Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[Reht]

I think the difference is that with a copy of the CM in hand, the builder can say "yes, I built this to the exact specs in the manual". If the CM is taken away from them they'll be going on memory, if they say "yes, I built this to the exact specs in the manual" someone could respond "how can you be sure, did you read the manual while building it?" of course the answer would be "we remember how to" which wouldn't stand up to scrutiny...

Basically possession of the CM is a way to guarantee that all the boats built are correct as they can refer back to the original instructions. Without the CM the guarantee is that the builder has a perfect memory.

 

[BalticBandit]

Now as to owning all the copyright - sorry, the way copyright works is that unless the derivative works (ie the contributions from the builders and the class) are explicitly licensed as derivative works, they belong to the original copyright holder as well. Try this one - build a toy that incorporates an image of Mickey Mouse in it. Put it up for sale on the internet. See how long it takes for Disney to sue you and take all of your product as belonging to them.

You are failing to distinguish two different cases. The image of Mickey Mouse is copyright. If you copy that and sell it, it's a breach of copyright. If you published the CM, that would be breach of copyright. However if you follow a set of instructions such as those in the CM, that isn't breach of copyright. A cake is not a "derivative work" of a cookery book. This metaphor has been independently posted by IPLore and myself at different times on DA & I'm not going to debate it yet again as it's already been done to death.

Right a Laser itself is the cake. If you send in corrections to the cookbook (say the recipe has a misprint calling for salt instead of sugar) - and the next printing of the cookbook contains that correction - you have done nothing to modify the original copyright.

Even if you sent in a suggestion for a completely new recipe that the author appropriates as their own and publishes it, the full copyright is still theirs.

And the reason the CM's copyright would not be called out in this suit is that there is no breach of copyright AS OF YET. There is a breach of contract. And if the ruling goes in BKs favor, then he gets to recall LPE's copy of the CM. And if LPE continues to build claiming to comply with the CM, THEN BK would have standing to sue for copyright infringement, but not before

I think the difference is that with a copy of the CM in hand, the builder can say "yes, I built this to the exact specs in the manual". If the CM is taken away from them they'll be going on memory, if they say "yes, I built this to the exact specs in the manual" someone could respond "how can you be sure, did you read the manual while building it?" of course the answer would be "we remember how to" which wouldn't stand up to scrutiny...

Basically possession of the CM is a way to guarantee that all the boats built are correct as they can refer back to the original instructions. Without the CM the guarantee is that the builder has a perfect memory.

Exactly - and the fact that the ILCA rules require them to have a CM

 

[knuckles]

Do you guys suppose the judge and jury will y use your endless posts as a reference manual?? Or are t your comments merely to be viewed as similar to parents on shore yelling at opti beginners

Pull it towards you!!

No no sit on the other side!!

The race is THAT way!!

Tack Timmy!! No! No! No!!! Turn toward the wind!!

That only happens in America's Cup court cases.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Some of the comments make it seem that some people hold the view that the ISAF and ILCA are playing neutral roles in this dispute. To me, playing a neutral role would not include issuing plaques to a builder not authorised by the designer and changing class rules. Kirby has taken legal position against the ILCA and ISAF in reaction to their new positions.


Are you happy with the actions of the ILCA and ISAF? Do you think their actions are representative of their member's views? Do you think that Rastegar should not pay royalties to Kirby?

I am wanting the ILCA and ISAF to reverse their recent decisions which effectively means that they are taking sides with Rastegar. I'm not the only one. The key is to look past the legal action.

My guess based on my understanding of contract law is as follows:

• Kirby (& Co) owns the design rights to his boat.
  
• Rastegar (& Co) own the right to the Laser name / trademark for the North America and Europe. (Kirby is not contesting that)
  

So let's say that the courts found that to be so.

That would mean that Rastegar could build another boat design under the Laser name. Kirby approved builders would build the boat we all sail under the new name: "Torch". So the scenario is that there will be two different boats - and I'm picking that Rastegar's new boat with the old name will be the less expensive one.

