Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[MR.CLEAN]

 I can’t imagine Porsche ever letting the 911 Owners Club rule the roost. 

Driving a porsche isn't governed by a government-granted monopoly, but you can bet your große titten that Porsche has to bow down to the FIA on certain things.

 

[IPLore]

Obviously international classes are more professionally run than local classes, and Olympic classes even more so, but I don’t understand how the class association, which has never paid for or owned the IP to the boat, can have such power over the class. Is it just the long and complex history that has led to this?  Why else would an IP owner agree a contract that lets a non-commercial owners club dictate terms?  I can’t imagine Porsche ever letting the 911 Owners Club rule the roost. You would be wise to listen to your customers but foolish to give them control. 

By their very nature Class Associations in most one design racing classes have a lot of intrinsic power.  They are, in effect, a monopoly customer.   

The World sailing contract actually mitigates some of that intrinsic power, because the contract puts in place certain checks and balances that protect World sailing and protect the builder from a Class leadership going rogue.  Nonetheless it is a 3 party agreement and the Class Association is an important component of the three legged stool.

The savvy builder of a one design racing class recognizes the importance of an enthusiastic class association and endeavors to build a partnership relationship with the class. There is nothing that comes close to the marketing effectiveness of leveraging an army of volunteers (refer to 50+ posts from Gouvernail on the topic) .  The ownership of the Laser builders seem particularly inept in this regard.

Some builders have moved towards a builder managed class association. This only works if the builder already has that partnership mentality and a passionate devotion to its customers (which makes the builder managed class credible in the eyes of the owners, otherwise they start their own).   RS Sailing and Melges are two examples of this.

  The contrast between Laser and RS in customer relations is stark.  One brand is winning commercially and the other is losing. I dont think it starts with the boats but with the different ethos and mindset of the different companies.  Financially you would rather invest in RS than Laser.....and yet 15 years ago, Laser would have seemed to have all the advantages except one. That one advantage turned out to be most important.   To quote Jack Mitchell "Hug Your Customer"

 

[JimC]

The contrast between Laser and RS in customer relations is stark.  One brand is winning commercially and the other is losing.

I suspect the Laser is still outselling all the RS racing classes put together.

According to published sail numbers from ILCA Laser builds averaged 8K5 pa during the 70s, 5K3 in the 80s, 2K6 in the 90s, 2K5 in the 00s and 2K2 pa so far in the 10s. Its not obvious that the LPE regime has caused a catastrophic decline. The shape of the graph is consistent for what I've seen for RS classes.

 

[Dex Sawash]

Any data about hull# breakdown between LP/E, PSA AND PSJ?

Are there just three builders?

 

[JimC]

No and Yes (now). Before LPE bought out Vanguard there were 4 I believe.

 

[VWAP]

This was an unwise post for LP to put on its blog:

• LP refused to have ILCA undertake an inspection of LP’s facilities five months before expiry of 1998 Agreement and after three years of ILCA refusing to renew its license under the 1998 Agreement.
  

▪️ LP does not and has not refused inspection of its manufacturing facility or its products by other legitimate regulatory bodies. Indeed, LP has formally requested World Sailing to inspect LP’s facility given that they are the ultimate authority for compliance and the issuance of the boats’ plaques.

Good grief, a good lawyer would have told them to say something about " LP ..more than willing to allow ILCA to inspect the facilities subject to ILCA agreeing to continue to comply with standard commercial non disclosure terms which were due to expire in August 2019.....blah blah".  But to come out and outright acknowledge that you were refusing to allow inspection was smart like lawn mower.  The contract is quite clear that the Association is entitled to inspect.

Site inspection is not the overriding issue here. It is just a means  to start the process.

 

[IPLore]

Site inspection is not the overriding issue here. It is just a means  to start the process.

The initial issue appears to be a disagreement between LPE and ILCA over the use of the Laser trademark.

LP escalated that by refusing to allow inspection of the manufacturing facilities. I happen to think that was a dumb tactic from a legal POV.

ILCA is still in compliance of its obligations under any license agreement and so decided to pull the lever while they still had control of the ball. As I said earlier, I am giving the first round to ILCA. Obviously its not a knock out , but LP needs to go back to their corner and listen closely to their second

 

[Sailabout]

LASER SB3 - SB20 

Situation normal for Laser Performance!

funny you mentioned that, it was all about taking the boat away from LP's control

 

[Sailabout]

The initial issue appears to be a disagreement between LPE and ILCA over the use of the Laser trademark.

LP escalated that by refusing to allow inspection of the manufacturing facilities. I happen to think that was a dumb tactic from a legal POV.

ILCA is still in compliance of its obligations under any license agreement and so decided to pull the lever while they still had control of the ball. As I said earlier, I am giving the first round to ILCA. Obviously its not a knock out , but LP needs to go back to their corner and listen closely to their second

the trademark 'Laser' seems to be the issue and the leverage not the boat.

So the ILCA become ITorchCA , Kirby issues the build doc to lots of builders and the problem seems solved.

 

[Gouvernail]

Great!! 2020 Midwinters  East:

A group of sailors arrive from Minnesota with their brand new Lasers  from Laser Performance. They are each paid up ILCA members. They have no idea their Lasers are made by a buikder whom ILCA  no longer considers to be a supplier of boats worthy of participation in sanctioned regattas.  . 

Do they get to race? 

And

Whst is someone protests the sailors who try to use Aussie built boats because they were not built by a builder who has the right to use the trademark in North America? 

******’

Whiie you guys fight about the answers to those questions I will fix up some busted up centerboards for folks who need them for play this weekend. 

 

[tillerman]

Great!! 2020 Midwinters  East:

A group of sailors arrive from Minnesota with their brand new Lasers  from Laser Performance. They are each paid up ILCA members. They have no idea their Lasers are made by a buikder whom ILCA  no longer considers to be a supplier of boats worthy of participation in sanctioned regattas.  . 

Do they get to race? 

And

Whst is someone protests the sailors who try to use Aussie built boats because they were not built by a builder who has the right to use the trademark in North America? 

******’

Whiie you guys fight about the answers to those questions I will fix up some busted up centerboards for folks who need them for play this weekend. 

1. Trick question. You can't buy new Lasers in Minnesota. See 50+ earlier posts from Gouvernail on the dire situation with Laser supply in North America.

2. Trick question. Nobody protests equipment at Laser regattas any more. The equipment rules are now so complex that nobody understands them. Plus, thanks to the aforementioned supply problems in North America, every Laser sailor in North America now has at least one "practice" part from Intensity Sails on their boat so nobody wants to start protesting equipment because the end result would be that everybody would be banned from sailing.

Personally I gave up on trying to understand the Laser equipment rules when an Official Measurer at one Laser Masters Worlds ruled that my battens were illegal even though they had been passed as legal by the Official Measurer at a previous Laser Masters Worlds (and still had the initials of that Official Measurer on them.) Life is too short to deal with such nonsense.

 

[VWAP]

1. Trick question. You can't buy new Lasers in Minnesota. See 50+ earlier posts from Gouvernail on the dire situation with Laser supply in North America.

2. Trick question. Nobody protests equipment at Laser regattas any more. The equipment rules are now so complex that nobody understands them. Plus, thanks to the aforementioned supply problems in North America, every Laser sailor in North America now has at least one "practice" part from Intensity Sails on their boat so nobody wants to start protesting equipment because the end result would be that everybody would be banned from sailing.

Personally I gave up on trying to understand the Laser equipment rules when an Official Measurer at one Laser Masters Worlds ruled that my battens were illegal even though they had been passed as legal by the Official Measurer at a previous Laser Masters Worlds (and still had the initials of that Official Measurer on them.) Life is too short to deal with such nonsense.

1-2 not entirely true. But this is the internet

 

[VWAP]

2. Trick question. Nobody protests equipment at Laser regattas any more. The equipment rules are now so complex that nobody understands them. Plus, thanks to the aforementioned supply problems in North America, every Laser sailor in North America now has at least one "practice" part from Intensity Sails on their boat so nobody wants to start protesting equipment because the end result would be that everybody would be banned from sailing.
 

Events allowing illegal "practice" parts should not be using the trademarked "Laser" name. They are no longer a "Laser" event. 

 

[bluelaser2]

I too think the Laser will continue to be supplied by LP but without the plaque.

I'd think under GDPR, ILCA could retain their contact list unless the individuals requested to be removed. 

I don't think GDPR would have any effect because the info was collected for a specific business purpose with the affirmative consent of the data subject, and ILCA has a bona fide reason to maintain that data for limited purposes (e.g  in case they need to contact past members).  They would likely not be able to use it for marketing if a data subject withdrew consent for that purpose, but how often would that really occur?

Also, FWIW, the Laser name may have undergone enough antonomasia, and been through enough owners, that the word, if not the logo, as a trademark, is no longer enforceable, at least in the USA.  I would not want to be the entity to test that, but the odds look strong just from a Google search.  

 

[Board skiff]

I’m not too sure. You could argue that affirmative consent was given for the purpose of Laser(TM) sailing. If ILCA no longer offer Laser(TM) sailing, they don’t need to keep that info.  

Keeping info “just in case” is not a legitimate reason, so maintaining details of former members and specifically using that information to contact them with a plea to join the new class would be a breach. 

However, ILCA would argue the change of name does not make it a new class. I guess the crux of this is whether the Laser Class is the class administered by ILCA or the class that can call itself Laser. 

 

[JimC]

However, ILCA would argue the change of name does not make it a new class. I guess the crux of this is whether the Laser Class is the class administered by ILCA or the class that can call itself Laser. 

Bearing in mind how many classes have changed name, especially in these days when class names may include the current sponsor, I think the answer to that is clear cut. 

In addition we may note that LPE will lose the right to call their class the *International* Laser. 

 

[bluelaser2]

Keeping info “just in case” is not a legitimate reason, so maintaining details of former members and specifically using that information to contact them with a plea to join the new class would be a breach. 

Of course it is a legitimate reason.  You have a business record exception at a minimum, but you may also have financial reporting, consumer product safety, etc.   GDPR is not a wholesale automatic destroyer of all collected information in the EU.   Re-marketing may be a stretch, but maybe not- at least until tested- and likey various outcomes with different DPA's so long as opt-outs are respected. 
 

 

[Board skiff]

Bearing in mind how many classes have changed name, especially in these days when class names may include the current sponsor, I think the answer to that is clear cut. 

In addition we may note that LPE will lose the right to call their class the *International* Laser. 

I understand that argument but anyone can start a class association for a boat that looks like a Laser, but isn’t actually one. In fact, anyone can start a CA for boats that actually are proper Lasers(TM).  The only advantage ILCA have is an existing agreement with with WS to be *the* recognised class association. And that agreement is/was for boats that are Laser(TM).  If ILCA change their rules to allow non-Lasers to compete LPE are surely going to question whether that agreement is fair.  

A hypothetical:

Prior to this mess, ILCA goes bust. A new CA is created.  Surely the *class*, as distinct from the class association, remains an international class?

 

[JimC]

Prior to this mess, ILCA goes bust. A new CA is created.  Surely the *class*, as distinct from the class association, remains an international class?

No. 
Read http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2019RegulationsClean-[24772].pdf

 

[IPLore]

So the ILCA become ITorchCA , Kirby issues the build doc to lots of builders and the problem seems solved.

That is one thing that cannot happen.  Kirby's agreements with the builders prevent him from sharing the build book.

The key new piece of information we have from the recent FAQ from ILCA is that WS is working with ILCA. 

Together they control the build book.  Together they could appoint a new builder but it is a thorny path.