Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[jwlbrace]

Our club sailing instructions state that non-class legal equipment is fine.

That sailing instruction is not valid, so if someone protests you'll have trouble...
We've drafted an SI that says that entry in "Laser" races is open to International Lasers, Kirby Torches and anything else with essentially identical hulls if we need it, but we can't change RRS 75 in it if someone cares to protest. Exactly what class rules apply to which boat in those circumstances in respect to RRS 75 is something we intend to kick straight upstairs to the NA if someone does protest, 'cause we're not sure how to interpret the rule. Hopefully no-one will protest.

It was agreed in our last annual fleet meeting that If the OEM is not able to service replacement parts (Ex. gudgeons) then equally suitable parts from other suppliers is acceptable. Simply put, we will not be held hostage by a dodgy supplier.

If an Opti-parent wants to protest, kick it up to national.

it's odd- at our club last night the conversation over torches and lasers naturally drifted into replica sails. The result- a statement this morning saying that only class legal laser sails and parts are allowed in our club fleet. With the exception of 'beginners' (no definition, let's assume season 1/2 straight off the RYA learn to sail course) whose results will not count in the club / class series... that's encouragement for you.

Whilst rigging up for the evening race, there was also a not so subtle 'ticking off' for calling the class the Torch Class - even informally, especially in web comms/emails etc - and that our club and fleet exec position was to support the ILCA.

Speaking to a few folks on the quiet about the 'moral side' of the story this was the general response...

Frankly I found it quite depressing, I thought we sailor folks were a little brighter than that... I guess many of us are, because even a few people I know who I might not always agree with in 'sailing stuff', certainly seem to have a very similar moral opinion to me. However I guess if the Laser boys want to fuck over the guy that gave them the boat they love then so be it.... not a lot of point moralising over it, and really not much point explaining the 'corporate angle' with regards LPE. It's cheap toasters from Walmart again.

Interestingly earlier in the evening there were some RYA execs wandering around auditing or something - all chinos and shore jackets ... I jokingly said, 'so what's your position on the Torch Class then'. They laughed, and replied, 'just smoke and mirrors, something of nothing from Bruce (Kirby) and nothing will change'. Not an official statement of course... but an interesting insight into the group think of sailing's bureaucrats.

I hope to fuck they're wrong.

 

[Reht]

Our club sailing instructions state that non-class legal equipment is fine.

That sailing instruction is not valid, so if someone protests you'll have trouble...
We've drafted an SI that says that entry in "Laser" races is open to International Lasers, Kirby Torches and anything else with essentially identical hulls if we need it, but we can't change RRS 75 in it if someone cares to protest. Exactly what class rules apply to which boat in those circumstances in respect to RRS 75 is something we intend to kick straight upstairs to the NA if someone does protest, 'cause we're not sure how to interpret the rule. Hopefully no-one will protest.

It was agreed in our last annual fleet meeting that If the OEM is not able to service replacement parts (Ex. gudgeons) then equally suitable parts from other suppliers is acceptable. Simply put, we will not be held hostage by a dodgy supplier.

If an Opti-parent wants to protest, kick it up to national.

it's odd- at our club last night the conversation over torches and lasers naturally drifted into replica sails. The result- a statement this morning saying that only class legal laser sails and parts are allowed in our club fleet. With the exception of 'beginners' (no definition, let's assume season 1/2 straight off the RYA learn to sail course) whose results will not count in the club / class series... that's encouragement for you.

Whilst rigging up for the evening race, there was also a not so subtle 'ticking off' for calling the class the Torch Class - even informally, especially in web comms/emails etc - and that our club and fleet exec position was to support the ILCA.

Speaking to a few folks on the quiet about the 'moral side' of the story this was the general response...

Frankly I found it quite depressing, I thought we sailor folks were a little brighter than that... I guess many of us are, because even a few people I know who I might not always agree with in 'sailing stuff', certainly seem to have a very similar moral opinion to me. However I guess if the Laser boys want to fuck over the guy that gave them the boat they love then so be it.... not a lot of point moralising over it, and really not much point explaining the 'corporate angle' with regards LPE. It's cheap toasters from Walmart again.

