(The information that Tiller Man asked for may be found here: https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html - previously posted 6 Jun 2016 also previously posted in this forum by ojfd as early as 23 June 2013.)Thanks Gantt for bringing this thread back to its original topic.
I am interested to know more about the "ISAF agreement" which you mentioned. Is there a public copy of this that we can see?
Also you say that the contracts between Kirby and the builders are now a matter of public record. Can you provide a link where we can see these too?
Tiller Man, I thank you for your most recent posts. Since asking for a copy of the ISAF agreement, and what you have said includes:
- That the ILCA is wise and beyond reproach and he seems to b implying that there is no possibility that anyone at any time within the ILCA has acted intentionally or unintentionally in a way that wasn't to the benefit of the Laser class
- That any questions asked about are best obfuscated by posting meaningless drivel
- That acting like a troll is good
- Writing letters to the judge is a worthless effort
- That your buddy/imaginary friend/alter ego/whatever Wess is right that Kirby is trying to destroy the Laser class
- That anyone who dares to ask questions about the ILCA needs to be attacked personally rather than engaging in an meaningful way
Tiller Man, it still takes a special kind of stupid to think that the ILCA has done no wrong.
Perhaps worse for Tiller Man than screaming and shouting, I write this with cold calm reasoning, as being a special kind of stupid is less an insult and more a statement of fact. So given the challenges that Tiller Man appears to be having, I'd thought I'd try to make easier for him by spelling out how the ILCA's actions have been less than perfect, and how they are relevant right now.
Then ILCA President Heini Wellmann wrote in the Dec 2011 Laser World in his President's column:
In March 2013, the ISAF Agreement, signed on behalf of the ILCA by Jeff Martin 30 Nov 1983 became an exhibit in Kirby's legal action. It included direct reference to the builder's agreement and contained agreed clauses like:As you know the conflict centres on the validity and existence of a licence contract between the design rights holder (it is currently not even clear who that is) and a builder. ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder. ILCA is the victim of a conflict it has no direct influence on. We proposed several solutions, but they were all refused. Therefore the only way the class could get around that conflict, was the change in the fundamental class rule, which eliminates the necessity of a licence contract for a recognised builder.
Multiple references were made to the fundamental rule by Heini Wellmann in 2011, as if the ISAF agreement did not exist.9.1 It is understood and agree by IYRU and Holding that the Builder set forth in Schedule 2 as amended from time to time are authorized to manufacture the Laser class boat and to distribute the same within a Licensed Territory and that further Builders may only be appointed with the prior written approval of Kirby Inc., Trade Mark Owner and the IYRU in accordance with the following principles, unless otherwise agreed:
( a ) the proposed marketing territory shall not at such time be adequately served by any builder
( b ) the market potential shall be sufficient to sustain minimum production of not less than 300 Laser class boats per year for a minimum of five years;
( c ) all contractual agreement are entered into as necessary to permit the control of manufacture in accordance with Clauses 5, 6 and 7 hereof, the payment of all royalties and fees and the protection of the Licensed Territories of other Builders;
( d ) the proposed Builder has an established ability to manufacture, sell and market first quality watercraft; and
( e ) the proposed Builder has sufficient net worth, working capital and bank lines of credit to enable such Builder to manufacture Laser class boats.
I'm not confident that Heini Wellmann had direct and explicit knowledge of the ISAF agreement, but am confident that Jeff Martin, whose initials appear on every page of the exhibit copy, did. The questions this raised have not been addressed by the ILCA publicly.
Changing the fundamental rule did not release the ILCA from it's obligations in a signed and witnessed agreement.
(Lately Tiller Man, is pointing the finger at Kirby as if he is to blame for the ILCA's actions that for Kirby, left few other options. Kirby's right to make contracts and get paid royalties for his design and one design concept appear legal and legitimate, while the steps that the ILCA have taken, do not.)
Right now, it appears that there is a new Laser builder being set up in Shanghai. In order for Lasers to be official, the official ILCA measurer, as per the ISAF agreement, needs to ensure that the construction manual is followed - to preserve the Laser as a true one design. No official statements have been made to my knowledge about the appointment of a new Laser builder.
In the last few years the Laser SB3 has become the SB20, the Laser 2000 has become the 2000, as two designers / class associations no longer have anything to do with Laser Performance. They found it was better not to use the Laser trademark than continue having a relationship with Laser Performance. It's possible that this is still a way forward for the Laser.
If the intention is to act in the best interests of the Laser Class, then possibly a settlement out of court involving builders, the designer, the class association, the ISAF (World Sailing) with a new name presents itself as the best way forward - a replacement builder for North America / Europe would need to be found.
Last edited by a moderator: