has never appointed builders, they have merely given permission to use the trademark.

 

Agreement.png

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

Rastagar has also pointed it it is the Laser that was chosen for the Olympics 

 

 

 

I understood that it was quite specifically "the boat proposed by ILCA" that was chosen for the Olympics, deliberately not named or branded.

Of course at that stage the only class-legal boat was a Laser (TM). But that was presented as an example of what an ILCA placarded boat offers, in terms of construction, performance, and global presence. The brand does not affect these things.

My understanding (from comments at one of the meeting videos?) is that ILCA Olympic selection applies to any brand boat with an ILCA placard.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

The trademark holders have always been the builders. 

Velum (the laser trademark holder) is not Laser Performance (builder)

54 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

it seems Rastagar has made it clear, he can supply those boats and he is willing  to share  that opportunity with anyone who will properly buy a franchise and pay fair royalty fees.

others would like to tell him how to run his business.

Are you referring to his Sailing Illustrated interview? If you thought Mr Rastegar was clear, can you provide me a summary. (Because I'm still trying to make sense about what he said.)

Exactly who is trying to tell Mr Rastegar how to run his business? Got a quote? A source?

What I'm looking for would be something equivalent to this (Posted on LP's Facebook page May 20) :

Quote

Given their recent performance, LaserPeformance calls for:
A. ILCA move back to Europe where the majority of Laser sailors live and sail.
B. ILCA appoint a professional executive team to run the class operations paid for by increased plaque fees charged to the builders.

I counted six instances where LP made similar statements, just on their FB page. In addition, Mr Rastegar said similar things in the Sailing Illustrated interview.

So something like that would qualify. I've been following this pretty closely Gouv, and I must have missed it. Please unmisinformacommunicate me!?!!

---

On that note, Mr Rastegar in the Sailing Illustrated interview drew comparisons between NORTH KOREA and the ILCA executive team. I can't see it.

But I am interested, do you agree Gouv?

 

Kim.jpg

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

Velum (the laser trademark holder) is not Laser Performance (builder)

Riiiiggghhht ! What a dumbass comment !!

Sorry. No. The failure to understand the difference in entities, even when they have the same shareholders is a dumbass comment. Actually it isn't clear to me who owns either companies - having attempted to trace ownership.
 

2 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

I already offered a pretty decent interpretation of what I believe he said

That's great Gouv. Where is it? I'd love to read it!

3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Exactly who is trying to tell Mr Rastegar how to run his business? Got a quote? A source?

World Sailing . How can you be so ignorant as to have no knowledge of their FRAND initiative ?  ? 

OK. Small but important point, it is an Olympic Equipment Section Policy which includes FRAND. 

The major thing you appear to have got wrong here Gouv is that it prescribes how Laser Performance is run as a business.

To be clear, World Sailing are NOT telling Laser Performance, Velum or Mr Rastegar how to run his business.

3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

What the  hell are you blathering about ? Are you announcing in this post you haven’t paid attention to anything? Are you simply posting everywhere as a cheerleader ? If so: What the he’ll is your objective? 

Good one Gouv. Blathering about blathering are we?

My primary objective is to combat misinformation. Particularly about the sport I care deeply about - and I know you care about it too. 

3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

On that note, Mr Rastegar in the Sailing Illustrated interview drew comparisons between NORTH KOREA and the ILCA executive team. I can't see it.

He was quite clear with the reasoning behind his asinine and inflammatory comparison 

I disagree. The platform on which Rastegar builds this reasoning is a serious of obvious and overt mistruths. I hear that you see clarity in his reasoning. To be specific, I cannot see the similarities between a totalitarian regime and ILCA, which functions as a representative democracy.

3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Agree with what? That you can’t comprehend anything much of anybody has written or said? 

I was wondering if you agreed with Mr Rastegar in thinking that there is a legitimate comparison to be made? I don't think you do, but you seem to be agreeing with Mr Rastegar a lot - so I thought I'd ask to be sure.

3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

It is truly unfortunate you failed weeks ago to write and post the fact you have not been able to grasp the motives of Mr Rastagar or the fact World Sailing wants to exert  control over how he does business 

Why would I write something that I believe to be a misinformed position?

Perhaps if you believed it, maybe you should or could write about it?

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

By some convoluted set of weird  logic,  some folks have tried to tie the acceptance of generic toys  to Olympic participation.  The Olympics is an event that happens every four years in a fleet of identical, supplied boats. It seems World Sailing wants it to be possible for ANY qualified builder to supply those boats 

I don't believe you are correct there. My understanding is that the problem is not the supply of boats for the games themselves. The problem AIUI is that Olympic hopefuls are being forced to buy their boats from a very limited number of suppliers in order to be able to compete in qualification events and qualify for the Olympics.