Interestingly earlier in the evening there were some RYA execs wandering around auditing or something - all chinos and shore jackets ... I jokingly said, 'so what's your position on the Torch Class then'. They laughed, and replied, 'just smoke and mirrors, something of nothing from Bruce (Kirby) and nothing will change'. Not an official statement of course... but an interesting insight into the group think of sailing's bureaucrats.

I hope to fuck they're wrong.

It's a shame that people seem to not care at all that this guy gave them a boat that they love still 40 years on. I can see people complaining about his receiving money (and I'm not getting into that discussion in this post) to this day for it, but what has been proposed basically ignores the guy who designed the (as Fred like to say) game they all love to play. Not only are they cutting him off financially (well, that money is going to go somewhere guys, don't think that suddenly lasers will be n% cheaper, it'll just go to a different pocket), but they are completely shutting him out of the system of racing that he set up and put years of his life into to get going.

Honestly, I think that the attitude to tell Kirby to shove off is disgraceful, I sure as hell wouldn't want to race in a fleet of guys with that attitude. I see the precedent that this is setting as not so much to do with financial compensation for a design or setting up an amazing class (that will get sorted out by lawyers), but more as officially endorsing the attitude that once a designer (or anyone for that matter) has "served their purpose" in designing, building, or organizing a boat/class, we can basically tell them to get lost. I have a feeling some people around here would say that this sort of attitude has been directed at people involved at all levels from class organizations to club committees, just never to such a high-profile case.

 

[IPLore]

Dog watch : you clearly have no knowledge on the subject.

And yes I am an expert on the subject.

Educate me then please. What have I misunderstood?

I gave the "cook book" analogy to try and explain in layman's language my opinion why our courts will not recognize copyright on a construction manual for an unregistered design. This whole construction manual discussion is a red herring. For a myriad of reasons my opinion based on the available facts is that there is no legal or equitable merit to a claim of copyright on the construction manual. Feel free to discuss other more interesting aspects of the case that we can discern from the record.

 

[redstar]

The ILCA is NOT telling Kirby to shove off! All they are doing is trying to remove themselves, and the class members, from the middle of a fight between him and LPE.

Whether or not LPE owes Kirby royalties is a matter between them and the courts - ILCA's actions make no difference to that. All the rule change says is that the class isn't going to police the contract between them. ILCA have been trying to mediate for years, it's been obvious for a long time it will end in court.

If they don't do this, the Laser class ceases to exist. Rebranding to the torch will kill it.

If the court decides that LPE doesn't need to pay royalties, the class can then discuss then our relationship with Kirby. He's not exactly making friends at the moment though, is he.

 

[SimonN]

The ILCA is NOT telling Kirby to shove off! All they are doing is trying to remove themselves, and the class members, from the middle of a fight between him and LPE.

Whether or not LPE owes Kirby royalties is a matter between them and the courts - ILCA's actions make no difference to that. All the rule change says is that the class isn't going to police the contract between them. ILCA have been trying to mediate for years, it's been obvious for a long time it will end in court.

If they don't do this, the Laser class ceases to exist. Rebranding to the torch will kill it.

If the court decides that LPE doesn't need to pay royalties, the class can then discuss then our relationship with Kirby. He's not exactly making friends at the moment though, is he.

That is unbelievably naïve. What was the point in having the rule if it wasn't to protect BK in the first place? The rule put pressure on all builders to play the game morally and fairly and by changing the rule, the ILCA has sided against BK in a big way. And the ILCA has not removed themselves from the fight. They have put themselves right in the middle and if LPE lose in court, the ILCA will be finished and potentially liable for damages and costs. Knowing the way Rastegar plays the game, the ILCA and ISAF could end up liable for a huge bill.as the parties who don't have clever corporate structures to avoid getting burnt in case of a court loss.