And in that scenario, I wonder what ILCA and ISAF would do?

Partly, in my view, that's why it's important to support the Kirby position.

So far, 67 have taken the survey, which is increasing, though I would like the numbers to be far higher.

I would appreciate persons who are interested in the Kirby situation, no matter what their views, to:
1) Complete the survey
2) Asking your contacts to complete the survey

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8P3TDZ2

I will update the results here later today (my time).

 

[ojfd]

As some here might remember, there was this article:

http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/ISAF-Laser-intervention---Supply-problems-looming?/109036

published on the 1st of May, in which the readers were promised, that

Today we will be asking Tracy Usher, the ILCA President, Jeff Martin, the ILCA

Executive Secretary and Jerome Pells, the ISAF Secretary General to detail for

the public record just how they propose existing builders PSA and Performance

Sailcraft Japan, who have been paying Kirby´s design royalties as well as ISAF

and ILCA fees, should proceed to build Lasers without risk of being drawn into

the Bruce Kirby versus Laser Performance Europe, ISAF and ILCA court case.

We will publish their responses in full.

by Rob Kothe and the Sail-World Team

It is already 4th of May Down Under and in Europe and what? Not a single word? Nothing? Nada?

Not even simple blurb, something like

a} they don't answer our calls, or

b} they do not wish to comment, or

c} there will be official statements by ILCA and/or ISAF, or

d} more on this after ISAF mid-year conference, or

e} something else.

What about keeping your readers informed, instead of only spreading panic?

I somehow can't let go the feeling that the Sail-World site is a tiny bit of a propaganda

platform for Chris Caldecoat, the General Manager of PSA.

Comments?

 

[Wess]

Some of the comments make it seem that some people hold the view that the ISAF and ILCA are playing neutral roles in this dispute. To me, playing a neutral role would not include issuing plaques to a builder not authorised by the designer and changing class rules. Kirby has taken legal position against the ILCA and ISAF in reaction to their new positions.


Are you happy with the actions of the ILCA and ISAF? Do you think their actions are representative of their member's views? Do you think that Rastegar should not pay royalties to Kirby?

I am wanting the ILCA and ISAF to reverse their recent decisions which effectively means that they are taking sides with Rastegar. I'm not the only one. The key is to look past the legal action.

My guess based on my understanding of contract law is as follows:

• Kirby (& Co) owns the design rights to his boat.
• Rastegar (& Co) own the right to the Laser name / trademark for the North America and Europe. (Kirby is not contesting that)

So let's say that the courts found that to be so.

That would mean that Rastegar could build another boat design under the Laser name. Kirby approved builders would build the boat we all sail under the new name: "Torch". So the scenario is that there will be two different boats - and I'm picking that Rastegar's new boat with the old name will be the less expensive one.

And in that scenario, I wonder what ILCA and ISAF would do?

Partly, in my view, that's why it's important to support the Kirby position.

So far, 67 have taken the survey, which is increasing, though I would like the numbers to be far higher.

I would appreciate persons who are interested in the Kirby situation, no matter what their views, to:
1) Complete the survey
2) Asking your contacts to complete the survey

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8P3TDZ2

I will update the results here later today (my time).

OMG, they pop them out in batches over there. Thick as thieves.

Could you please just answer one simple question?

* What legally entitles Kirby to claim those "design rights" in your opinion? Is it a trademark, a patent, a copyright (on what), a construction manual or something else?

The whole point is that a contract is not valid if there is nothing given in return. He can't sell what he does not own any more. Please tell me what it is you think he still owns and I will take your poll!

 

[RMK]

Kirby doesn't claim to own any "design rights" contrary to Gnatt seems to believe. The only thing he had were the contracts required by the class rule, now gone and his name on the ISAF sticker also now gone.

I generally like the Sail-World site but they are pretty one sided in this case towards Kirby/PSA

 

[KiwiJoker]

Could you please just answer one simple question?

* What legally entitles Kirby to claim those "design rights" in your opinion? Is it a trademark, a patent, a copyright (on what), a construction manual or something else?

The whole point is that a contract is not valid if there is nothing given in return. He can't sell what he does not own any more. Please tell me what it is you think he still owns and I will take your poll!

He owns his trademark. The case appears to revolve around misuse, misappropriation, whatever of Bruce Kirby's trademark.

Wess, set aside all your characterisations of Kirby as money-grubbing, greedy, hand-in-your-pocket etc, and go back with an open mind and read the amended complaint. Here's the preamble:

"In order to establish the Kirby sailboat design as a standard class for international racing, Kirby reached agreements with the various sailboat builders who held rights to the Laser name as well as the international governing bodies that regulate competitive sailing. Under the terms of those agreements, the builders paid a royalty to Kirby and received the right to manufacture boats according to the Kirby sailboat design and uniform Construction Manual and to affix a plaque on the hull of each boat featuring Bruce Kirby's name and trademark and a unique hull/sail number.

"The plaque confirms that the boat was built according to the Kirby sailboat design and is authorized by Bruce Kirby. Only those boats manufactured under the various builder agreements and bearing the appropriate plaque were entitled to race in events sanctioned by the international governing bodies.

"This system worked to the mutual benefit of the builders, the governing bodies, Kirby and sailors worldwide for over 20 years until certain builders decided to breach their agreement by, among other things, ceasing royalty payments and transferring their rights without notice or consent of Kirby. Notwithstanding their breach, these builders continue using both the Kirby sailboat design and the Bruce Kirby name and trademark.

"The governing bodies named in this complaint compound this breach by continuing to issue hull plaques featuring the Bruce Kirby name and trademark, as well as a unique hull/sail number even though the boats were no longer made under Kirby's authorisation. As a result, boats currently distributed in interstate commerce and in Connecticut are counterfeit, and violate Kirby's trademark and publicity rights. Kirby sues for default of contract as well as counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, inducement to default on contract, and right of publicity under federal and state law."

It's pretty obvious that any actions taken by ISAF or ILCA can do nothing to damage or diminish the consideration owed to Kirby by the builders.

As I've said before this appears to turn on whether Kirby's builder agreements are still valid. The sale of rights to GS and their subsequent reacquisition by Kirby may prove to be a stumbling block. Of course we'll know a lot more when Kirby's neighbour Mr Rastegar files his formal legal rebuttal.


If I understand correctly, you've already read the full filing. For others, here's the link: http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Laser-ISAF-ILCA-action-brings-expanded-Bruce-Kirby-law-suit/109015

 

[redstar]

Kirby doesn't claim to own any "design rights" contrary to Gnatt seems to believe. The only thing he had were the contracts required by the class rule, now gone and his name on the ISAF sticker also now gone.

I generally like the Sail-World site but they are pretty one sided in this case towards Kirby/PSA

Kirby absolutely does claim to own design rights.

From http://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Breaking-News:-Laser-Class---Contracts-signed-and-Kirby-is-back/88802

Breaking News - Bruce Kirby has now taken back the Laser Design rights. The ink is drying on the contract returning the Laser design rights to the 82 year old Laser designer.

He has just advised 'I signed the contract this morning. The design rights have reverted to me. I am hoping now that the ILCA will drop the whole idea of a rule change, and I will be taking steps immediately to get the confusion over builders and builders' plaques straightened away. I have confidence that I will have class and ISAF support with this.

 

[Wess]

Could you please just answer one simple question?

* What legally entitles Kirby to claim those "design rights" in your opinion? Is it a trademark, a patent, a copyright (on what), a construction manual or something else?

The whole point is that a contract is not valid if there is nothing given in return. He can't sell what he does not own any more. Please tell me what it is you think he still owns and I will take your poll!

He owns his trademark. The case appears to revolve around misuse, misappropriation, whatever of Bruce Kirby's trademark.