Another serious issue, if I understand things correctly, is that there is damn all clarity in the legislation, which wasn't intended for these sorts of circumstances, so World Sailing have to take a guess at what courts may or not find illegal, and every party can have their own interpretation. Thus Velum and Laser Performance LLC (I believe LPE is more or less moribund) can have a rather different understanding of what's required than WS.

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

Another serious issue, if I understand things correctly, is that there is damn all clarity in the legislation, which wasn't intended for these sorts of circumstances, so World Sailing have to take a guess at what courts may or not find illegal, and every party can have their own interpretation. Thus Velum and Laser Performance LLC (I believe LPE is more or less moribund) can have a rather different understanding of what's required than WS.

100% Agree.

We are for the most part when referring to World Sailing are talking about a bunch of amateurs making it up as they go along. All bring some skills from their careers, but most (if any) are seasoned legislators. 

There is the potential when injecting a party who doesn't want to understand because they have their own agenda - so exploits any wiggle room as an opportunity to inject misinformation - and 'the problem' as Jim describes it gets far far worse... I'd be equally happy if Jim had said "...can construct a rather different understanding..."

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

The trademark holders have always been the builders. 

We have always played exclusively in Laser brand equipment 

because LP has not been supplying NA with enough new toys, many of us  would like to dump the brand and see if we can find somebody to build generic toys.

By some convoluted set of weird  logic,  some folks have tried to tie the acceptance of generic toys  to Olympic participation. 

The Olympics is an event that happens every four years in a fleet of identical, supplied boats. 

It seems World Sailing wants it to be possible for ANY qualified builder to supply those boats 

it seems Rastagar has made it clear, he can supply those boats and he is willing  to share  that opportunity with anyone who will properly buy a franchise and pay fair royalty fees.

others would like to tell him how to run his business. 

I think Gouvernail is fed up with all of this. He is frustrated. So, he writes in very short sentences, and even in single-sentence paragraphs (like some local journalists here - TUR - who think they are prophets). IMHO, he expresses incomplete thoughts that can easily be either misinterpreted by those who are not on the same wavelength as him, or be responded to with a "Really?" or " So what?". 

I believe the post-vote discussion needs to be more elaborate and deductive. It is too easy to make a blanket claim if the claim is not followed by justification attempts, which may then make the writer re-think the validity of his claim.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, drLaser said:

I think Gouvernail is fed up with all of this. He is frustrated. So, he writes in very short sentences, and even in single-sentence paragraphs.

I like reading posts which lay out an argument in short single-sentence paragraphs.

That style forces writers to be very clear about what they are trying to say.

I am fed up with the long posts full of rambling, complex prose that some people on here like to write.

Thank you Gouvernail.







 

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

...can construct a rather different understanding..."

Its interesting too to speculate about who can get the European Commission after them and for what. This is where real legal expertise is needed, and AIUI may not even exist, because I think I've seen it suggested that no-one really knows how courts might decide to interpret the regulations. For example are WS in the clear if they require trademark owners to license trademarks on FRAND terms, but the terms actually offered by the trademark holder are not? I have not the slightest idea, but its the sort of topic that internet experts can bang on about endlessly without actually having a frigging clue what they are talking about.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tillerman said:

That style forces writers to be very clear about what they are trying to say.

Ideally. Yes. But there's nothing clear about what Gouv was saying, other than clearly reflecting his frustration. Out of his nine sentences, sentences 1,2,5 & 6 should be followed with a "So what? What are you getting at?" and 4,7 & 8 should be followed by "Really? What makes you think that?". And that "style" invites conflict (as in Bruce Hudson's reply #260, and Gouv's rude answer #261 back).

Anyway, I was surprised by the sharp tone of and lack of civility in Gouv's responses. Maybe there is some private animosity in there that's none of my business.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, drLaser said:

Ideally. Yes. But there's nothing clear about what Gouv was saying, other than clearly reflecting his frustration. Out of his nine sentences, sentences 1,2,5 & 6 should be followed with a "So what? What are you getting at?" and 4,7 & 8 should be followed by "Really? What makes you think that?". And that "style" invites conflict (as in Bruce Hudson's reply #260, and Gouv's rude answer #261 back).

Anyway, I was surprised by the sharp tone of and lack of civility in Gouv's responses. Maybe there is some private animosity in there that's none of my business.

Reminds me of Monty Python's classic Argument Sketch when Michael Palin books an argument, but in error is directed to be the "Abuse" room.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Reminds me of Monty Python's classic Argument Sketch when Michael Palin books an argument, but in error is directed to be the "Abuse" room.

 

It’s not like that

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing very positive here lately.

Went for a sail on the bay yesterday with some old friends and one new one.

Some very helpful people ran some races for us.

Winds built to 15-18 gusting over 20.

With wind against a strong outgoing tide, the waves were interesting.

Some dudes capsized a few times but everyone had a good time.

Nobody mentioned elections or World Sailing or FRAND or lawyers' bills.

I love my RS Aero.

