Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch
- Thread starter Otterbox
- Start date
SM123
Member
Gantt,
all I can say is that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Can you not understand that there is a difference between "gives no rights to Kirby" and "the agreement doesn't bind ICLA"?
all I can say is that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Can you not understand that there is a difference between "gives no rights to Kirby" and "the agreement doesn't bind ICLA"?
Bruce Hudson
Super Anarchist
Yes SM123, I can make that distinction.
To be clear, you are not explicitly saying that the ISAF agreement gives (or gave) Bruce Kirby design rights. In fact, it's reasonable to say that given what you have posted previously here on this forum, that you don't believe the ISAF Agreement gives Bruce Kirby or BKI design rights.
Remember SM123, what I am saying is that the ILCA made false statements in 2011. Central to that is the claim by Jeff Martin that the Kirby's design rights were historic.
SM123, you are also putting forward that distinction as if it is some sort of meaningful defense of Heini Wellmann's claim in 2011 that the ILCA had no knowledge of content of the builders agreement. You are arguing that the ILCA making false statements in 2011 at the time of the vote on the fundamental rule change doesn't matter. It follows that you are also saying that Heini Wellman's apparent lack of knowledge of the ISAF Agreement content also did not matter. I understand you are putting forward the notion that the ISAF Agreement was not binding for the ILCA.
The context is that the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
Note that:
- The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
- The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
- Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
- In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
Speaking plainly SM123, do you believe:
- That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights?
- The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011?
Last edited by a moderator:
couchsurfer
Super Anarchist
Gouvernail said:
......much like listening to a bunch of 13yo girls at recess <_<
...have at it! :lol:
Wess
Super Anarchist
The best way is with a sock puppet that pretends to be their friend and agrees with he who canntt be mentioned.
SM123
Member
Again, making stuff up. What is it with you? Can you not see the difference between what I have written and what you infer based on what I have *not* written? Just to help you: one is my opinions and the other is *your* guesses. Can you tell which is which?
As for the ICLA, I agree that the executives may have lied to their membership. However, I draw the distinction between lying to the members and the limts that the ICLA has under the ISAF agreement.
Again, FALSE! The ISAF agreement was referenced and parts of it formed part of the builders' agreements. But "in its entirety", no. Just because the ISAF agreement was annexed to the builders' agreements does not make it part of the agreement. It is annexed "for reference", so that parts of it can be referenced in the builders' agreements.
Bruce Hudson
Super Anarchist
I'm so sorry SM123, you seem to have gotten yourself into a tangle. Again, yes I can see the difference, it's very clear to me.
When you joined the conversation on June 8, you took one aspect (clause 9.1 of the ISAF Agreement) and SM123, you introduced the concept of ISAF Agreement not being binding to the ILCA. You also mentioned plaques. Both of these do not alter that the context of that conversation was, and still is, whether or not the ILCA made false claims. The existence of clause 9.1 which prescribed builder's agreement content proved that exact point. This is because Jeff Martin signed it of behalf of the ILCA, so that when Heini Wellmann made the statement of the ILCA having no knowledge of builder's contract content in 2011, it was not possible that Heini Wellmann's statement was true.
Regarding the ISAF Agreement being part of the builder's agreement, the answer (where I assume you are looking) is not in the ISAF agreement or at the end of the Builder's agreement, it's in the Builder's agreement clause 9.2:
It may be found on page 111 of the following PDF: https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html
The agreement is very clear, the ISAF Agreement formed part of the builder's agreement in it's entirety. The Licensee specifically agreed to each of the terms and conditions.
That in itself does not make Heini Wellman's statement false, but as pointed out previously, a clause prescribing builder's contract content does.
Additionally, there are other references like:
This clause can be found on page 105 of the above linked PDF.
This clause directly referenced Kirby's right to license is not only subject to clauses within the ISAF Agreement, but their designation as a builder was governed by the ISAF Agreement.
Again, you seem to be avoiding the direct question of whether or not you think Bruce Kirby had design rights. I know that you are concerned about that because you disagreed with my description of you when I said: "SM123 who doesn't think the ISAF Agreement gives or gave Bruce Kirby design rights."
Again, I am happy to withdraw that statement by you simply agreeing that the ISAF Agreement gives or gave Bruce Kirby design rights. So far as I can tell from your earlier statements, it is true because you specifically said 14 June: "Elsewhere the ISAF agreement requires a licensed builder, but ICLA did not agree in the ISAF agreement that builders must be licensed.". So I'm asking you directly, do you believe that the ISAF Agreement gives Bruce Kirby design rights?
Again, the context is that we are specifically addressing the question of whether or not the ILCA said that Kirby's design rights are historic or not.
So again, the context is that the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements.
Note that:
- The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
- The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
- Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
- In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
Speaking plainly SM123, do you believe:
- That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights?
- The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011?
SM123
Member
OK, I'll agree that I was wrong there. My apologies. But I am not sure why we are discussing this. That agreement was between Kirby and the builders: the ICLA wasn't a party to those agreements.
Yet, you keep posting as though there is no difference. You keep making the same unsupported claims. Quote the text where I stated that the ISAF agreement gives BK no "design rights".
