I can not understand this GREAT PROBLEM........
Cheers
8. Nobody here has yet heard anything about this from Company A or Company B. Nobody here knows what was in the agreement between these two companies. Nobody here knows the full nature of their dispute. Nobody here know whether Company A is in the right or Company B is in the right.
Nobody here knows how their dispute will eventually be settled. Nobody here knows what Company A and Company B will do if this rule change is passed. Nobody here knows what Company A and Company B will do if this rule change is not passed.
To make matters worse, I have a feeling you wont hear anything from Company A or B on the 'issues'. They've kept silent on the matter up to now, and there must be a reason for that.
So ultimately it looks like we will have to make a decision based on incomplete data.
To make matters worse, I have a feeling you wont hear anything from Company A or B on the 'issues'. They've kept silent on the matter up to now, and there must be a reason for that.
So ultimately it looks like we will have to make a decision based on incomplete data.
Should ILCA be stuck in the middle? Isn't this rightfully a legal dispute to be settled, if not directly between the two parties, through the legal system?
My concern is that GS obviously think what they purchased is worth a lot of money whilst LPE think is isn't (or they can't/wont pay for whatever reasons). Thus, if ILCA decide to exclude GS, given the large sums involved I doubt they would shrug their shoulders and write off their investment. I would suspect they would go to court only there is a risk that this time ILCA will be tangled-up in it all whether they like it or not.
....
As Tracy and others have said, legal issues are complex and without details nobody can really form an opinion about rights and wrongs. But when such large sums are involved, people "fight their corner".
Ian
I am no lawyer but I don't see a legal case being made against a private members club (ILCA) for changing its rules on what constitutes a piece of equipment that meets its eligibility for use rules. Surely the most likely legal case if ILCA wins is GS against LPE for infringement of IP rights (if that is possible) should ILCA allow LPE lasers to meet its revised criteria?
Up to now nobody has stated any convincing reason why we have to vote before September. If there is a reason, let's hear it. If not, I'm going to wait and see what happens in the interim and what new information comes out.
I tried to explain this whole issue to my wife over dinner tonight.
After I had finished she asked, " Why don't you just buy a different boat?"
But ILCA's case for voting Yes is based on the fact that their attorney's told them that patents have expired.
But the ILCA statements also says that ILCA has not seen the agreement/contracts.
If the guy who drew up the original docs says you are wrong and ILCA says we have not seen the docs, but we are right. - why should we believe you??
Does that ever stop anyone on this forum and thousands of other forums?That is a really good point. If the ILCA lawyers have not seen and do not know the content of these documents, how can they pass any sort of opinion on them and their validity ?
Ian
I guess you have the inside track on this whole deal.
What i do not understand is that Bruce Kirby who evidently sold Bruce Kirby Inc to Global Sailing, says there are no copyrights or patents - he seems to think he knows what is in the Kirby Inc agreements (you would figure he would).
But ILCA's case for voting Yes is based on the fact that their attorney's told them that patents have expired.
But the ILCA statements also says that ILCA has not seen the agreement/contracts.
Like I am a six year old, please explain, how do you know what you don't know?
If the guy who drew up the original docs says you are wrong and ILCA says we have not seen the docs, but we are right.
- why should we believe you??
ILCA seems to have published two different versions of the proposed new Fundamental Rule. The new rule is published at two places on the ILCA website. One is the request for online voting published a couple of weeks ago at http://www.laserinternational.org/rules2011. The other is in the LaserWorld March issue which is also circulated to members in paper form and includes a rule change voting form which can be returned by post to the class office.
As well as removing the need for a builder to have a “building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc” it appears that the class wants to change the wording that references the construction manual. But the two versions on the website have different wording in this part of the rule.
The old rule says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".
The new rule in LaserWorld says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".
And the new rule on the online ballot says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".
I'm not sure why ILCA wants to change the wording here anyway, but surely we need to use the same wording in every version of the ballot? If the new rule passes, which version would be valid if some members had voted for and against one version and other members had voted for and against another version? This may seem like a trivial issue (and I almost feel bad about raising it) but, given that this rule's validity could eventually be challenged in a court of law, isn't it important to avoid any confusion or ambiguity?
