Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[Bruce Hudson]

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?

(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.)

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

I have no doubt that Tiller Man will continue to add to this list, digging a yet deeper hole for himself. Apparently this is so he does not have to engage in any meaningful way of the real issues that the ILCA faces right now, a kind of unthinking blind faith in the ILCA.

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:

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.

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:

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.

Multiple references were made to the fundamental rule by Heini Wellmann in 2011, as if the ISAF agreement did not exist.

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.

 

[tillerman]

I had a wonderful afternoon of sailing on Bristol Harbor today with a couple of buddies.

Then we had some beer and dinner at a restaurant near the water.

I came home with a big smile on my face - only to find yet another rant against the hard working volunteers and employees of the Laser class full of the usual false allegations, false imputations of motives, non sequiturs, insults, stuff made up out of thin air etc. etc. from my friend Gantt.

I am going to totally ignore his latest post and hope he wakes up in the morning in a kinder and more supportive mood.

Now I am going to bed to dream of surfing down endless waves on my little boat.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

I had a wonderful afternoon of sailing on Bristol Harbor today with a couple of buddies.

Then we had some beer and dinner at a restaurant near the water.

I came home with a big smile on my face - only to find yet another rant against the hard working volunteers and employees of the Laser class full of the usual false allegations, false imputations of motives, non sequiturs, insults, stuff made up out of thin air etc. etc. from my friend Gantt.

I am going to totally ignore his latest post and hope he wakes up in the morning in a kinder and more supportive mood.

Now I am going to bed to dream of surfing down endless waves on my little boat.

Let's be really clear. What Tiller Man is saying is untrue. Tiller Man says what I am saying is a "rant" against volunteers and employees of the Laser class with the "usual false accusations" etc.

Yet again, Tiller Man (as Wess often does) is promoting the notion that we should put going sailing ahead of engaging with very real issues that the ILCA has - as if we have to choose between the two. Tiller Man, we don't have to make that choice. We can continue to sail and to care about the welfare of our sport at the same time.

Let's check what 'accusations' I have 'created out of thin air' about ILCA officials.

1. Heini Wellmann said that what I have quoted in December 2011 of Laser World. Easy to verify that it's true. (Here's the issue: http://www.laserinternational.org/sites/default/files/LaserWorld_Dec_2011_lo_res.pdf)
2. Jeff Martin had direct and explicit knowledge of the ISAF Agreement, his initials are found on each page of exhibit 3 of Kirby's legal action. (It can be verified here: https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html)
   
3. The questions raised by Heini Wellmann's apparent lack of knowledge of the ISAF Agreement, and Jeff Martin's apparent direct and explicit knowledge of the ISAF Agreement have not been addressed by the ILCA publicly. This is harder to verify and is hardly an outrageous or insulting thing to say - but is logical given the statements that Heini made. (In making this determination I reviewed four statements that Heini made in 2011, plus Tracy Usher's account of what Heini said at a meeting. There weren't many statements made by Heini in 2011 to review).

Possibly the most 'contentious' things I've said was "Changing the fundamental rule did not release the ILCA from it's obligations in a signed and witnessed agreement." Either it does or it doesn't - and if it does - I'd certainly like to know how, as under common law, signed and witnessed agreements are usually binding. It's hardly contentious or insulting. There are other statements made, with each one verifiable - and some at a stretch - can be made to be 'contentious', particularly if you support the absurd notion that Kirby is trying to destroy the Laser class.

Tiller Man, you are being lazy and a special kind of stupid if you genuinely think what I'm saying above is "stuff made up out of thin air" - when it's very obvious that I have not.

Here's a moral question for Tiller Man. If you know your blindfolded friends are walking obliviously toward danger, would you put on a blindfold and join them? Of course not, you'd do your absolute best to say - "hey - it's no good going this way - there are other options."

It's a similar situation with the ILCA who appear to be placed in a position to choose to either approve a new Laser builder in Shanghai - yet again breaking an agreement they have with Kirby - or choose another way. Maybe as with the Laser SB3 / SB20, and Laser 2000 / 2000, there is a better way forward without having anything to do with Laser Performance.

 

[SM123]

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.

None of that excerpt requires ICLA to do anything, or limits ICLA's actions in any way, because it only binds the IYRU. It's irrelevant to ICLA's actions. The only limit on ICLA in the agreement that I can see is to keep the construction manual secret.

As for the builder agreements, did it occur to you that the old agreements might have been revised or replaced and that the ICLA might not have seen the new contract? ICLA isn't a party to the builder agreements.

In fact, let me issue a challenge: show where there is a binding agreement that specifies the use of the Bruce Kirby Trademark on the plaque.

 

[SM123]

Why?

Because, if the ICLA was under no obligation to include the trademark, did it not have an absolute right to remove it?

 

[jeffers]

Why?

Because, if the ICLA was under no obligation to include the trademark, did it not have an absolute right to remove it?

Just a minor point, I thought the the ISAF (aka World Sailing, formerly known as IYRU) were the people who controlled issuing the plaque? So the more pertinent question is were they party to the agreements as well as the ILCA.

I'll get my coat.....

 

[Wess]

Canntt,

I know this is hard to understand but I do NOT think BK is "trying to destroy the class" as you say. He made or makes money off boats sold into the class and he is not an idiot. You don't destroy the goose the laid the golden egg. You milk that cow. Maybe he wants to rename the cow. Maybe he even wants to clone and rename the cow but I don't think he wants to kill the cow he milks. I think BK is trying to get rich(er) off the boat he designed and the class races and I don't think there is darn thing wrong with that. I 100% support that. Huzzah!

I do disgree with the use of the class (rules) rather than the courts to leverage whatever rights he may or may not still hold into his getting rich(er) and the suing of the class who made the boats that makes him rich(er) more popular and is made up of members who pay for the boats with the money that makes him rich(er). That seems like biting the hand that feeds you to me... but hey to each his own.

I also don't agree with those who try to vote in class matters and throw class volunteers and officers under the bus when they are not class members.

Finally, I am guilty of not caring how the court rules and thinking those who think the sky is falling as, uh, interesting, funny, and misinformed. I doubt will not make a darn bit of meaningful difference - maybe even improve the lot of - club level Laser sailors.



I hope this is clear and I wish you well with your rants and misinformation campaign. Please continue. It makes for interesting reading.

Best regards

Whomever you happen to think I am today offering my SWAG

 

[IPLore]

Back on topic:

Ian Bruce, John Bentley, and Mohammed Ali died while this fight raged

Prince, David Bowie, Osama Bin Laden

Neil Armstrong, Sally Ride, Ray Bradbury

Nelson Mandela, Richie Havens, James Gandolfini

Pete Seeger, Robin Williams, Maya Angelou

Joan Rivers , Lou Reed, David Frost, Nancy Reagan, Margaret "The Iron Lady" Thatcher, JJ Cale, Yogi Berra.

 

[Wess]

Back on topic:

Ian Bruce, John Bentley, and Mohammed Ali died while this fight raged

Prince, David Bowie, Osama Bin Laden

Neil Armstrong, Sally Ride, Ray Bradbury

Nelson Mandela, Richie Havens, James Gandolfini

Pete Seeger, Robin Williams, Maya Angelou

Joan Rivers , Lou Reed, David Frost, Nancy Reagan, Margaret "The Iron Lady" Thatcher, JJ Cale, Yogi Berra.

"Boaty McBoatface" Born, died and born again!

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Summary:

• Jeff Martin knew about the builder's agreements and some of their content because of the ISAF agreement.
• BKI and the trademark holder were bound to the ISAF agreement which necessarily influences the content of the builders agreements.
• According to ISAF, the ILCA issued the plaques.
• Kirby was not a party to the 1992 Plaque agreement.
• The ILCA faces issues with a possible new builder in Asia.

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.

None of that excerpt requires ICLA to do anything, or limits ICLA's actions in any way, because it only binds the IYRU. It's irrelevant to ICLA's actions. The only limit on ICLA in the agreement that I can see is to keep the construction manual secret.

As for the builder agreements, did it occur to you that the old agreements might have been revised or replaced and that the ICLA might not have seen the new contract? ICLA isn't a party to the builder agreements.

In fact, let me issue a challenge: show where there is a binding agreement that specifies the use of the Bruce Kirby Trademark on the plaque.

SM123, thank you for your post.

BKI is a signatory to the ISAF Agreement, and the above binds BKI to having builder agreements that comply with the ISAF agreement. The builder agreements necessarily needed to work with the ISAF agreement. It's not reasonable to say that Jeff Martin did not have knowledge of the builder's agreements. Jeff Martin understood that the ISAF Agreement would form part of the builder's agreements - and signed a document to say he did.

One way that the ISAF agreement influences the ILCA's actions, is that it spells out the powers of the chief measurer. It also is forms a formal agreement between the ISAF and ILCA regarding changes to the class rules, clause 13.1 spells out payments to ILCA by the builders, the list goes on.