I pointed out that only a few clauses are binding on ICLA. I never said that the ISAF did not bind the ICLA in any form. Why are we discussing this? It's just another unsupported claim from you. For example, the ICLA binds the ICLA to keep the construction manual secret.
I pointed out that 9.1 is not binding on the ICLA. Do you claim that I am wrong in this statement?
That's because there is no such thing as "design rights". There are copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. To which are you referring?
My statement that you quoted above is true. I can't answer your question because you haven't defined "design rights", nor said who you think those rights can be asserted against.
The question of against whom those rights can be asserted is very important. As I have been very clear, the ISAF agreement binds ICLA in only a very limited fashion. That's one reason why BK isn't suing ICLA over a claimed violation of the ISAF agreement (plus the fact that such claims need to be arbitrated in London).
Last edited by a moderator:
couchsurfer
Super Anarchist
...I have a feeling it's one person's sock-tribe having some sort of circle-jerk.
...can't believe it's a set of grown men :mellow:
Wess
Super Anarchist
Couch - If you come here for lots of serious content you are in the wrong place for sure, LOL.
There are some funny jokes, some posts so stupid you have to laugh and some good tunes to add to the play list (heck even Canntt contributes... got me to pull out the old Green Day stuff). Its is SA afterall.
That said there a few serious and interesting/insightful posts along the way. Dig back over the past few days/weeks and you can find some interesting stuff from IPLure if you are following the actual case. Others as well but you gotta dig to find good information on this thread.
How is your sailing garage sale going BTW? FYI I did contribute in a small way to breaking (a little bit in a few places) an I550 flimsy things that they are.
There are some funny jokes, some posts so stupid you have to laugh and some good tunes to add to the play list (heck even Canntt contributes... got me to pull out the old Green Day stuff). Its is SA afterall.
That said there a few serious and interesting/insightful posts along the way. Dig back over the past few days/weeks and you can find some interesting stuff from IPLure if you are following the actual case. Others as well but you gotta dig to find good information on this thread.
How is your sailing garage sale going BTW? FYI I did contribute in a small way to breaking (a little bit in a few places) an I550 flimsy things that they are.
Last edited by a moderator:
tillerman
Super Anarchist
SM123
Member
Which is interesting, because it means that BK is suing LPE and QM in the wrong venue: since the ISAF has an arbitration clause, and this is incorporated in the builders' agreements, this means that BK should not be suing in Connecticut, instead, he should be initiating an arbitration action in London against LPE and QM. Also, it means that US law doesn't apply: instead English law applies to the Builders' agreements.
Sailabout
Super Anarchist
This argument could go on like the one where t models fords can stay in the indy 500.
Was an issue in 1928 but then.....
like sands through the hour glass...
Was an issue in 1928 but then.....
like sands through the hour glass...
SM123
Member
Gantt,
Let me ask a couple of questions: do you agree that the ISAF agreement has an arbitration clause and that this arbitration clause also applies to the builders' agreements? Do you agree that BK should have initiated arbitration proceedings in London instead of suing in Connecticut?
Let me ask a couple of questions: do you agree that the ISAF agreement has an arbitration clause and that this arbitration clause also applies to the builders' agreements? Do you agree that BK should have initiated arbitration proceedings in London instead of suing in Connecticut?
tillerman
Super Anarchist
tillerman
Super Anarchist
Gouvernail said:
Brilliant!
Best summary of the situation in all 3547 posts in this thread.
Wess
Super Anarchist
For gosh sakes. Where is the angry Texan? Stop this kumbaya stuff. Canntt will never come back.
Edit to add - Nevermind. He came back. All is right with the world and balance has been restored to this thread.
Edit to add - Nevermind. He came back. All is right with the world and balance has been restored to this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Hudson
Super Anarchist
Good to hear that we are getting closer, with us now both agreeing that the ISAF Agreement formed part of the builders contract in it's entirety.
Yes you did point out that point 9.1 was not binding on the ILCA. Again, the context is not whether or not the ILCA is 'bound' by clause 9.1, the context was to determine whether or not a clause that prescribed builder's contract content gave Jeff Martin any knowledge of the builder's contract content. Clearly it did.
Let's say clause 9.1 was not "binding" for the ILCA - Jeff Martin still had knowledge of builders contract content as a result of the clause. Let's say clause 9.1 was "binding" for the ILCA - Jeff Martin still had knowledge of builders contract content as a result of the clause. So yes, the whole question of whether the clause was binding for the ILCA fails to influence whether or not Jeff Martin had knowledge of builders contract content.
You are saying that I am making unsupported claims? I have said exactly why I summarized you as believing that the ISAF Agreement did not give (or gave) Kirby design rights, which was you said that a signatory to the ISAF Agreement didn't agree to Kirby having design rights - in that builders need not be licensed. This is the exact statement you made June 14 again: "Elsewhere the ISAF agreement requires a licensed builder, but ICLA did not agree in the ISAF agreement that builders must be licensed."
I agree that while I still think what you said supports my claim - I admit you you are not 100% clear on this point, which is why I asked you (and still ask you) for clarification. Is there a problem answering the question SM123?