You also seem to have forgotten that BK has been trying to negotiate with LPE, ISAF and the ILCA for a long time and the ILCA has refused to honour its previous obligations, as demonstrated by the rules, to ensure that the class designer is treated in a manner that was agreed years ago and which any decent person would see as being fair. I find it very informative that the other builders considered the contracts fair and enforceable and are siding with BK. It is only a builder whose business practices can be considered, at best, dubious and who have shown time and again that they do not have the interests of the class at heart that considers the contracts between them and BK void. So the ILCA has sided with the one builder they have that has demonstrated and stated that they have no interest in the class as an association and as a racing class, which is what the ILCA is all about.

As for the rebranding killing the class, I personally to believe that it wouldn't. Sailors (and potential new sailors) aren't as stupid as to not be able to get past a name change.

 

[IPLore]

Looking at the sequence of events, I am not sure why so many of you are critical of your class association.

The ILCA's rule change was not aimed at Mr Kirby. At the time of the rule change, Mr Kirby had already sold his rights. Furthermore, the rule change didn’t remove Mr. Kirby's right to obtain royalties under any agreement he has with the builders. Those agreements are contracts which are either enforceable or not enforceable in court. I think most members would prefer that their Class Association should not get involved with that contractual dispute.

The rule previously allowed that the builders had to be approved by ISAF, your Class Association and Bruce Kirby (presumably in his role as the original designer of the boat). I doubt that anyone who drafted the rule comtemplated that either of those three parties would try to assign that role to another party. For some reason, when Mr Kirby sold his contractual rights, he also tried to include in the sale his role in approving builders. Furthermore, he sold the "approval" right to a builder. It would seem to me inconsistent for any builder to be responsible for approving either themselves or another builder. I certainly cannot see the "sailors interests" to be protected by that arrangement.

All that the rule change did was narrow the role of approval to ISAF and the Class Association (elected by you guys). Mr Kirby had already stepped down from that role and it was inappropriate for a builder to assume that role.

 

[HookEm]

It would be nice to know who's really running LaserPerformance. I found this on the BrandChannel website.

Updated: Netto followed up with us to clarify that a "form letter" naming him as a creditor was dropped on his lap only a few days ago, when he learned about the bankruptcy. He also clarified the chain of events, including that the Maclaren bankruptcy filing in the U.S. was on Dec. 29th, but his employer didn't have the courtesy or decency to inform him before the letter. He also clarified that everything had been cordial between him and Maclaren management including Rastegar until he found out he had to "get in line as a creditor" —

"I was notified of the bankruptcy almost two months after it had happened — by a form letter from the court — with no forewarning. My employers, with whom I was in daily contact, had not told me of taking this action. I was not irate at the time of the bankruptcy filing on Dec. 29 because I did not know of it. I only became irate when Farzad told me he wasn't paying me and to get in line as a creditor. Therefore it is not an action taken to protect them from any irateness on my part — all they have to do is pay what they owe to avoid that."

Even though Farzad Rastegar's title is the CEO of Maclaren USA, based in Norwalk, Connecticut, where it operates a showroom, he controls the Maclaren brand and its various subsidiaries worldwide. Rastegar, a former non-executive director at the Apax Partners venture capital firm, acquired the Maclaren brand when its U.K. owner, Sunleigh, went into receivership in 2001.

Whatever happens to Maclaren, Rastegar isn't reliant on its income for a living. He also owns the Ronson lighter brand once owned by business legend Victor Kiam (another disastrous acquisition that led to a shareholder revolt) and Sail Laser LLC, which owns the LaserPerformance brand that Maclaren just announced it's sponsoring. Rastegar also owns various properties, including the building at 150 Wooster Street in New York's Soho area, where Maclaren opened a design showroom on the ground floor.http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/maclaren-us-bankruptcy-david-netto-030112.aspx

 

[MR.CLEAN]

CLEAN,

Get it right and post a retraction ...

http://www.impropercourse.com/2013/04/ilca-defamation-of-bruce-kirby.html

http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/id/dsgnDtls.do?appNm=61775&lang=eng&status=

 

[SimonN]

CLEAN,

Get it right and post a retraction ...

http://www.impropercourse.com/2013/04/ilca-defamation-of-bruce-kirby.html

http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/id/dsgnDtls.do?appNm=61775〈=eng&status=

Sorry, Clean, but are you trying to tell us that is a Laser?

 

[qusnewt]

CLEAN,

Get it right and post a retraction ...http://www.impropercourse.com/2013/04/ilca-defamation-of-bruce-kirby.html

http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/id/dsgnDtls.do?appNm=61775〈=eng&status=

Since when does a Laser have a jib? Retraction.

 

[redstar]

If they don't do this, the Laser class ceases to exist. Rebranding to the torch will kill it.

He's not exactly making friends at the moment though, is he.

1. Explain why the name change would "kill it." Otherwise your unsupported claim is about as useful to the discussion as a reply of "No! It won't!"

2. Asking the folks you thought were your friends to back you up and being turned down is one thing. Having your friends team up with the other side on a dispute is heartbreaking. You can rest assured, the choice to name the ILCA In a Kirby lawsuit was extremely difficult and painful to the old man.

Kirby's attempt to put the toy we use for our game BACK under the control of sailors as opposed to businessmen who could care less about supporting fleets of families and friends who use those racing sailboats has been under attack fr the ILCA rather than supported.

There's a huge difference between "the boats you build Wil not be allowed to compete on our games unless you have a contract with Mr Kirby" and "we are changing our rules to remove that requirement and yaking the old fart's me off the offocisl class stickers so we can buy our toys elsewhere.

I've already posted earlier in the thread about why the name change would kill it. Do you think if Coca-Cola changed their brand they wouldn't suffer? Now picture Coca-Cola changing their brand to something else while another company continues to sell a product with the Coca-Cola name. What effect would that have? That's exactly where we are - with the Torch class kicking off Rastegar will still be able to market boats called Lasers - do you really think the brand recognition that goes with that doesn't count for anything?

Now look outside NA and Europe for a moment. In Australia, NZ, lots of other places, the Laser class is going well just as it is. You're asking us to risk that success, to risk all the hard work we've done here to build the class, to solve a local problem you have with your builder. I appreciate that it's a big problem, but why draw us into it?

Is Kirby really trying to bring the game back under the control of the sailors, or under his control? Whether or not you like the individuals concerned, the ILCA are the sailor's representatives. Does Kirby know what is best for me more than the guys running the class? I'm not so sure. Tracy and Andy are your NA representatives - these are guys who sail the boat and love the boat. They're not there fighting to line Rastegar's pockets - they're there fighting to save the game they love. And Kirby is trying (seemingly successfully at the moment) to drive a wedge between them and the grassroots sailors.

 

[redstar]

The ILCA is NOT telling Kirby to shove off! All they are doing is trying to remove themselves, and the class members, from the middle of a fight between him and LPE.

Whether or not LPE owes Kirby royalties is a matter between them and the courts - ILCA's actions make no difference to that. All the rule change says is that the class isn't going to police the contract between them. ILCA have been trying to mediate for years, it's been obvious for a long time it will end in court.

If they don't do this, the Laser class ceases to exist. Rebranding to the torch will kill it.

If the court decides that LPE doesn't need to pay royalties, the class can then discuss then our relationship with Kirby. He's not exactly making friends at the moment though, is he.

That is unbelievably naïve. What was the point in having the rule if it wasn't to protect BK in the first place? The rule put pressure on all builders to play the game morally and fairly and by changing the rule, the ILCA has sided against BK in a big way. And the ILCA has not removed themselves from the fight. They have put themselves right in the middle and if LPE lose in court, the ILCA will be finished and potentially liable for damages and costs. Knowing the way Rastegar plays the game, the ILCA and ISAF could end up liable for a huge bill.as the parties who don't have clever corporate structures to avoid getting burnt in case of a court loss.

You also seem to have forgotten that BK has been trying to negotiate with LPE, ISAF and the ILCA for a long time and the ILCA has refused to honour its previous obligations, as demonstrated by the rules, to ensure that the class designer is treated in a manner that was agreed years ago and which any decent person would see as being fair. I find it very informative that the other builders considered the contracts fair and enforceable and are siding with BK. It is only a builder whose business practices can be considered, at best, dubious and who have shown time and again that they do not have the interests of the class at heart that considers the contracts between them and BK void. So the ILCA has sided with the one builder they have that has demonstrated and stated that they have no interest in the class as an association and as a racing class, which is what the ILCA is all about.

As for the rebranding killing the class, I personally to believe that it wouldn't. Sailors (and potential new sailors) aren't as stupid as to not be able to get past a name change.

No it's not naive, it's just avoiding the over-complication and speculation that is rampant in this thread. It's the perspective of a laser sailor who has been involved in running the class locally for many, many years. And it seems to be reasonably well aligned with what the ILCA head honchos are saying as well. You point out that BK is saying he has been trying to negotiate with the class, LPE, etc for a long time - well the ILCA say that they have been as well.

This whole issue keeps getting characterised as BK versus Rastegar. That's fine, then they should sort it out between themselves. If the class takes action to look after their own interests (ie those of the sailors), that doesn't mean they're taking sides. It suits BK to paint it that way, and it also helps that Rastegar is a comic book villain who has provided poor service to his market. But my loyalty first and foremost is to the class.

Does that mean the class doesn't owe a moral debt to BK? of course not, and I sincerely hope at the end of all of this that that debt is recognised and repaid, whether by a class rule that requires builders pay royalties or the like. But I fear that by the end of this there will be too much bad blood between Kirby and the class for that to work.

 

[spectator]

Most likely the Lawyers are going to win, sailors are going to pay.

Lasers sailors are already paying way tooooo much for laser's, the parts and charters (partly because the cost of boats). These cost have really been hurting the sailors and the class.

Just look at the price of a new mainsail, somebody is being very greedy charging those retail prices for such a cheaply made sail. How much does it cost to buy a new Laser (it's just a tupperware) out of the box?

So the powers at be are greedy and explains why such a thing like this is going on. How much is this going to cost ISAF and indirectly us? I'm disappointed by ISAF and I'm curious how much royalty Bruce Kirby is asking for per boat ? Is it a lot?

I do support Mr. Kirby getting what he deserves and what was agreed on.

Let's just hope that the sailors doesn't bear all the cost of this and the price of a Laser doesn't goes up because of it. The price instead really needs to go down, It's just a fun piece of tupperware.

 

[IPLore]

In all seriousness, the Laser sailors seem to be reasonably well represented by their democratically elected class officers. How can you fault the steps they have taken so far?

When Mr Kirby attempted to convey the right to approve builders to A BUILDER, it was surely the right thing to do to change the class rule. It would be absurd for a builder to approve themselves.

Mr Kirby may have acted with the best of intentions but at that time but he stated that he was selling his contractural rights to the Australian builder for "Estate Planning" reasons.

I'm sure Mr Kirby is a great and colorful guy and part of the Class history, but why do some people think he will represent sailors better than the sailors themselves and their elected representatives??? How many Laser sailors did he consult when he went about choosing his builders for the Torch? What was the process for selecting them? Are they the best qualified for the job? How well connected is Mr Kirby to Laser sailors, sparkplugs and volunteers compared to say Tracy Usher?

If this is about Mr Kirby getting his money, then he either has a contract with the builder or he doesn't and IMO there is no need for the Class to get involved.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

That's not really the question, is it?

why do some people think he will represent sailors better than the sailors themselves and their elected representatives???d

 

[IPLore]

Please dont take up golf Mr Gouvrenail,

Your sport needs you and people like you. At the end of the day, the best people to oversee the approval of class builders is a class organization representing its class members like Gouver. They are the ultimate check and balance. They are soley looking out for the interests of their sailors. They are not designers seeking to protect their royalty income nor are they builders seeking to protect their oligopoly positions. Designers deserve their fees and can hire good lawyers to design good contracts. Builders deserve their profits and can hire good lawyers to protect their trademarks. But the only interest of the Class association is to protect their members.

If designers and builders want to fight about their fees and their trademarks, then there are plenty of lawyers who can assist them in their desire to fight. But the Class Association is only interested in serving their members. It is not the role of the class association to help someone collect money. All they care about is the sailors.

I fully realize the answer for most sailors is: Huh?

Few give a shit about this mess.

I miss sailing in huge fleets of one design boats.

With the demise of the North American Laser and Sunfish builder, my favorite game seems doomed.

Maybe it is time to brush up on golf and bowling

What is it about Lasers that attracts guys like Landt and Rastegar???

 

[IPLore]

That's not really the question, is it?

why do some people think he will represent sailors better than the sailors themselves and their elected representatives???d

Mr Clean. I believe you are correct. This may have nothing to do with representing the sailors. But Mr Kirby in his last announcement is changing the frame of reference from estate planning to representing sailors. I wonder if his lawyers are happy with his tendency to make public announcements. It will provide rich pickings for the other side when it comes to his deposition.

One's first advice to clients approaching litigation is not to say anything in public.

 

[KiwiJoker]

in favor of Kirby but pretty disappointed.....

This isn't a popularity contest. It's about claims in law. By all means, Rashegar makes a good villain but so what?

I never said it was a popularity contest. Please stop putting words in my mouth

That's a fair comment which I accept. There's an emotional spasm going on here confusing sympathy with Kirby with a conviction he must be right. However I should have directed my remarks on that elsewhere.

Thanks. Appreciated.

You still owe me a better answer re novation. You're the one who raised it, hinting it could be killer for Kirby's case. I answered by saying Kirby's legal guys had to be aware of the possibility.

I'll readily admit to being sympathetic to Kirby's cause. But I've also been working pretty hard to understand the underlying issues. I can find nothing positive about Rastegar's actions and frankly I'm mystified why ISAF and the class association would abandon the guy who created their cash cow, admittedly right now a pretty skinny and poorly-fed cow.

 

[dogwatch]

You still owe me a better answer re novation. You're the one who raised it, hinting it could be killer for Kirby's case. I answered by saying Kirby's legal guys had to be aware of the possibility.

Actually I am not the one who raised it, I'm just the first who has used the word. There are discussions from others earlier in this thread (IIRC within the last few days) regarding Kirby's sale and repurchase of businesses and the effect that may have. Or possibly they are on another thread. Sorry I can't locate those posts right now but they are around.

 

[KiwiJoker]

I said in another post that there is little in common between a cookbook which is destined and purposed for mass open sales with no requirement of a plaque to be attached to each cake sold as opposed to a manual which is of controlled availability due to it perhaps containing proprietary information, and the requirement of this manual and the information contained within to have been used in the building of boats in order for plaques to be issued.

The cake metaphor is concerned with the copyright which BK (presumably) still holds in the copyright manual and whether that brings any support to his position. That's all. Nobody is arguing it describes the entire situation. Just one bite-sized chunk.

But those who insist (with BK) that it's all about contracts, not IP, can ponder this snippet from the FP.

And if he doesn’t have the right, he can’t license the right. And if he can’t license the right, any contract allowing him to license the right would, in most places, be void or unenforceable as a matter of law.

Ho, ho, ho! And I was beginning to think you were being objective in your comments. To understand the lawyer-speak offered by our lawyer leader you need to include a broader quote, to whit:

Any ‘design patent’ he may have had on the actual boat design has long since expired, while design copyrights for boats are not really available in a form that would help Kirby in any country we can find. And if he doesn’t have the right, he can’t license the right. And if he can’t license the right, any contract allowing him to license the right would, in most places, be void or unenforceable as a matter of law.

In other words, when he wrote this Clean wasn't even aware there was no design patent, despite his rigorous searching.

I'm not privy to Kirby's legal claims but they appear to turn on a contract to build a boat of his design and pay a percentage for the right to do so. Not a copyright, a simple written agreement. One that has endured for 40 years, through several builders, including I'm guessing, Rastegar - that is until he pulled the plug. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Frankly I can't comprehend the circular mumbo-jumbo from the FP that appears to confuse a duly registered copyright with the right to enter into a contract.