I cannot answer your 'challenge' about the plaques and use of the trademarked Bruce Kirby name. From the legal action: "Attached as Exhibit 16 is a sample ISAF Plaque that includes a Hull Number/Sail Number, and includes the trademark BRUCE KIRBY, and when placed on a Kirby Sailboat purports to notify a purchaser/user that the boat is royalty paid and authorized by Kirby." There is a separate plaque agreement signed in 1992 which I have never seen - if such a clause exists, it will be there.

Kirby's legal action did not challenge ILCA's right to remove his name - rather challenged the ILCA's to use it, and more importantly, the issuing of plaques (which included issuing numbers) to a terminated builder was a breach of the ISAF agreement.

Because, if the ICLA was under no obligation to include the trademark, did it not have an absolute right to remove it?

Just a minor point, I thought the the ISAF (aka World Sailing, formerly known as IYRU) were the people who controlled issuing the plaque? So the more pertinent question is were they party to the agreements as well as the ILCA.

I'll get my coat.....

The parties to the ISAF agreement included: The trademark holder, BKI, Bruce Kirby, ILCA and IYRU (later ISAF/World Sailing).

Surely the 1992 Plaque Agreement would dictate who had that responsibility - here's as close as I can get from the original legal action:
"On information and belief, ISAF regularly conducts business in Connecticut and throughout the United States by issuing plaques placed on boats entering Connecticut and the stream of interstate commerce in the United States."

In their response, the ISAF said: "Additionally, the plaques are produced and distributed by ILCA, and ISAF has no interest in how many sailboats of one class are sold as compared to sailboats of other classes." and "Revenue from plaques is a miniscule portion of ISAF’s total revenue. For example, in 2012, ISAF received just £17,000 from all of the Laser class plaques it issued, or 0.9% of its annual income."

Crucially, the ISAF also said in reference to the ISAF Agreement: "Notably, that agreement is the only contract between ISAF and Kirby" which we can read that the ISAF is saying Kirby is not a party to the 1992 Plaque agreement - and explains why it does not appear in his legal action as an exhibit.

Since we are talking about the relationship between ISAF and the ILCA, it's worthwhile mentioning that the current ISAF/IOC rep for ILCA is Jeff Martin. Also, Jeff Martin sits on the ISAF Council as the ISAF Classes Rep. and is chair of the ISAF Classes Committee - important positions Jeff Martin has held for some years. I'm wondering how any differences between the ISAF and ILCA are managed in a practical sense (like when the ISAF initially did not approve the fundamental rule change).

Assuming that there is a new builder in Asia (and that LP didn't move the North American Laser moulds to Shanghai for fun), what the ILCA faces right now are questions of what to do in terms of what's right for the class. What if the new builders start making hulls which are slightly faster? Is doing nothing a valid option? Upholding agreements made has to a least be a consideration.

 

[Dex Sawash]

Does LP have the right to build Lasers anywhere on the globe for sale in the markets they control?

The issue is approved moulds and following the manual, right? Which puts us back to the contracts...

 

[BobBill]

So wasteful! Everything changes; everything stays the same...and some learn nada...

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Does LP have the right to build Lasers anywhere on the globe for sale in the markets they control?

The issue is approved moulds and following the manual, right? Which puts us back to the contracts...

Depends what you mean by markets that they control, if you mean markets for which they are Trademark holders, the answer is no.

LP has builders agreements for North America and Europe (see the schedule of countries) but not for Asia, South America or Africa - also the builders agreements are explicit in their recognition of the ISAF agreement, so are bound by many of the provisions there with regard to establishing new builders. (See provision 9.2 of the builders agreements.)

According to Laser Performance their territories “...include Europe, North America, South America, Africa and most of Asia.” (Source - http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/02/01/laserperformance-wins-laser-trademark-case/ ) Laser Performance do control the Laser Trademark in areas not covered by their builders agreement, eg Thailand and China, first registered in 1991.

The building agreement territories are different to the trade mark territories.

According to the builder's contracts for Europe, they include Europe and the Middle East, while for North America it's North and Central America. (If a building agreement existed for China, LP would have presented it in it's counterclaims. Instead, it offered nothing to back up LP's claimed right to build in China.)

The North American Laser moulds are the property of Laser Performance, but the right to use them is licensed in the builder's agreement.

It's fair to say that as far back as March 2010 was concerned about protecting what they considered to be their markets, with Farzad Rastegar resorting to bully tactics, threatening to not turn up to World Council meetings and saying things like "THE SITUATION IS LARGELY AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT OF PSA AND GLOBAL SAILING. INDEED IF WE HAVE THEIR UNDERTAKINGS THAT THEY WILL NOT SELL INTO OUR TERRITORIES IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM WITH AN INTENT TO CANNIBALISE OUR MARKETS AND VIOLATE OUR TRADEMARK RIGHTS, WE WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORLD COUNCIL AS ALREADY ARRANGED. THIS WOULD REQUIRE THEIR WRITTEN UNDERTAKING WHICH WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ASSIST IN DRAFTING.