If you do think that the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights, then I am happy to apologise for making an error in describing your position and withdraw the statement. I can only wonder why you haven't taken that opportunity yet.
SM123, you are saying that there are no such thing as "design rights". That is a serious allegation against the ILCA. If you believe this to be true, then you are saying that the ILCA mislead it's membership by talking about something that did not exist to solicit votes to change the fundamental rule in 2011. For me, I'm comfortable with the term "design rights" as referring to the ability of Bruce Kirby to grant builders a license to build lasers as per the ISAF Agreement. The phrase "design rights" was used several times by Jeff Martin and Hieni Wellmann in 2011.
The path you are going down is the assertion that because the ILCA was not obligated by the ISAF Agreement to act in specific ways, they had every right to change their fundamental rule. I'm not arguing with you on that point SM123 in relation to the ISAF Agreement, because the ISAF Agreement was not about the ILCA's "rights" to change rules - it was about establishing the rights of its parties, defined who they were, and provided a basis for the builders agreement. But you know what? The question of whether or not the ILCA abided by its own rules, now that it's raised, it's a very good question.
Did you know that the ILCA's constitution requires the ILCA to abide by ISAF's General Rules and by laws? There are rules about financial interference with class officials which are interesting to view in light of the threats Farxad Rastegar made in 2010.
What that mean;s the ISAF Classes and it's officials must abide by the ISAF's code of ethics, and the ISAF can investigate: http://www.sailing.o...ics-[18157].pdf
So again, the context is that the ILCA solicited votes of its membership for the fundamental rule change by making false statements. This context and the question of whether or not the ILCA acted properly takes on new weight when looking at the ILCA's obligation to abide by ISAF regulations.
Note that:
- The ISAF Agreement "prescribed" content to the builder's agreement.
- The ISAF Agreement in its entirety formed part of the builder's agreement.
- Jeff Martin as signatory of the ISAF Agreement on behalf of the ILCA, knew that.
- In April 2013, ISAF announced that it had exercised it's right to end it's contract with Kirby.
Speaking plainly SM123, do you believe:
- That the ISAF Agreement gave Bruce Kirby design rights?
- The ISAF Agreement was current in 2011?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Hudson
Super Anarchist
Yes, the ISAF clause has an arbitration clause. Yes, the builders are bound by the ISAF Agreement as if they are parties.
No, I don't think that Kirby should have taken legal action to the UK.
(And this is where your whole argument of obligations comes in which I acknowledge. SM123 you along with several people here appear to be listening in part to IPLore. I'm not a lawyer, but as it turns out I'm pretty good at copyright law and contract law having drafted contracts and written legal disclaimers for international use etc throughout my career. I can say that, because as part of due diligence, lawyers sign off on my work, and often without change. Again, I am not a troll, can demonstrate my decades long passion for Laser sailing and am driven because I care for my sport, and for fair play, particularly when it comes to Kirby.)
Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr., is a real verifiable lawyer who has successfully lodged Kirby's legal action in the state of Connecticut.
IPLore is a troll who makes mistakes about contract law, puts forward his opinion that entirely biased toward the current legal position of the ILCA, and talks about arbitration instead of the court action. If IPLore is actually a lawyer, he is not a very good one.
It's a shame that you SM123 and Tiller Man appear to be influenced by IPLore.
The fundamental disagreement is with Laser Performance breaching their license to make Lasers. Kirby says that the ILCA has interfered with the contract, and the court has ruled there is a case to be heard.
So why is this being heard in the state of Connecticut? It's very simple, the builder's contract terms dictates jurisdiction and says in clause 14.6:
You may see this on page 117 of the following PDF: https://www.docdroid...ndices.pdf.html
Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr., has successfully put forward that there is a case to answer that the ILCA interfered with the builder's contract.
Current, paid up ILCA members are asking questions about the actions of the ILCA concerning the fundamental rule and the ILCA's apparent intention to defend in court the notion that "a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights".
Some of these questions go beyond the court case, and have nothing to do with whether or not the ILCA breached terms of the ISAF Agreement, but have everything to do with Jeff Martin signing the ISAF Agreement on the ILCA's behalf, and whether the ISAF Agreement was current in 2011. (The ISAF thought the ISAF Agreement was (or may have been) current in 2011, or would not have declared that it had ended the contact in 2013.)
Maybe Jeff Martin did act in good faith and made genuine mistakes. Maybe Heini Wellmann didn't know about the ISAF Agreement when he said: "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."
With hindsight, we can now say for sure that the ILCA solicited its membership to vote to change the fundamental rule by making false statements.
Pam Newton (Improper course), Alan Downes (long time ILCA measurer), Michael O'Brien (Seattle - now Aero sailor), SimonN and a whole lot of others turned out to be right to question the ILCA.
The ILCA does not need to continue down the path it currently chooses to go.
Last edited by a moderator:
tillerman
Super Anarchist
Gantt said:
The reason I am "influenced" by IPLore is that he puts forward his arguments in a clear and logical fashion that I can understand.
You should try it some time, Gantt.
Last edited by a moderator:
