What's the rush if the polls are open for 6 months? Don't we ILCA members "deserve the respect of a detailed and complete explanation" from both sides before we cast our votes?
ILCA should be in charge of defining the specifications.
Hi,
The most important required change is not included in the new wording.
All Lasers should be built following the same specifications and I don't care who builds them. A boat should be called a "Laser" only if it complies with clearly defined design and specifications. All boats should be measured before calling them Lasers. If they are in conformance with the class official measures, fine. Otherwise, correct them or change the name.
ILCA should be in charge of defining the specifications. Boats could be measured by any ISAF authority.
Regards,
Rodolfo
Growing up sailing Lightnings for about 20 years ( another ILCA), I don't see why having multiple boat builders and multiple sailmakers would be such a disaster. That is how that class has operated since time began and I'm pretty sure its still a strong class.
They have class measurers at major events.
IF someone at the club level had an underweight boat, it was either dealt with there or ignored. As no one was getting paid for their results at the local level, we got over it and did what we could to get more sailors on the water.
It resulted in lower costs for boats and equipment. The Opti class is exploding in size so it works. Personally, I would rather pay a bit more for a professional class measurer which would allow multiple builders, than a class controlled by builders who dictate to the members..
Many people believe that true one design status can only be preserved with the current status quo system. This philosophy is fear based rather than reality. The International Optimist Dinghy Association operates under very strict one design rules. Optis are every bit as strict a one design class as the laser class, yet there are literally hundreds of suppliers vying in competition to supply hulls, spars, blades, sails rigging etc. It's true competition not a monopoly.
Here is how it works, and it is really quite simple. IODA has class measurer's who approve the hull molds every builder uses. Every hull mold has a discreet numerical ID that is used to track boats later to verify conformity and grant a measurement certificate. ISAF issues a measurement plaque, the same as Laser currently does. The class has very strict hull construction specification that must be followed by every builder. Hulls are measured once for weight, and are then stickered. Hulls come from approved molds and have an ISAF plaque to certify it so nothing else needs to be measured. I am not aware of any problems in the 10 years I have been involved in the class.
The rest of the stuff? sails, blades and spars are all measured excatly one time only at a major class event and stickered. Once stickered you don't need to be measured EVER again unless you buy new blades, spars or a sail that were not previously stickered. Under our current system there is no way to verify if a competitors boat components are genuine or not because it is never measured or stickered. We "assume" the laser class blades, sails and spars are unadulterated and genuine.
It resulted in lower costs for boats and equipment. The Opti class is exploding in size so it works. Personally, I would rather pay a bit more for a professional class measurer which would allow multiple builders, than a class controlled by builders who dictate to the members.
Case in point. Our centerboards and rudders are pure garbage. They are made from what looks like bondo with a wire core. WTF is that? I don't know any other boats built that way. Heavy, weak and prone to chips and breakage. But we pay the same as if they had been made with epoxy. Our upper sections are crap and here in SF they are a constant source of failure, taking with it the sail as collaterol damage. And the sails, no question they are overpriced for what you get. But the builders work from a place of fear with laser class members and argue that if they can't have this bit of gravy on replacement parts they can't make it on new boats alone and they might go out of business. They need this subsidy. That's BS. Bad business model.
I am not under the mistaken belief that the builders who monoplize laser boat construction are getting rich. But I do believe that we can all have better quality equipment forthe same price. You don't have to look any further than the sucess of IOD 95 in the Opti class to prove it.
Comparing the cost of laser equipment to opti equipment is an apples to oranges comparison. The quality of opti gear is higher than laser gear. You cannot compare them. If you want the future market cost of a laser sail look no further than what Intensity charges. Less than half. It's a lot cheaper than our class approved sail. Opti sails are way better cloth and can last seasons of heavy use. Now which one is cheaper? My son had a North radial sail for his opti that he used heavily for 3 years and he still won races with it. Try that with a laser class sail. Spars? I have never seen a broken opti spar, EVER. It's not a matter of if you break a laser top section but when (here in SF). And those laser blades...what were they thinking?
There is a hidden cost in laser class equipment, you have to replace it more frequently because it is inferior quality.
Comparing the cost of laser equipment to opti equipment is an apples to oranges comparison. The quality of opti gear is higher than laser gear. You cannot compare them. If you want the future market cost of a laser sail look no further than what Intensity charges. Less than half. It's a lot cheaper than our class approved sail. Opti sails are way better cloth and can last seasons of heavy use. Now which one is cheaper? My son had a North radial sail for his opti that he used heavily for 3 years and he still won races with it. Try that with a laser class sail. Spars? I have never seen a broken opti spar, EVER. It's not a matter of if you break a laser top section but when (here in SF). And those laser blades...what were they thinking?
There is a hidden cost in laser class equipment, you have to replace it more frequently because it is inferior quality.
As we know, the major advantage to the current system is that when the boat leaves the factory we KNOW its a Laser - no need to bring in a measurer to verify each hull/spars/sail. Imagine having to do that for some 3000 boats/year! And its the job of the ILCA Technical Officer to periodically inspect each factory to insure compliance with the LCM (in fact, there is an inspection of a factory scheduled for next week).
Overnight Sail-World.com has spoken at length to representatives from Global Sailing and to Jeff Martin from the ILCA and now Bruce Kirby who is very much against the proposed change and will report on those conversations in the next 24 hours.