PLEASE CONFIRM." (Source = https://www.docdroid.net/MgaIwCP/govuscourtsctd99988581.pdf.html )

It's because of the legal action we now have the benefit of hindsight, of more detailed knowledge of what happened.
The agreements are central to the legal action, and separately all of the documents lodged, plus the few statements made outside of the legal process are central to defining what the right thing to do is now.

The concern is that if a new builder starts building Lasers in Shanghai (or anywhere), then I'd rather have the ILCA involved than not.

Is the ILCA doing nothing regarding a new builder in Shanghai a good choice for the Laser class? Absolutely sure it isn't.

 

[SM123]

Summary:

• Jeff Martin knew about the builder's agreements and some of their content because of the ISAF agreement.
• BKI and the trademark holder were bound to the ISAF agreement which necessarily influences the content of the builders agreements.
• According to ISAF, the ILCA issued the plaques.
• Kirby was not a party to the 1992 Plaque agreement.
• The ILCA faces issues with a possible new builder in Asia.

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.

None of that excerpt requires ICLA to do anything, or limits ICLA's actions in any way, because it only binds the IYRU. It's irrelevant to ICLA's actions. The only limit on ICLA in the agreement that I can see is to keep the construction manual secret.

As for the builder agreements, did it occur to you that the old agreements might have been revised or replaced and that the ICLA might not have seen the new contract? ICLA isn't a party to the builder agreements.

In fact, let me issue a challenge: show where there is a binding agreement that specifies the use of the Bruce Kirby Trademark on the plaque.

SM123, thank you for your post.

BKI is a signatory to the ISAF Agreement, and the above binds BKI to having builder agreements that comply with the ISAF agreement. The builder agreements necessarily needed to work with the ISAF agreement. It's not reasonable to say that Jeff Martin did not have knowledge of the builder's agreements. Jeff Martin understood that the ISAF Agreement would form part of the builder's agreements - and signed a document to say he did.

One way that the ISAF agreement influences the ILCA's actions, is that it spells out the powers of the chief measurer. It also is forms a formal agreement between the ISAF and ILCA regarding changes to the class rules, clause 13.1 spells out payments to ILCA by the builders, the list goes on.

I cannot answer your 'challenge' about the plaques and use of the trademarked Bruce Kirby name. From the legal action: "Attached as Exhibit 16 is a sample ISAF Plaque that includes a Hull Number/Sail Number, and includes the trademark BRUCE KIRBY, and when placed on a Kirby Sailboat purports to notify a purchaser/user that the boat is royalty paid and authorized by Kirby." There is a separate plaque agreement signed in 1992 which I have never seen - if such a clause exists, it will be there.

Kirby's legal action did not challenge ILCA's right to remove his name - rather challenged the ILCA's to use it, and more importantly, the issuing of plaques (which included issuing numbers) to a terminated builder was a breach of the ISAF agreement.

...

The parties to the ISAF agreement included: The trademark holder, BKI, Bruce Kirby, ILCA and IYRU (later ISAF/World Sailing).

Surely the 1992 Plaque Agreement would dictate who had that responsibility - here's as close as I can get from the original legal action:

"On information and belief, ISAF regularly conducts business in Connecticut and throughout the United States by issuing plaques placed on boats entering Connecticut and the stream of interstate commerce in the United States."

In their response, the ISAF said: "Additionally, the plaques are produced and distributed by ILCA, and ISAF has no interest in how many sailboats of one class are sold as compared to sailboats of other classes." and "Revenue from plaques is a miniscule portion of ISAF’s total revenue. For example, in 2012, ISAF received just £17,000 from all of the Laser class plaques it issued, or 0.9% of its annual income."

Crucially, the ISAF also said in reference to the ISAF Agreement: "Notably, that agreement is the only contract between ISAF and Kirby" which we can read that the ISAF is saying Kirby is not a party to the 1992 Plaque agreement - and explains why it does not appear in his legal action as an exhibit.

Since we are talking about the relationship between ISAF and the ILCA, it's worthwhile mentioning that the current ISAF/IOC rep for ILCA is Jeff Martin. Also, Jeff Martin sits on the ISAF Council as the ISAF Classes Rep. and is chair of the ISAF Classes Committee - important positions Jeff Martin has held for some years. I'm wondering how any differences between the ISAF and ILCA are managed in a practical sense (like when the ISAF initially did not approve the fundamental rule change).

