Wess : if ILCA came up with a class ratified proposal to build Kirby designed lasers in accordance to a build / engineering specification of say Gurit, and Gurit had terms that as per an agreement to be payed a fee for each moulding, pursuant to build specification.
Would you have an issue with...
BB : near the mark mate, only how does one reverse engineer a "secret specification", in this case the Construction Manual ?
Perhaps there are ways to measure the unknown, ILCA seem to have the ability, simply put it to a vote.
Are you sure it is ISAF and ILCA that approve builders not Kirby ?
They may validate the build of the Laser for compliance, the licience arrangement to build pursuant to the Construction Manual is most certainly Kirby's domain ~ approval.
ISAF : page 10 Entry guidelines ~
10.3 There shall be an executed agreement between the ISAF Ltd., the Class / Owners Association and where relevant the Trademark, Trade Name and the Copyright Owner. This agreement shall include at a minimum the following matters:
(a). Define, if any, the...
Only read what is on the net, I think as posted on SA.
As a Laser / Torch owner and in the marine industry I fully support BK.
The current front page of SA on the subject is indicative of gross misinformation.
Get their bloody act together !
The issue is not about IP.
Your cake analogy when pulled into line with the build manual : if you have an agreement with an entity to pay anmout of money for each cake you make pursuant to the recipe they have supplied as outlined in the agreement you are then required to make payment.
Olympic Class: I don't think the classification of the Torch would be an issue for Olympic sanction, as the Torch design will qualify by Rule measurement criteria. The Finn as an example has far greater latitude in Rule measurement tolerances than the Torch / Laser, and successfully is raced as...