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

Nothing very positive here lately.

Went for a sail on the bay yesterday with some old friends and one new one.

Some very helpful people ran some races for us.

Winds built to 15-18 gusting over 20.

With wind against a strong outgoing tide, the waves were interesting.

Some dudes capsized a few times but everyone had a good time.

Nobody mentioned elections or World Sailing or FRAND or lawyers' bills.

I love my RS Aero.

Awesome! Set up a positive Aero thread!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the final bastions of misinformation surrounds Laser Performance being 'swindled' out of their business rights.

As with 'good' misinformation, there is a kernel of truth to the statement, and some untruths.

Yes, Laser Performance's monopoly is ending.

Laser Performance's monopoly in a defined territory was NOT based on the trademark ownership - it was based on the contracts which gave Laser Performance exclusive rights to build in a territory defined by the contracts. Some are putting forward that it is the same thing - but it is critical to understand it is not, and to understand what the differences are. 

All of the contracts giving builders the rights to build had exit clauses. 

So nobody is 'stealing' trademarks.

The contracts that give builders exclusive rights are coming to an end.

---

The Laser class is still called the Laser class.

New builders will be appointed.

Boats will still be built.

---

We (ILCA members) still belong to the most international sailing class in the world.

(Actually, it is three classes: Standard, Radial and the 4.7 - divided into youth, senior, and masters - then club / national / international / Olympic. And the more you look at the class, the bigger you realize it is: Absolutely, positively Laser.)

---

Official announcements need to be prepared. Not long now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

One of the final bastions of misinformation surrounds Laser Performance being 'swindled' out of their business rights.

As with 'good' misinformation, there is a kernel of truth to the statement, and some untruths.

Yes, Laser Performance's monopoly is ending.

Laser Performance's monopoly in a defined territory was NOT based on the trademark ownership - it was based on the contracts which gave Laser Performance exclusive rights to build in a territory defined by the contracts. Some are putting forward that it is the same thing - but it is critical to understand it is not, and to understand what the differences are. 

All of the contracts giving builders the rights to build had exit clauses. 

So nobody is 'stealing' trademarks.

The contracts that give builders exclusive rights are coming to an end.

---

The Laser class is still called the Laser class.

New builders will be appointed.

Boats will still be built.

---

We (ILCA members) still belong to the most international sailing class in the world.

(Actually, it is three classes: Standard, Radial and the 4.7 - divided into youth, senior, and masters - then club / national / international / Olympic. And the more you look at the class, the bigger you realize it is: Absolutely, positively Laser.)

---

Official announcements need to be prepared. Not long now.

You are a self appointed champion of truth, fighting misinformation wherever you see it, but so many of your posts are disingenuous. 

It would take more time than I have to debunk this post, but I implore anyone with an open mind and who is neutral in this saga to consider whether this codswallop is anything more than infantile propaganda. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

One of the final bastions of misinformation surrounds Laser Performance being 'swindled' out of their business rights.

As with 'good' misinformation, there is a kernel of truth to the statement, and some untruths.

Yes, Laser Performance's monopoly is ending.

Laser Performance's monopoly in a defined territory was NOT based on the trademark ownership - it was based on the contracts which gave Laser Performance exclusive rights to build in a territory defined by the contracts. Some are putting forward that it is the same thing - but it is critical to understand it is not, and to understand what the differences are. 

LP’s near monopoly was a consequence of the quite deliberate rule that gave TM holders a say (or veto) on who could be a builder.

All of the contracts giving builders the rights to build had exit clauses. 

So nobody is 'stealing' trademarks.

I’m not aware anyone is accusing anyone ‘stealing’ trademarks - you are countering allegations that haven’t been made.  But the trademark has been devalued by the deliberate actions of ILCA - the rule change removing the TM holders right to veto builders, the “unbranding”of the class rules and the reputational damage done to the trademark resulting from the premature announcement that the boat name had changed (and the implication that WS endorsed the name change).

The contracts that give builders exclusive rights are coming to an end.

You make this sound like they are time limited contracts about to expire.  LP’s build rights have ended because of ILCA’s actions.

---

The Laser class is still called the Laser class.

I’ll be amazed if that is tested in court.

New builders will be appointed.

Everyone, including Rastegar, hopes so.

Boats will still be built.

---

We (ILCA members) still belong to the most international sailing class in the world.

(Actually, it is three classes: Standard, Radial and the 4.7 - divided into youth, senior, and masters - then club / national / international / Olympic. And the more you look at the class, the bigger you realize it is: Absolutely, positively Laser.)

---

Official announcements need to be prepared. Not long now.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have, I believe, that very much about face. My understanding of the mesh of contracts was that Kirby Inc and ILCA granted builders rights to build the boats. The purpose of them owning the trademark was to give them confidence that they could not be removed as builders without creating great difficulties, so they could safely put the investment in. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JimC said:

You have, I believe, that very much about face. My understanding of the mesh of contracts was that Kirby Inc and ILCA granted builders rights to build the boats. The purpose of them owning the trademark was to give them confidence that they could not be removed as builders without creating great difficulties, so they could safely put the investment in. 

It may have started that way, I can't confirm for sure but that sounds like a plausible reason. Some time later there was more trademark registrations, independent to the contracts. From memory, the mainland Asia registration was cause for some debate, predating any builder's contract there. From my reading of records going back to that time, this may have been significant in the rift between PSA and LP. 

Also significant was the section 41 registration of Laser (1990s from memory), which included sports admin, and set the stage for Rastegar's ploy to threaten ILCA with legal action if they used the Laser trademark without permission. The reason I say it was a ploy is that they needed to shut down a paper company in order for the 1998 contract to come to an end. (Others have already talked about this publicly).

Be keen to hear your further thoughts Jim, with a view to reaching a better understanding of this.

---

I think that while there are legitimate causes for disagreement, the actions of Rastegar caused some (me included) to act/react in the way we did. In my view, lines were crossed.

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

I’m not aware anyone is accusing anyone ‘stealing’ trademarks - you are countering allegations that haven’t been made.

Refer to Rastegar's interview on Sailing Illustrated. Also LP's Facebook page. There are comments of several forums where people talk about Laser Performance being under attack by ILCA. Additionally there are layers of misinformation, where the trademark is seen as somehow a part of the builder appointment process. Later references were made to the Trademark territory being the same as the builder's. They were separate. The 1983 builder's contract specified the region in appendix 2. The trademarks registration has a separate system.

I am trying to counter this misinformation so that notions that Laser Performance had been wronged. 

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

My recollection is some guys developed a boat and Lottsa folks started buying those boats and having races. 

Sometime more recently, people started getting their panties all bunched up about who is in charge. 

Now it seems there are people who don’t build Lasers, don’t sell Lasers, don’t host Laser regattas, and don’t sail in Laser events who want to be in charge of our game. 

I believe the proper thing to say  to those who aren’t involved in actively sailing. Building toys, or otherwise working on making games happen and want to be in charge is FUCK OFF!!! Iiiiii

 

The Whatsitsnamenow sailors we put in charge of the International Whatsitsnamenow Class have decided that they will let someone else be in charge of the Whatsitsnamenow game now, so that the Whatsitsnamenow boats can sail in a regatta that's only held once every 4 years and in which only about .0025% of Whatsitsnamenow owners are allowed to sail.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

World Sailing's announcement.

At World Sailing's 2019 Mid-Year Meeting in London, Great Britain, World Sailing's Council voted to retain the Equipment for the Men's and Women's One Person Dinghy for the Paris 2024 Olympic Sailing Competition.
The World Sailing Board informed Council in May 2019 that it would only continue contractual discussions until 1 August 2019 with the selected Equipment. World Sailing can confirm the International Laser Class Association (ILCA) has signed the required Olympic Classes Contract by this deadline and has also submitted additional information about the arrangements for the Class.

The position has been discussed at a recent meeting of the World Sailing Board and it has requested clarification from ILCA in a small number of areas. The Board will then officially communicate to Council its position.
 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sosoomii said:

You are a self appointed champion of truth, fighting misinformation wherever you see it, but so many of your posts are disingenuous. 

It would take more time than I have to debunk this post, but I implore anyone with an open mind and who is neutral in this saga to consider whether this codswallop is anything more than infantile propaganda. 

I've already tried to explain how trademarks, designer rights, building rights etc fit together. Well this has nothing to do with FRAND or WS, except it looks like LPE must be granted a building license under the new system the same way as any other boatbuilder. 

As already pointed out: check yourself what kind of protection a trademark gives you. You will propably find out that this protection has nothing to do with building rights or design protection, or any particular boat design. 

LPE had building rights to build classlegal boats due to a contract with BK, which was terminated due to breach of contract in 2012 when you look at the openly availible court documents. LPE was part of the LCMA, but they were terminated due to breach of contract as Tracy explained. The Video of the Qeensland Assoc. gives some views of the chief measurer on this. It looks to me, that LPE is largely self responsible for the termination of both contracts. I would call this "commercial suicide". 

When my former boss bought a boatbuilding company that was bancrupt, the liquidator made clear that we can only buy the trademarks, the inventory, molds plugs etc, but not the building rights. To get the rights to build and sell boats we needed to sign new contracts with the designers. With some of them we signed contracts, with others not. As an example: We also bought the molds to build Greg Kettermans Trifoiler. We could not see that building Trifoilers was a great business, so we did not care too much about the building rights. Then one day the CEO of Hobie Europe  called me, and said that they had a contract with Ketterman and asked if he could buy the molds. But we could'nt agree on a price, so we kept the molds. On the next boatshow Hobie had a trifoiler on display, which was a used boat, build by the company we had bought and still showed our trademark on some pieces. I just laughed about that, found it funny that Hobie made some promotion for us by showing our boat with our Logo. We had no contract with the designer, so we just did not care. Next time I've met some Hobie guys we drank a bottle of good spanish red wine...much better than spending a lot more money for lawyers. 