Assuming that there is a new builder in Asia (and that LP didn't move the North American Laser moulds to Shanghai for fun), what the ILCA faces right now are questions of what to do in terms of what's right for the class. What if the new builders start making hulls which are slightly faster? Is doing nothing a valid option? Upholding agreements made has to a least be a consideration.

Gannt,

It is clearly not reasonable for Jeff Martin to deny knowledge of the existence of the builder agreement. But the content? That's very different.

Exhibit 16 merely showed what the plaques looked like, not any legal requirements for the design.

If BK is not a party to the 1992 plaque agreement, then he cannot enforce it.

So, I come back to my point, which is that the design of the plaques is not relevant. ICLA had an absolute right to change them.

BK claims that Rastegar was not paying the royalties, and that ICLA enabled Rastegar to continue building Lasers. As I pointed out, ICLA isn't a party to, and may not have knowledge of the contents of the builders' agreements, so why should ICLA stop issuing plaques? Because BK says so? What business stops a revenue source because someone asks them to? Had BK got a judicial order in hand, things would be very different. But let's not forget that Rastegar disputes the royalty situation. We might all be very skeptical of Rastegar's claims, but who are we to judge, when we have not seen the figures, or even all the contracts?

BK put ICLA in a bind. The ICLA board knows that the trademark issues prevent BK from appointing another Laser builder, and (I assume) that Rastegar's entities provide the bulk of ICLA's income, so what BK wants the ICLA to do is equivalent to suicide. What does a rational actor do?

 

[BobBill]

In case you guys have forgotten or never knew

Laser sailing was built in large part because Bruce pKirby drew up and Ian Bruce built a toy that allowed hundreds of us to go out and fuck around in the conditions shown in this video.

Lots of other sailors would stand around on shore because races had been cancelled while we went out and just played ourselves silly.

In my part of the world Sidewinders and Fireballs joined in. Out West the Hobies blasted around as well but in most places the sailors were either frightened away or scrambling to buy toys of their own.

Guys my age arrived at the very most fortunate time. We had entire Summer's to figure out how to handle the new toys and we got to stomp all the old men and all the younger kids. We owned the world of sailing because tactics didn't matter. We ground up everybody else and spit them out .....

And thousands more bought boats and came out to kick our asses.

I swear the absolute only reason the game is not booming as never before is no one is calling out the pussies to come try.

+1 Exactly...along with Sailfish/Sunfish and maybe Banshee, Force 5, Kites. Wet and wild right in it.

How I became a swab...5 miles out in Lake Michigan on hot, windy, Force 7 day; nothing but boat, ass and surfing the chop.

Rudder slightly to weather amidships.

 

[Wess]

Gannt,

Let me put it in a similar but slightly different way than SM123...

Perhaps we can start with some basic assumptions that most everyone - even you I think - would agree:

1.) The Laser ownership model is widely distributed (ie multiple parties within same territory claim some right(s)), and not straight-forward.

2.) BK has a right to make as much money as he can off whatever rights he has.

3.) The class is made up of sailors and their obligation is to existing sailors and bringing future sailors to the game and not to BK.

Lets also agree to disagree on some simple points that really don't matter.

1.) You are a fan of BK over LPE for whatever reason.

2.) If forced to pick the lesser of the two evils I would pick LPE over Kirby simply because LPE at least give me boats when taking my money. Kirby gives me nothing of value, further tries to assign the class a job of enforcer, and then takes my money apparently for a 1960's drawing. But again, lets agree to disagree.

Finally, I assume you would agree that a judge will decide if LPE must pay BK some past, some future, and/or forever future royalties and settle the dispute. Most folks would tend to think that is what courts - rather than class associations of sailors - are for and here is where I think you lose people...

* In short simple language, why do you think it should be the class's job to ensure BK gets paid or be in the middle of a contract dispute between BK and a builder? What is wrong with letting the court do its job?

 

[JimC]

BK put ICLA in a bind.

That is, after all, exactly what contracts are supposed to do.

 

[Wess]

BK put ICLA in a bind.

That is, after all, exactly what contracts are supposed to do.

Yea, both ways. Most here think the claims re ILCA get dismissed as were those against ISAF already. And a class rule is not a contract, right?

 

[BobBill]

All things end, some end up fucked, some do not. Size is not a strategic guarantee, never has been. All bullshit, as implied.

 

[SM123]

BK put ICLA in a bind.

That is, after all, exactly what contracts are supposed to do.

Which contract?

If you haven't noticed, what I have been pointing out is that BK's demands to ICLA are not supported by any contract.