Wess, set aside all your characterisations of Kirby as money-grubbing, greedy, hand-in-your-pocket etc, and go back with an open mind and read the amended complaint. Here's the preamble:

"In order to establish the Kirby sailboat design as a standard class for international racing, Kirby reached agreements with the various sailboat builders who held rights to the Laser name as well as the international governing bodies that regulate competitive sailing. Under the terms of those agreements, the builders paid a royalty to Kirby and received the right to manufacture boats according to the Kirby sailboat design and uniform Construction Manual and to affix a plaque on the hull of each boat featuring Bruce Kirby's name and trademark and a unique hull/sail number.

"The plaque confirms that the boat was built according to the Kirby sailboat design and is authorized by Bruce Kirby. Only those boats manufactured under the various builder agreements and bearing the appropriate plaque were entitled to race in events sanctioned by the international governing bodies.

"This system worked to the mutual benefit of the builders, the governing bodies, Kirby and sailors worldwide for over 20 years until certain builders decided to breach their agreement by, among other things, ceasing royalty payments and transferring their rights without notice or consent of Kirby. Notwithstanding their breach, these builders continue using both the Kirby sailboat design and the Bruce Kirby name and trademark.

"The governing bodies named in this complaint compound this breach by continuing to issue hull plaques featuring the Bruce Kirby name and trademark, as well as a unique hull/sail number even though the boats were no longer made under Kirby's authorisation. As a result, boats currently distributed in interstate commerce and in Connecticut are counterfeit, and violate Kirby's trademark and publicity rights. Kirby sues for default of contract as well as counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, inducement to default on contract, and right of publicity under federal and state law."

It's pretty obvious that any actions taken by ISAF or ILCA can do nothing to damage or diminish the consideration owed to Kirby by the builders.

As I've said before this appears to turn on whether Kirby's builder agreements are still valid. The sale of rights to GS and their subsequent reacquisition by Kirby may prove to be a stumbling block. Of course we'll know a lot more when Kirby's neighbour Mr Rastegar files his formal legal rebuttal.


If I understand correctly, you've already read the full filing. For others, here's the link: http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Laser-ISAF-ILCA-action-brings-expanded-Bruce-Kirby-law-suit/109015

Thanks for a candid answer.

Yea, that is what I was expecting. As you say he trademarked his name on top of everything else. But thanks no, there is no law and no moral grounds for sailors having to pay forever and ever simply because he trademarked his name AFAIK. That has nothing to do with the boat, a patent on the boat, a construction manual for the boat, or a trademark on the boat.

I mean no disrespect to you when I say this but yes I did read it, yes I understand your POV and w respect that is a BS way for a guy to try to stick his hands into sailors pockets forever and I hope the judge throws the book at him!

We paid already. Millions and millions by most accounts. I have zero desire to have to pay again, and have my kids pay, and their kids pay again and again and so on, simply to place his name on a sticker and no law I am aware of requires same. Name me any other yacht designer that claims such a right and collects from a class based on that.

Under that argument, based solely on his name he collects forever. And he gives back what? His name on a sticker?! Thanks, no. You know what name I will gladly pay for.... ILCA. Class dues. Fleet dues. Club dues. Gladly. Why? Because these are the people and groups that actually built and continue to support the class. Pay the class; hell yes. Pay Kirby for his design; hell yes. Pay Kirby again and forever and ever just to put his name on a sticker... Hell no. That is BS and in my opinion him sticking his hand where it don't belong. Maybe a judge will disagree but I doubt it and sure hope not (but yes, I think LPE has some liability on this matter to the point the class removed the Kirby name from the sticker).

 

[torrid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Astroturfing refers to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are designed to mask the sponsors of the message to give the appearance of coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.

Astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's agenda.[citation needed] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action.

 

[KiwiJoker]

Could you please just answer one simple question?

* What legally entitles Kirby to claim those "design rights" in your opinion? Is it a trademark, a patent, a copyright (on what), a construction manual or something else?

The whole point is that a contract is not valid if there is nothing given in return. He can't sell what he does not own any more. Please tell me what it is you think he still owns and I will take your poll!

He owns his trademark. The case appears to revolve around misuse, misappropriation, whatever of Bruce Kirby's trademark.

Wess, set aside all your characterisations of Kirby as money-grubbing, greedy, hand-in-your-pocket etc, and go back with an open mind and read the amended complaint. Here's the preamble:

"In order to establish the Kirby sailboat design as a standard class for international racing, Kirby reached agreements with the various sailboat builders who held rights to the Laser name as well as the international governing bodies that regulate competitive sailing. Under the terms of those agreements, the builders paid a royalty to Kirby and received the right to manufacture boats according to the Kirby sailboat design and uniform Construction Manual and to affix a plaque on the hull of each boat featuring Bruce Kirby's name and trademark and a unique hull/sail number.

"The plaque confirms that the boat was built according to the Kirby sailboat design and is authorized by Bruce Kirby. Only those boats manufactured under the various builder agreements and bearing the appropriate plaque were entitled to race in events sanctioned by the international governing bodies.

"This system worked to the mutual benefit of the builders, the governing bodies, Kirby and sailors worldwide for over 20 years until certain builders decided to breach their agreement by, among other things, ceasing royalty payments and transferring their rights without notice or consent of Kirby. Notwithstanding their breach, these builders continue using both the Kirby sailboat design and the Bruce Kirby name and trademark.

"The governing bodies named in this complaint compound this breach by continuing to issue hull plaques featuring the Bruce Kirby name and trademark, as well as a unique hull/sail number even though the boats were no longer made under Kirby's authorisation. As a result, boats currently distributed in interstate commerce and in Connecticut are counterfeit, and violate Kirby's trademark and publicity rights. Kirby sues for default of contract as well as counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, inducement to default on contract, and right of publicity under federal and state law."

It's pretty obvious that any actions taken by ISAF or ILCA can do nothing to damage or diminish the consideration owed to Kirby by the builders.

As I've said before this appears to turn on whether Kirby's builder agreements are still valid. The sale of rights to GS and their subsequent reacquisition by Kirby may prove to be a stumbling block. Of course we'll know a lot more when Kirby's neighbour Mr Rastegar files his formal legal rebuttal.


If I understand correctly, you've already read the full filing. For others, here's the link: http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Laser-ISAF-ILCA-action-brings-expanded-Bruce-Kirby-law-suit/109015

Thanks for a candid answer.

Yea, that is what I was expecting. As you say he trademarked his name on top of everything else. But thanks no, there is no law and no moral grounds for sailors having to pay forever and ever simply because he trademarked his name AFAIK. That has nothing to do with the boat, a patent on the boat, a construction manual for the boat, or a trademark on the boat.

I mean no disrespect to you when I say this but yes I did read it, yes I understand your POV and w respect that is a BS way for a guy to try to stick his hands into sailors pockets forever and I hope the judge throws the book at him!

We paid already. Millions and millions by most accounts. I have zero desire to have to pay again, and have my kids pay, and their kids pay again and again and so on, simply to place his name on a sticker and no law I am aware of requires same. Name me any other yacht designer that claims such a right and collects from a class based on that.

Under that argument, based solely on his name he collects forever. And he gives back what? His name on a sticker?! Thanks, no. You know what name I will gladly pay for.... ILCA. Class dues. Fleet dues. Club dues. Gladly. Why? Because these are the people and groups that actually built and continue to support the class. Pay the class; hell yes. Pay Kirby for his design; hell yes. Pay Kirby again and forever and ever just to put his name on a sticker... Hell no. That is BS and in my opinion him sticking his hand where it don't belong. Maybe a judge will disagree but I doubt it and sure hope not (but yes, I think LPE has some liability on this matter to the point the class removed the Kirby name from the sticker).

You still don't get it, do you. Assuming you've only ever bought one Laser, say for argument's sake in 1975, the only money Kirby lifted from your pocket was a tiny percentage of the purchase price of $899. No one seems to agree on the his exact percentage but at 2.5 per cent that was $26.95 . . . and that was 38 years ago. If you've bought a couple more Lasers since then, the money going into Kirby's pocket is still shy of a hundred bucks. And that's before he covers his costs for staying involved.

Whatever concerns you have about the escalating costs of Lasers, or class legal equipment, belong with the manufacturers, ISAF and ILCA. Blame whatever you like but, don't blame Kirby.

 

[JimC]

[snip]

It is already 4th of May Down Under and in Europe and what? Not a single word? Nothing? Nada?

[snip]

I somehow can't let go the feeling that the Sail-World site is a tiny bit of a propaganda

platform for Chris Caldecoat, the General Manager of PSA.

If I were simply a propaganda platform I think I'd be publishing a lot of little updates on the lines of "still no response from ILCA" "ISAF refuse to comment" etc etc. Goodness knows its not actually any suprise if they've had no comment whatsoever from ILCA as this is a body that won't even talk to their own members...
And yeah, for sure Sail World is Kirby and to a lesser extent PSAs fave place to place stories. After all they have to start somewhere, and thanks to the wonders of churnalism they don't need to bother to go round telling everyone.

 

[BalticBandit]

You still don't get it, do you. Assuming you've only ever bought one Laser, say for argument's sake in 1975, the only money Kirby lifted from your pocket was a tiny percentage of the purchase price of $899. No one seems to agree on the his exact percentage but at 2.5 per cent that was $26.95 . . . and that was 38 years ago. If you've bought a couple more Lasers since then, the money going into Kirby's pocket is still shy of a hundred bucks. And that's before he covers his costs for staying involved.

Whatever concerns you have about the escalating costs of Lasers, or class legal equipment, belong with the manufacturers, ISAF and ILCA. Blame whatever you like but, don't blame Kirby.

Exactly. Furthermore Wess keeps ducking the question: If LPE/Rastegar has not been paying royalties to BK for coming onto 3+ years, where has the "cost savings" gone? Why is Wess not pissed at LPE/Rastegar for pocketing those royalties without telling the sailors he was doing so?

Why didn't Rastegar discount his boats to reflect that he wasn't paying royalties?

 

[Jethrow]

I think Wess IS Rastegar! Sorry, should have prefaced it with spoiler alert.

C'mon, you know you're all thinking that...

 

[BalticBandit]

Well I asked him if he had any vested interest in LPE and he claimed he didn't. but I'm not sure I believe it

 

[Wess]

Well that is pretty stupid Jethrow since its already been addressed. I post using my name and its easy to prove I am not aligned with any of the parties.

You still don't get it, do you. Assuming you've only ever bought one Laser, say for argument's sake in 1975, the only money Kirby lifted from your pocket was a tiny percentage of the purchase price of $899. No one seems to agree on the his exact percentage but at 2.5 per cent that was $26.95 . . . and that was 38 years ago. If you've bought a couple more Lasers since then, the money going into Kirby's pocket is still shy of a hundred bucks. And that's before he covers his costs for staying involved.

Whatever concerns you have about the escalating costs of Lasers, or class legal equipment, belong with the manufacturers, ISAF and ILCA. Blame whatever you like but, don't blame Kirby.

Exactly. Furthermore Wess keeps ducking the question: If LPE/Rastegar has not been paying royalties to BK for coming onto 3+ years, where has the "cost savings" gone? Why is Wess not pissed at LPE/Rastegar for pocketing those royalties without telling the sailors he was doing so?

Why didn't Rastegar discount his boats to reflect that he wasn't paying royalties?

Didn't duck that question either. I think they are all bums and should be thrown out. BK, PSA, and LPE. As others have suggested the class is captive and being raped by many; alas some of them have legit rights (like the Laser trademark) that will stand up in court so we can't get rid of them all. We are stuck w LPE because they hold a legit right... the Laser trademark. That clear enough for you?