In the US the legal system seems to be a bit different, in that you also buy the contracts with the designers. If you read the court documents LPE seems to have stepped into the license contracts with BK with all rights and obligations. But Trademarks and building rights seem to be- similar as in Europe - separate items. 

2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

LP’s near monopoly was a consequence of the quite deliberate rule that gave TM holders a say (or veto) on who could be a builder.

Where did you find this? From what I understood by looking at the various papers LPE had exclusive building rights for Europe, and QM had exclusive building rights for NA until termination of the contracts with BK. Currently they seem to have no building rights, but the class granted them a monopoly by the rule that was now voted on. 

 

2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

I’m not aware anyone is accusing anyone ‘stealing’ trademarks - you are countering allegations that haven’t been made.  But the trademark has been devalued by the deliberate actions of ILCA - the rule change removing the TM holders right to veto builders, the “unbranding”of the class rules and the reputational damage done to the trademark resulting from the premature announcement that the boat name had changed (and the implication that WS endorsed the name change)

I can't see what could be illegal to modify the class rules. No other class that I know of, and which are independent from manufacturers has such a rule. A class needs an agreement with the owner of building rights, if there is somebody, but not with trademark owners, as trademarks are not related to a boatdesign. 

 

2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

You make this sound like they are time limited contracts about to expire.  LP’s build rights have ended because of ILCA’s actions

From what I understood LP's building rights were terminated cause of breach of contracts by LP as stated above. 

 

2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

 

2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

I’ll be amazed if that is tested in court

As far as I know ILCA has a valid license agreement with Velum for using the Trademark Laser in class 41 - so what do you mean? 

2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Everyone, including Rastegar, hopes so

But only in markets where he has no interest to serve directly, as far as I understood him. Seems to be different to what WS has published, when they were writing about competing manufacturers. 

I hope that I'm neutral enough. There are surely some good points about LP and especially their european dealers that sold boats much cheaper than PSA with a similar quality and offer good regatta support at major events. No doubt they have quite some support in europe due to this.

But all parties should understand that not a competing producer is your enemy. It's Kitesurfing, Foiling Dinghies/ Cats, Keelboats, Cruisers, jetskis and SUP that they need to worry about and fight against.  Better to found an Association of all dinghy builders and work together to promote this sport of dinghy sailing. What currently happens only destroys the market. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Market? What market??

Over the last ten years, in North America, each year, fewer than one person in a million has bought a new Laser. 

Many of those customers also own jet skis, foilers, powerboats, bowling balls, golds clubs, snowmobiles, and lawnmowers. 

The absolute only competition for market share is the nursing home 

Sometimes really love your comments

Reality here today, sunny, 25 deg C force 4-5 at one of the best places to sail in northern europe, a place where some of the biggest regattas are held: grassroots watersport:

ca. 150 kiteboards on the water

ca. 20 windsurfers on the water

ca. 200 Cruisers 30ft+ on the water, maybe 1500 in the harbours of this small village. 

ca 35 catamarans on the beach, no owners sighted. 

1 old yellow Laser on the beach, not seen it on the water for 15 years. 

0 dinghies on the water. 

Maybe some Optis, Lasers and Splash will come for the weekend to practise, but max. 5 boats. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jgh66 said:

Where did you find this? From what I understood by looking at the various papers LPE had exclusive building rights for Europe, and QM had exclusive building rights for NA until termination of the contracts with BK. Currently they seem to have no building rights, but the class granted them a monopoly by the rule that was now voted on. 

Definition of a Builder

A Builder is a manufacturer that 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 World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association.

So, up to now Rastegar has been able to monopolise build in most of the world by not licensing the Laser trademark rights to other wannabe builders.  The new WS FRAND policy requires that, if the Laser is to stay Olympic, he must license the trademark.  ILCA, not trusting that Rastegar would play ball, have gone a step further and proposed removing the need for a builder to have any right to use the Laser trademark.

Under the WS scheme, Rastegar receives reasonable compensation in exchange for opening his market to competition.  Under the ILCA scheme he does not.  

1 hour ago, jgh66 said:

As far as I know ILCA has a valid license agreement with Velum for using the Trademark Laser in class 41 - so what do you mean

Can the International Laser Class Association represent equipment not called, nor branded as, Lasers?  That seems to go against the ILCA constitution to me.  Others disagree.  Incidentally, any ILCA constitution change needs WS approval and I wonder how much appetite there would be in WS to do that if Rastegar threatened legal action.  In short, if the equipment is no longer called Laser will International Laser Class Association have to change their name too? 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The documents released by LPE regarding the approval process of builders explicitly require the preexisting (legacy) builders to approve any new builders. 

Quote

The manufacturers; LP, PSA and PSJ (The Builders) will undertake to grant licenses to use the LCM on World Sailing Olympic Contract terms to any interested and qualified party to build and sell Lasers and Laser boat equipment, provided the licensees can meet the requirements of the LCMA and the license agreement (the Criteria as set out in Appendix 1).

Note that this references that the builders will undertake to grant licenses to use the LCM, not just the trademark. 

Further 

Quote

An assessment panel consisting of representatives of The Builders, ILCA and World Sailing (and independent experts if deemed necessary) will be established to undertake the application review process.

It will be interesting to see if/when LP are reinstated as a builder after the August 15th ish inspection of the factory, whether or not they will still be a "legacy builder", and assume the position they held previously in the LCM, or if they will be appointed as a new builder, as per the FRAND requirements

 

21 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Under the WS scheme, Rastegar receives reasonable compensation in exchange for opening his market to competition.  Under the ILCA scheme he does not.  

I guess it all boils down to what can be considered as "reasonable compensation". From what I've heard about the construction of ILCA's TM licensing policy, they suggested an industry standard 8% (I believe) royalty. Rastegar, thinks his TM is worth more than that, so he came up with his own policy. Given the Kirby royalties only sold for roughly $2.3M, I can't imagine the TM is worth any more than 8ish%

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, greenwhiteblack said:

I guess it all boils down to what can be considered as "reasonable compensation". From what I've heard about the construction of ILCA's TM licensing policy, they suggested an industry standard 8% (I believe) royalty. Rastegar, thinks his TM is worth more than that, so he came up with his own policy. Given the Kirby royalties only sold for roughly $2.3M, I can't imagine the TM is worth any more than 8ish%

The trademarks are real intellectual property with existing legal protections.  Kirby's royalties were based on convoluted contracts and mostly good will.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, torrid said:

The trademarks are real intellectual property with existing legal protections.  Kirby's royalties were based on convoluted contracts and mostly good will.

And this just isn't any old trademark.

This is the LASER. The most successful, the most popular, the most well-known Olympic racing dinghy in the history of yachting,

This is the most valuable piece of intellectual property in all of sailing.

If any trademark is worth protecting in the courts from people trying to encroach on its owner's rights, then this one is.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, greenwhiteblack said:

From what I've heard about the construction of ILCA's TM licensing policy, they suggested an industry standard 8% (I believe) royalty. Rastegar, thinks his TM is worth more than that, so he came up with his own policy. Given the Kirby royalties only sold for roughly $2.3M, I can't imagine the TM is worth any more than 8ish%

Might that be because you don’t have an advanced degree in economics and haven’t been engaged as an expert witness for this sort of analysis?  The 8% figure is demonstrably and absurdly low. It’s a gift to some legacy builders and a clear expression of disinterest to others.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any data on revenue for LP?

My estimates as follows based on owning my own Laser dealership. 

Boats in my business make up about 40% of sales, the rest is in parts and apparel (but this line of the business is negligible).

Since LP are the manufacturer, let's say they sell 50% boats, 50% parts. 

Their revenue from boats would be 1600 x roughly 7000 euros (being generous and not taking in to account sales for dealers at lower margins). 

Revenue from boats therefore = 11,200,000 euros. Total revenue therefore = 22,400,000 euros. 

Additional income from an 8% TM license would therefore be 1,792,000 euros.

The figure for revenue seems high, when taking in to account financial data available on LPE. However, given the minimum $200,000 royalty payment originally stipulated for licensing new builders, the TM income doesn't seem too far off. 

The decision for LP, is  would agreeing to an 8% TM fee cost them roughly 1,800,000 euros in profit? Personally, I doubt it given LP's dominant position as a pre existing builder. The math above shows why I don't think LP's TM is as valuable as Farzad makes out. Please correct my numbers for any info I don't have.

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

Might that be because you don’t have an advanced degree in economics and haven’t been engaged as an expert witness for this sort of analysis?  The 8% figure is demonstrably and absurdly low. It’s a gift to some legacy builders and a clear expression of disinterest to others.

I might not have a degree in advanced economics, but I do have one in Actuarial Science which I'd happily argue is a bit harder ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tillerman said:

And this just isn't any old trademark.

This is the LASER. The most successful, the most popular, the most well-known Olympic racing dinghy in the history of yachting,

This is the most valuable piece of intellectual property in all of sailing.

If any trademark is worth protecting in the courts from people trying to encroach on its owner's rights, then this one is.
 

I remember buying the Laser trademark seven times in my lifetime.

Amazingly, I got a one design dinghy with it. In addition to the amazing times I had with the trademark, I got to spend time racing the dinghy.

Heading for number eight in about six months time.