My own guess is that the intention was for us to vote for the version in LaserWorld, and the online ballot should have had "strike through" used on the words "accordance with" as it is in the LaserWorld version.
Is there some way to make both versions consistent without invalidating any votes already cast for and against a "wrong" version?
Hi.Good catch! And should be forwarded directly to Jeff Marin and Heini Wellmann. You are correct that the two should be identical.
The new rule in LaserWorld says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".
And the new rule on the online ballot says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".
My own guess is that the intention was for us to vote for the version in LaserWorld, and the online ballot should have had "strike through" used on the words "accordance with" as it is in the LaserWorld version.
Is there some way to make both versions consistent without invalidating any votes already cast for and against a "wrong" version?
My question for you, Tillerman is what position do you endorse? That pronouncement, if you make it, would carry quite a lot of weight in the Laser world...
Can you please go through these steps so we can have confidence in the thought processes.
In my opinion, the most important section of the ILCA argument is:
Each of the parties to the conflict has threatened ILCA in various ways – Global Sailing has said it may form a new class association for a “Kirby Sailboat”. LPE informed the ILCA that it intends to form its own “Laser” class. We may therefore end up with three different classes and may lose the Olympic status. The “one design / out of the box principle” would also be threatened.
So if that is the most important part of the argument, Tracy, could you put those "threats" into some context. A threat is usually of the form, "If you do X, (or don't do Y) then I will do Z." So what are X and Y?
For example, LPE has said it may form its own Laser class. Under what circumstances?
And Global Sailing may form a new class association. Under what circumstances?
Are these threats contingent in some way on passing or not passing this rule change?
I do agree that having two builders setting up two new classes is undesirable. Maybe I'm being dumb about this, but I am unclear how passing this rule change will make it more or less likely that those threats will be carried out. Shedding more light on this mystery may be the best way to help us understand why we should vote YES.
Not very ethical unless they rescind all votes already cast. People have already voted for one proposal as worded, and they are counting those votes towards a second proposal based upon different wording.Wow. The version on the online ballot has already been corrected. Well done ILCA office!
Not very ethical unless they rescind all votes already cast. People have already voted for one proposal as worded, and they are counting those votes towards a second proposal based upon different wording.
Can anybody be seriously suggesting it is OK to change the wording on a ballot in the middle of an election??
The only proper answer is to say OOPS and start over.
Certainly it is only necessary because it the proper way to do things.
And as it is the proper way to do things
it is the proper way to do it.
We could waste endless keyboard strokes debating the minutiae of various hypothetical situations. As I stated before, I am unaware of any contract/agreement between the IP rights holder and ILCA that has bearing on the proposed rule change. Until a convincing argument can be made to me of how ILCA can be subject to a builder's agreement that it is not party to (nor knows the details of) then I don't see the merits in wasting lots of time on irrelevant details. Perhaps you can answer the question I posed at the end of my previous post?
In my opinion, the most important section of the ILCA argument is:
Each of the parties to the conflict has threatened ILCA in various ways – Global Sailing has said it may form a new class association for a “Kirby Sailboat”. LPE informed the ILCA that it intends to form its own “Laser” class. We may therefore end up with three different classes and may lose the Olympic status. The “one design / out of the box principle” would also be threatened.Again, the bottom line: the IP rights holder and a trademark owning builder are locked in a dispute that, so far, is unresolvable and which threatens Laser sailing in its current form. ILCA's proposed rule change is intended to get the sailors out from being stuck in the middle. The aim is to let the two parties resolve their dispute in whatever manner ends up working for them while we, as sailors, continue on with Laser sailing.
One other possible result of this conflict is that due to uncertainty over ISAF and ILCA approval, there may not be a sufficient quantity of new Laser boats compliant with the ILCA Class Rules available in Europe and other countries in 2011 and beyond to satisfy the demand of its current and future ILCA members.
As my post above was quoted by someone who obviously failed to see it as an overstated attempt at humor I shall try again>>