Joker - I do get. You may not like my conclusion but I am only using your argument. Under your argument Kirby's rights are based solely on his name. A trademark on his name. Not the boat, not the design of the boat, not a patent on the boat, not a trademark on the boat, not a copyright, etc... That is your argument. All I am saying is that its not legally (or morally) required that we pay him based on his name alone. You might not like it but there is nothing for me to get. Its your argument. If he had those other things (you know legit rights to the boat like the trademark to the boat name) I would be legally and morallly bond to pay da man. But again, under your argument he does not hold any such rights and instead is trying to be paid forever based solely on his name. He should have entitled his new boat the "Don't you know who I am!"

You say he "stayed involved." BS. The class was built by its members and volunteers and leaders. THEY were involved. Under your name argument I have every right to gladly pay them (the class) and not pay Kirby (forever and ever and ever).

Oh, BTW, I don't think your argument is right. I think BK has a somewhat stronger argument to make but I don't think its going to carry the day. My response was an opinion at what you claim the facts are.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

Here's the updated results of the survey to date:

1. Who do you support?
Bruce Kirby 94.4%
Laser Performance 6.9%

2. Do you think the the ILCA should support the Kirby position?
Yes 89.3%
No 11.7%

3. Do you think the ISAF should support the Kirby position?
Yes 89.3%
No 11.7%

4. Do you think that Laser Performance was right to stop paying Global Sailing royalties?
Yes 17.6%
No 85.1%

5. Do you support Bruce Kirby getting paid royalties as per the intent of the contracts with Laser builders?
Yes 90.5%
No 9.5%

So far, 75 have taken the survey.

I would appreciate persons who are interested in the Kirby situation, no matter what their views, to:
1) Complete the survey
2) Asking your contacts to complete the survey

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8P3TDZ2

 

[BalticBandit]

Hmm https://www.google.fr/search?q=wess+sailing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Google of Wess and Sailing gives me 1.7 million hits.

Sure you are using your "real name" uhuh

Note that you ignore that LPE got its right to the Trademark via... wait for it... CONTRACTS

Note that these aren't the only contracts in place. So LPE doesn't get to pick and choose which contracts it honors and which ones it does not.

Note also that this is the first time you have said "they all should be thrown out"... After all, if you were really worried about throwing ALL the bums out, you'd be arguing that the ILCA should change its name to the

International Lizzard Class Association, and start commissioning knockoffs of Kirby's original design and call them "Lizzerds" with a logo of a red snake with a starburst in its eye on the sail

And let LPE keep the Laser Trademark. Get someone in the PRC and Ukraine to build them for $2500.


But no- you instead don't say peep about Rastegar and his screwing over sailors by trying to profit from bankruptcy games with shell corporations until pressed.

And even then you defend his "trademark" even though getting around it would be trivial.

I smell a ra(s)t

 

[SimonN]

Didn't duck that question either. I think they are all bums and should be thrown out. BK, PSA, and LPE. As others have suggested the class is captive and being raped by many; alas some of them have legit rights (like the Laser trademark) that will stand up in court so we can't get rid of them all. We are stuck w LPE because they hold a legit right... the Laser trademark. That clear enough for you?

Not really. PSA has a legit right, because they own the Laser trademark as well. The difference is that you seem to want to side with the one party who doesn't have any interest in the class as a racing class with an association. Rastegar has actually stated that. LPE has a long history of poor supply, poor customer support and poor relations with the class association - they have even removed their sponsorships with the association. By contrast, most who have dealt with PSA would say they have done a pretty reasonable job, ensured supply in their territory, have given good customer support and until the class kicked them in the teeth, they supported the association.

Forgetting the legal niceties for one moment, because we don't know who is going to win or lose in court, can you please explain why you are siding with the party who morally is in the wrong and who has treated the class and its members so badly?