Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[IPLore]

So why did LPE pay the fee for so long to BKI if they didn't have to?

LP had a contractual obligation to pay the fee.

According to LP's counter claim they continued to pay the fee until the contract was terminated when they stopped paying the fee. I can visualize LP's counsel's opening statement.

The more interesting question is why did LP renew the contract in 2005 and why was the 2005 amendment so poorly drafted? The original contract in 1983 was for 21 years and expired in 2004 with annual renewals thereafter. It effectively extended BKI's license fees for 21 years, well beyond the expiration of the copyright of the Laser design and any patents or intellectual property surrounding the design or the Laser.

This was a smart move on behalf of BK in 1983. My read is that he got a bit of an opportunity when Performance Sailing (the original manufacturer of the Laser) went bust and so the design rights reverted back to BK. This enabled him to negotiate a 21 year extension to his license income through contract. It is good if you can get it. Contracts like this are not unusual. Someone wants to build something now. You have 5 years remaining on the patent, so you negotiate a contract where your license fees extend beyond the expiry of the patent. 21 years is better than average but not unheard of for a contractual licensing term.

The 2005 amendment extended the agreement with 30 day notice period but to my mind it was poorly drafted because it did not restate or clarify the obligations of the parties in light of some very different circumstances from 1983. Both sides would have benefited from a clearly written new contract. I can see each side arguing different implications of the 2005 extension.

 

[Wess]

IPLore -

You have quite a few posts that go right to the heart of the matter, but alas they get lost in all the smoke and mirror from one and tendency of some to endlessly chase squirrels.

There really is so much that is interesting, relevant, factual, and worthy of discussion regardless of if an individual is pro-BKI, pro-ILCA, pro-grass roots/access, etc... but it gets lost in the noise here. I gotta go back to stirring mode and remember that its SA. Good entertainment but just not the place for an intelligent discussion around this.

I now return you to a page long whiney b*tch session about the vote as if that matters. Sigh...

Wess

 

[IPLore]

This whole debate about the Class rule change is a side show.

Am I the only one who is enjoying the irony of Gannt criticizing the democratic process of the ILCA when his proposal is an autocratic system where one person or corporation has control over the selection and approval of the Class builder?

It reminds me of Mussolini criticizing the British electoral system between 1935 and 1945 (no general election was held during the War, but at least they were elected. The irony of a dictator criticizing the imperfections of a democracy's electoral process was amusing)

The current process is that builders must be approved jointly by the ILCA and ISAF . Laser owners get to elect their ILCA representatives.

What is the alternative that Gannt would like to see? Is he seriously proposing that the Laser class reinstate BKI corporation after this mess? A corporation that we have already seen can be sold to the highest bidder?

 

[IPLore]

BK has a contractual dispute with LP.

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]In 2005, LP saw enough value in BK's services to renew the contract with BKI.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]There may have been a breach in LP's contractual obligations.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]The Class Association does not have a role to play in this dispute other than encouraging both parties to find a resolution. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]IPL over and out.[/SIZE]

 

[JimC]

The more interesting question is why did LP renew the contract in 2005

At a guess the termination clauses. It will be interesting to hear why Rastregar etc think the termination clauses don't apply.

 

[tillerman]

The more interesting question is why did LP renew the contract in 2005.

Surely with the way that the Laser Class Fundamental Rule was phrased in 2005, LP had very little choice but to renew the contract with BKI. If they didn't have an agreement with BK or BKI then their Lasers would not have been recognized as legal Lasers by the class.

 

[Wess]

See 2123 and 2159. If you go to 30,000 feet the question is why renew (and under those terms/conditions)?

Tiller - yes but think about the vote, what type of sailors makes up the class and what is important to them, and why the vote went the way it did and why there is no backpeddling at all (if anything a clear double down even from regional associations and leadership change). Given that, in theory the same would have happened in 2005 because there is one drop dead absolute they cant get away from... If you want a boat that is called a Laser, there is one party you need more than all the others.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

If they chose to conduct a vote in 2011, it simply shows that they wanted to understand how the class members felt before they made a change. They did not have to do this - they chose to. They made their case for a 'Yes' vote because it's what they thought was the right choice. They wanted the class members to agree with them. The class members overwhelmingly did.