I can't wait to enjoy my next absolutely positive Laser trademark ownership experience.

---

The Laser trademark is protected by law.

The Laser trademark or the rights protecting its use have not changed.

Owner's rights have not been encroached by people, cockroaches, squirrels, dolphins or blue fin tuna seeking land rights.

The game was never owned by the Laser trademark owner. But be under no mistake, the game has changed.

---

I hope the Laser trademark owners reach an agreement which allow new builders to use the Laser trademark.

Mr Rastegar, if you don't agree with PSA and PSJ to license the trademark to be used in this way, I will hold you personally responsible for the trademark's demise.

But it won't affect my enjoyment of the dinghy, no matter what brand it uses.

Nor will I end up losing the vast majority of capital value in a 50 year old brand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ginko said:

Does anyone know who (or entity)  controls / grants the licenses that relate to the building (fabrication / construction) of the Laser ?

Under the new contracts, the primary responsibility of appointing builders falls to ILCA. 

Technically, the license is controlled by several parties, but from a practical point of view, it is now ILCA. (And that is one of the biggest change from the old contracts).

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

The Laser trademark is protected by law.

The Laser trademark or the rights protecting its use have not changed

This being the case, what is the objection the clause LP added "and shall not violate or compromise any trademark or intellectual property rights of respective owners of such rights"?

11 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Under the new contracts, the primary responsibility of appointing builders falls to ILCA

Which contracts are these, please?

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

Under the new contracts, the primary responsibility of appointing builders falls to ILCA. 

Technically, the license is controlled by several parties, but from a practical point of view, it is now ILCA. (And that is one of the biggest change from the old contracts).

How does Rastegar then state he has grounds to supply (as a matter of Law) into territories outside those held by PSA and PSJ ?

The LPE “Club Laser” will probably become the Replica ILCA going into all Territories, with rebranding in Laser territories held by PSA and PSJ.

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

 

He owns the Laser Trademark in the rest of the world bar the territories of PSA and PSJ.

Rastegar may own the trademark IP to the use of the word “Laser” and “sunburst” logo within a specific territory / territories : hence the name change to ILCA to not infringe trademark IP.

I am questioning as to how Rastegar currently has a legal right to the use of the original Authors work (Kirby’s IP - design, engineering, build manual, artistic work ....)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ginko said:

 

I am questioning as to how Rastegar currently has a legal right to the use of the original Authors work (Kirby’s IP - design, engineering, build manual, artistic work ....)

Excellent question, of which I'm not 100% clear, but from what I've been told, they're currently in further breach of the LCMA by producing generic 'Club Lasers". 

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

I am questioning as to how Rastegar currently has a legal right to the use of the original Authors work (Kirby’s IP - design, engineering, build manual, artistic work ....)

 

That IP doesn't have the same protection as a patent or a trademark.  Rastegar came to it legally by means of a contract.  Kirby needs to seek any redress through the terms of the contract.  Who do you think has the deepest pockets for lawyers?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ginko said:

I am questioning as to how Rastegar currently has a legal right to the use of the original Authors work (Kirby’s IP - design, engineering, build manual, artistic work ....)

I think right this moment Laser Performance is in a no man's land.

The builder's contract may or many not still exist - however boats are not official unless they have plaques.

Laser Performance has signed the new builder's contract, and it is being processed. There are a few things that need to be sorted, however based on what I understand, they are just details which need to be worked out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, torrid said:

That IP doesn't have the same protection as a patent or a trademark.  Rastegar came to it legally by means of a contract.  Kirby needs to seek any redress through the terms of the contract.  Who do you think has the deepest pockets for lawyers?

Deepest pockets aside : the legal position over the past few years on DESIGNERS  works is moving in favour / direction of Kirby. The contracts that deal with the design / engineering and construction of the Kirby designed dinghy (currently known as the Laser) are not the subject of patent or trademark law.

In short : Ragestar will be whipping the cat that he did not purchase all rights of Kirby when possible, the Kiwis are currently in control of the AC and probably are still in control of the Laser.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, greenwhiteblack said:

Excellent question, of which I'm not 100% clear, but from what I've been told, they're currently in further breach of the LCMA by producing generic 'Club Lasers". 

Can they breach the LCMA when they are not a party to it (anymore)? 

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

The LPE “Club Laser” will probably become the Replica ILCA going into all Territories, with rebranding in Laser territories held by PSA and PSJ.

Not quite. All Builders are now forbidden to produce non-class-legal versions of the boat.

Clause 6.1.L of the "Commercial Undertakings Agreement" - already signed by CEO Bahman Kia on behalf of Laser Performance - states:

(l)       you [a builder] agree you will not manufacture, produce or sell any Equipment intended for racing in the relevant Olympic Class other than in accordance with the Class Rules and Technical Specifications and will only use any amendments to these documents once they have been approved in writing by us.