I wonder if Bruce Kirby ever considered turning over the legal rights to the Laser design to the ILCA rather than selling them to one of the builders. Certainly there is money invoved, but it would have preserved his legacy and the phenomenon of Laser racing that he created.
In the interest of promoting transparency by giving everyone all the available information, here is some information on some of the intellectual property related to the Laser.
The following copyrights are recorded at the US Copyright Office:
A copyright on a visual work of the Laser, titled "Laser / designed by Bruce Kirby" apparently owned by Bruce Kirby himself.
A copyright on the Laser Construction Manual apparently owned by Bruce Kirby Inc.
A copyright on a drawing of a Laser boat apparently assigned to Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc.
A copyright on some sort of design for the Laser apparently assigned to Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc.
Bruce Kirby also seems to have had US design patents on the design of the model radio controlled Laser (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=x_4oAAAAEBAJ&dq=D373156) and a swinging centerboard boat (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=jNY8AAAAEBAJ&dq=D304922).
The Laser trademark in the US (Reg. No.: 1038170) was originally registered by PERFORMANCE SAILCRAFT INC. CORPORATION CANADA 91 HYMUS BLVD. POINTE CLAIRE, QUEBEC CANADA but is apparently now owned by a holding company in Jersey KARAYA (JERSEY) LIMITED CORPORATION JERSEY 14 CONWAY STREET ST HELIER JERSEY.
There don't seem to have been any US design patents or Canadian industrial designs on the Laser itself. Also, it seems that the Laser is not registered under the relatively new Vessel Hull Design Protection Act: http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/list/index.html
So, there seem to be some registered copyrights in the US on the design of the Laser and, interestingly, Bruce Kirby Inc. seems to own the US copyright on the Laser Construction Manual. Of course, there could be other unregistered copyrights and trademarks, as well as unrecorded agreements that govern the intellectual property. There could also be IP rights registered in countries outside the US as well as common law rights to IP.
I am sure there is lots we do not know here, but I certainly would not hold Bruce Kirby at fault.
Bruce is a great guy and, unfortunately, he is not getting any younger. I would think that this was a business decision that was driven by the need to do some estate planning.
Maybe when looking between the two builders and ILCA, Bruce Kirby decided the Australian builder was the best of the three to protect sailor's interests.
I know patents expire, but I'm not sure about copyrights and trademarks. As long as they are actively protected, I think they can go on indefinitely.
On the surface following the class letter it may seem simple, but I wonder if it is REALLY a no brainer.
If we vote is YES what stops the legal Patent Holder from suing the builder making boats without an agreement? Seems to me a continuted leagal dispute following a vote would hold the whole issue up while we pay fees of lawyers through dues and ever increasing costs racing equipment? Bought a new sail lately?
3 FACTS I believe true: ILCA Class Rules, requires 3 core criteria builders must meet to make class-legal vessels:
1. manufacture the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual (owned by the class)
2. have the Laser trademark rights, (evidently these have been sold to builders over time by someone, Kirby?)
3. Have a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. (Bruce sold to Global Sailing so as a result they are Bruce Kirby)
Questions, can anyone shed light.
1. If GS owns the Kirby Patent (expired or not) can they issue building agreements?
2. If so why not to LPE? Assume i can figue, but maybe someone knows
3. More importantly why does LPE, a company making boats now NOT have an agreement? No agreement means the MANY who have bought and sail LPE boats are they not legal.
4. The Class owns the construction manual, why has the class sided with LPE, or at least against GS, especially since LPE are building without one of the 3 important criteria above?
5. Is it not fair for the owner of the patent rights to issue agreements?
6. as Diamon says in a post, If he is correct and LPE came from LP who merged w Vanguard, and if Vanguard held a buiders agreement why does it not carry over?
Lastly this is likely all about GS gaining greater market access: "Proper Course" reported an ad in SA by Global Sailing "looking for enthusiastic and well established marine dealers to become national or multi national distributors in the European region for the Bruce Kirby designed Olympic Sailing Dinghy."
Love to get a deeper understanding before people are called to a vote following a ‘fear’ letter.
snip...
If the choice was based on who could best protect the sailor's interest then why didn't he pick the third Laser builder, Takao Otani, the owner of PS Japan? I know this will break Gouvernail's heart, but there is no person on this planet who cares more deeply for Laser sailing and Laser sailors than Takao.
snip
One of the major builders of lasers would like to blow off the required intellectual property payments to the design rights holder.
In other words, the major builder, who owns the rights to use the name Laser but not the rights to build the design wishes to build knock off boats and call them Lasers.
That builder is threatening to quit building things called Lasers if the class refuses to allow use of boats for competition when the design fees for those boats have not been paid.
...
The major builder wants to have it both ways. The builder wants to control the use of the Laser logo and name with respect to the boat but they do not wish to pay for the rights to produce the actual product.
They seem to like intellectual property rights whjen those rights are theirs, but they want to ignore the intellectual laws when proper business behavior costs money.
My interpretation of the question upon which we are being asked to vote tells me we are being asked to work in collusion with intellectual property thieves..
Quite frankly, it seems quite simple from an IP point of view.
Prior to this mess, it was universally recognized that Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. owned the rights to the Laser design. This was recognized by all builders and the international class, and the required licensing fees and royalties were paid.
So now that the IP rights have been sold, suddenly they hold no meaning? I don't think so.