So all of your hot air about ILCA trying to mislead members over the vote, and all of your accusations of an improper process, well - they're kind of irrelevant aren't they? Maybe their wording wasn't perfect, but it doesn't really matter.

Again Redstar, there is a big difference between making accusations of an improper process and questioning the validity of the voting system.

The question: what steps were taken, if any, to verify that members votes cast were made by the actual member and not by someone claiming to be that member? should be easily answerable. The ILCA at some point may be required to answer it. I wonder if Kirby will get to ask the ILCA this in his legal action? (In discovery or in court?). So far he has only raised the misinformation issue.

Tillerman was right to speculate that the rule change's validity could eventually be challenged in courts. If by questioning the voting system results in a more secure system then that's a great outcome.

______________________________________________

If the ILCA executive and world council screw up, by what process does a member hold them accountable?

Asking questions and hoping for an answer did not really work in 2011 for the fundamental vote. People on forums and at meetings did not know how to require the ILCA to answer very pertinent questions, so they went unanswered. The membership was informed that if ownership was returned to Kirby, then the issue could very well go away. It was reversed. It didn't. Accountability and transparency go hand in hand and having a process that gives member this power formally helps achieve better governance.

I'm wondering that as the ILCA is a ISAF class association, maybe it's though the ISAF that the ILCA can be held accountable (once direct appeals to the ILCA itself are exhausted).

If there is a formal process of the ILCA exec being answerable to it's membership, then I have missed it.

 

[Board skiff]

I believe the Laser should remain a tight OD, as that has been key to its success in the past. There is, however, nothing stopping anyone starting a class association for Generic Lasers that subsumed the ILCA and the Torch. A Federation of Boats a Named After Light Emitting Devices, as it were.

 

[Wess]

Gouv,

Odd that we find ourselves here. I agree with most everything you write (except the Kirby part). I would phase it a bit differently but if you look back I have long long said I am pro-grass roots/access.

If being serious, my ideal outcome, also written here long ago (highly unlikely and impossible now that BKI gave up on the trademark litigation), was that:

1.) BKI was successful in taking down the trademark.

2.) BKI failed in his contract claims.

With that outcome all the money grubbing hanger-ons would be kicked out and the class would essentially be on a path to allow for the generic Lasers. Lower cost = improved access at grass roots level = more fun game for the masses.

The SMOD-camp will scream that is not Laser and they are right (but it is still OD, and OD enough for the grass roots level), and they will want their Olympics and Championships, and again they are right to want it, but that is why they could not walk away from the trademark holder. For them, there was and is one party they need more than the others. Nothing we can do to change that.

I will point out that your vision could be achieved by BKI today. As even Sosoomii notes there is nothing... zero, zilch, nada, nothing, that stops him from doing what he said he would do and produce and sell the Torch boat and launch the Torch class and welcome existing Laser into it. Today. Yesterday. Tommorrow. If he cared about grass roots sailing and the class. He does not need ISAF or ILCA to do it. He could sell it at a decent price (and clearly as parts and sails teach us, there is room to produce a more affordable boat) and just like generic sails are widely used at the grass roots level, Torches would be too. I even said I would support such a thing and buy it (am not as anti as BKI as you might think; I am anti the BKI actions thus far). But did he? Will he? Sadly... no.

Oh and they didn't cut ties with the designer. Really. Seriously. Take emotion out of it for a moment and stop falling for the smoke and mirrors BS that gets posted here. All they did was remove themselves from the position of being his enforcer. If he is due money from the builder the court will say he is due money and he will get his money. The class has not and will not cost him a single dime if he has a valid contract with and is entitled to those dimes from the builder. Read that a few times and think about it. The class actions has not cost him a dime if he is entitled to a dime as decided by the court. All the class did was say we are not your enforcer. How the heck is that a bad thing? And given that the entity on the other side from BKI in this dispute is the LASER trademark holder - even though you and I don't care if its LASER; most Olympic and Championship level sailors do as is evident by the vote, no push-back on the vote, and the double down on the vote position - no one in their right mind would suggest they should be his enforcer. Now, further consider his willingness to sell to the highest bidder, the attempt at a global consolidation, his apparent refusal to mediate (from the Canntt Wiki) and the really, really relevant stuff that impacts this in 2159. So, no, the class did not cut ties with him, they said don't make us your enforcer - take the builder to court and let those that deal with contract disputes, deal with this contract dispute. In return BKI cut ties with the class.

Oh, and Canntt are you ever going to tell us why he refused mediation over and over while LPE agreed or is the Wiki you cited wrong and he didn't refuse mediation? For sure the "key players" you claim to "communicate directly with" would answer that, no? You must know, right?

All just my opinion of course. Your milage may vary.

 

[tillerman]

If there is a formal process of the ILCA exec being answerable to it's membership, then I have missed it.

Gantt, the process for holding ILCA leadership answerable is very simple. It is exactly the same as it is in any democratic organization. You stand for office on a platform of being more competent than the current leadership, or having better solutions than the present leadership, and you defeat them in the elections and then you use your superior experience and insight and abilities to do a better job than the current leadership.

Seriously. You obviously have a lot of passion about the ILCA and how it should be led and enormous energy to analyze this issue and write about it. Please join the class and run for office and get yourself on the World Council and lead us out of this mess.

 

[Eric_R.]

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

If they chose to conduct a vote in 2011, it simply shows that they wanted to understand how the class members felt before they made a change. They did not have to do this - they chose to. They made their case for a 'Yes' vote because it's what they thought was the right choice. They wanted the class members to agree with them. The class members overwhelmingly did.

So all of your hot air about ILCA trying to mislead members over the vote, and all of your accusations of an improper process, well - they're kind of irrelevant aren't they? Maybe their wording wasn't perfect, but it doesn't really matter.

Again Redstar, there is a big difference between making accusations of an improper process and questioning the validity of the voting system.

The question: what steps were taken, if any, to verify that members votes cast were made by the actual member and not by someone claiming to be that member? should be easily answerable. The ILCA at some point may be required to answer it. I wonder if Kirby will get to ask the ILCA this in his legal action? (In discovery or in court?). So far he has only raised the misinformation issue.

>

Sorry Tillerman to have pulled you back into the fray. The differences are small and do not substantially alter the intended meaning of the new rule. (Though you mentioning it's validity being challenged in a court of law is scarily prophetic, the vote was subsequently mentioned in Kirby's court action so it's already on that court room's table.)

The issue of validity is more about the possibility of votes being cast in valid member's names by other persons. Some national associations list the names of members. The result sheets mean that their sail numbers can be accessed. Email addresses are freely given out, in 2011 I was on several lists where I had access to other Laser Sailor's email addresses.

The ILCA had a responsibility to ensure that the vote was conducted in a way that the potential for vote tampering was minimalized. I'm not saying that there was tampering, just the potential for it - and given the commercial interests at stake the need for a secure voting system was higher.

Any proper challenge needs to be both on that basis and that the now well established fact that the ILCA membership was misinformed. (The misinformation included the ILCA statements and ironically by Bruce Kirby announcing that he's bought back his rights, resulting in a SailWorld article that stated there was no need to vote. The article went viral among Laser Sailors.)

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

If you read the original post from the class site:

http://www.laser.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=948:international-laser-class-association-results-of-fundamental-rule-change-voting&catid=21fficial&Itemid=250

"The voting for the change to the Laser Class Fundamental Rule and other Technical Rule Changes closed at midnight Friday 23 September 2011. Thereafter the votes were verified for membership validity by each District or Region. The results were then audited by an independent audit firm, which reported 1017 ‘yes’ votes (89,3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10,7%), showing that over two thirds of the voting members approved the rule change as required by the ILCA Class Rules, part five, article 30©."

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Tillerman, I understand a bit about democracy, I really do, having been personally involved with the democratic process of very small legislative changes back in the 1990s.

Irrespective of who the ILCA leaders are, they cannot govern without the mandate of their constituents. And the system does not work well if they are not obligated to listen to their constituents. Those countries that have greater checks and balances, have better democracies. (http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm)

Here's a working paper of accountability for not for profits. It's a serious subject.

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-069.pdf

Yes I have a lot of energy and passion for Laser sailing, and as a result, the ILCA.

At this point in my life, I would not seriously consider standing for office in the ILCA. However if someone were to stand on the basis of more open governance and a commitment to the values outlined in the working Harvard paper above, then I would be happy to help. How about you Tillerman? I know I'm not the first to ask!

But back to the issue at hand, have you (Tillerman) taken a look to see if there is a process? (Maybe I should ask Pam). Your voice is far far bigger than mine. (Seriously - you have quite a following!)

___________________________________________________________

Eric_R, I was aware of the release and have studied the exact wording. What it says is that the votes received were in the name of actual members. (sorry to restate, but the message gets lost otherwise). My questions surround whether those votes were actually cast by the members, or were they cast by a fraudster? There was a commercial interest in the outcome of the vote so there was motive. Online voters, so far as I can tell had no verification process. Neither did the snail mail. So someone could have completed the votes on behalf of legitimate members, using publicly available information. (There was no personal identifier, like a membership number). Again, I'm not saying that it happened, just asking at this point if there were any security measures to prevent it.

 

[ojfd]

Online voters, so far as I can tell had no verification process. Neither did the snail mail. So someone could have completed the votes on behalf of legitimate members, using publicly available information. (There was no personal identifier, like a membership number).

Little you know, Gantt, talk you too much..

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Excellent ojfd!!! I'm genuinely glad you posted that.

Online voters, so far as I can tell had no verification process. Neither did the snail mail. So someone could have completed the votes on behalf of legitimate members, using publicly available information. (There was no personal identifier, like a membership number).

Little you know, Gantt, talk you too much..

There is a membership number on the form!! I was speaking from memory - I know I completed the online form without one. Thanks. Am genuinely happy to be wrong about the membership number being there.

(Please, remember that I was asking a question relating to the voting procedure, not making an accusation. Accusation is someone else's word.)

I'm glad you answered, and even more glad that it had a field for membership. On closer inspection you will see it is not a compulsory field so the question remains for those votes that were cast without the personal identifier. (Just out of interest, do any current members know their membership number?)

 

[Bill5]

Psssst! Gannt! You misspelled ILCA in your "Interests". Change it fast and no one will notice. Or is this some sort of code word?

 

[Bill5]

Honestly - my misspelling of Gantt was purely unintentional. Or perhaps Freudian.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Changed. Thanks Bill. At least I'm spelling Gannt right!

 

[Wess]

That Gaant be true

OK Gouv, now you owe me a key board. Geeze, between you and IPLore...

Hey Gouv, seriously, we don't always agree but can usually find a way to have a semi-fact based discussion and appear to have similar interests re growing the sport at the grass roots level, so my response back at ya in 2169 was not stirring - was/is honest opinion in this sea of insanity. Do you understand how and agree that the actions did not cost him anything? That if he is right, the court will grant him all he asks and the class's action just allowed the class to stop being his bag man? At its most basic all they said, was "go fight your own battles and fight them in the venue they belong (ie take a contract dispute to court)". Am curious if you do disagree, why that is so.

I know, I know... a serious fact based discussion in the middle of this thread has little chance but I thought to ask at least.

All just my opinion...

 

[Wess]

I think the removal of the class rule about a contract with Kirby ends the need for a contract with Kirby.

Gouv,

A lot of what you wrote spills from the above statement. But its not accurate. Really; its not. Not trying to change your mind about anything that spills from it, but above ain't so.

The class saying you don't have to have a contract has no effect - zero, zilch nada, none - on an existing contract. Or even a future one. We all agree that Kirby does not own a patent on the boat. But lets assume he did own a patent, or owned the trademark (that was sold to LPE). Even if the class said you don't need a contract w Kirby, legally LPE would. The class has no standing in that regard.

I don't understand if folks don't understand this or somehow deny it but the class's actions really did not have any impact at all on the validity of any existing contract w BKI or the need for any future contract w BKI. If BKI has rights that need to be honored legally, then LPE will need a contract w BKI, regardless of what the class rules say. A class rule can NOT take away any legal right Kirby has. Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not ever! A class rule can not undo the law!

The only thing the class has done is said we are sailors and not bag men. We are sailors not lawyers. What the class has done has no impact on the validity of existing contracts, or the need for future ones.

Sorry but one more time for absolute clarity: A class rule can NOT and did NOT take away any legal right Kirby has, had, or will have.

* Really am curious - do you disagee this statement?

We do agree on the grass root/access stuff, but on above you lost me.

Again, just my opinion.

Wess