This was also informally pointed out more than once by President Usher in his earlier posts to SA.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, drLaser said:

Not quite. All Builders are now forbidden to produce non-class-legal versions of the boat.

Clause 6.1.L of the "Commercial Undertakings Agreement" - already signed by CEO Bahman Kia on behalf of Laser Performance - states:

(l)       you [a builder] agree you will not manufacture, produce or sell any Equipment intended for racing in the relevant Olympic Class other than in accordance with the Class Rules and Technical Specifications and will only use any amendments to these documents once they have been approved in writing by us.

This was also informally pointed out more than once by President Usher in his earlier posts to SA.

It looks like to me they can build whatever they want, but those boats can't be raced in the class.  "intended for racing in the relevant Olympic class".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they sell the Club Lasers only for non racing purposes like leisure sailing, sailing schools, holiday centers, or racing outside of racing the Olympic class it could be allowed - or? 

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

It looks like to me they can build whatever they want, but those boats can't be raced in the class.

I read it differently, RobbieB. And apparently ILCA reads it the way I read it, too. (Not that that's a factor to consider in this difference of interpretation.)

"any Equipment intended for racing in the relevant Olympic Class" is a non-separable phrase. "intended for racing in the relevant Olympic Class" is defining the "Equipment".

If Clause 6.1.L read as "any Equipment with the intent of racing in the relevant Olympic Class", then it would be interpreted your way.

42 minutes ago, jgh66 said:

If they sell the Club Lasers only for non racing purposes like leisure sailing, sailing schools, holiday centers, or racing outside of racing the Olympic class it could be allowed - or? 

IMHO, no, it is not allowed.

Edit: The "Club Laser" thing, "Club 420" thing are gone, if the class is going to be Olympic Equipment.

Edited by drLaser
Just in case the message is not clear, colored (last) sentence added.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, drLaser said:

I read it differently, RobbieB. And apparently ILCA reads it the way I read it, too. (Not that that's a factor to consider in this difference of interpretation.)

"any Equipment intended for racing in the relevant Olympic Class" is a non-separable phrase. "intended for racing in the relevant Olympic Class" is defining the "Equipment".

If Clause 6.1.L read as "any Equipment with the intent of racing in the relevant Olympic Class", then it would be interpreted your way.

IMHO, no, it is not allowed.

Edit: The "Club Laser" thing, "Club 420" thing are gone, if the class is going to be Olympic Equipment.

Well, as a measurer I would propably understand it like: All boats that are leaving the factory, and have a plaque attached (means they are intended for racing), must be build in accordance with the LCM bla bla. This would not mean that boats that are not intended for racing, like a special school edition, 10kg heavier with a different glas layup may not be build, but if course these boats are not class legal, and may not get a plaque. Same as with Optis, there are class legal ones with plaques intended for racing, and there are non class legal ones for schools without plaques..... 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobbieB said:

relevant Olympic Class other than in accordance with the Class Rules and Technical Specifications and will only use any amendments to these documents once they have been approved in writing by us.

Form what I understand this is included to avoid things like one manufacturer builds with a different layup, due to warranty claims like it has happened before.....so WS wants to have control of any changes to the way the boats are build. 

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

All boats that are leaving the factory, and have a plaque attached (means they are intended for racing), must be build in accordance with the LCM bla bla.

I understand what you mean. That seems to be an equally valid interpretation. Thus, according to your interpretation, "other than in accordance with the Class Rules and Technical Specifications" in clause 6.1(l) serves the purpose of ensuring the conformance of the class-legal (plaqued) boats (only) to the LCMA.

Clause 6.1(l) is part of the general "Quality Control" section of the  "Commercial Undertakings Agreement". If you inspect section 6, you will see that items 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f)iii and 1(h) are also clauses that relate to different aspects of ensuring the conformance of the class-legal (plaqued) boats to the LCMA. 

Thus, it is highly unlikely that 1(l) simply repeats using different words what 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f)iii and 1(h) are already mentioning. No, it is saying something other than "class-legal boats must conform to the Class Rules and Technical Specifications."

In fact, Tracy has also noted twice in the same document somewhere here that "production of club Lasers" is now a "non-compliance" problem for LP.

I would not be surprised if the heavy hands of World Sailing reached as far as forbidding "club" versions of Olympic Equipment, too.

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

WS wants to have control of any changes to the way the boats are build. 

Sorry for missing this part...

I agree completely. Of course, this explains only the

6 hours ago, drLaser said:

and will only use any amendments to these documents once they have been approved in writing by us.

portion of the clause. I continue to interpret the previous portion of the clause to mean "No club versions of Olympic Equipment". Of course, I can be persuaded otherwise.

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

 

I would not be surprised if the heavy hands of World Sailing reached as far as forbidding "club" versions of Olympic Equipment, too.


Ridiculous. All for a regatta with entry limited to 40 Laser sailors and 40 Radial sailors that only happens every 4 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites