I am not a lawyer and each court has its own rules, so I may not understand what is going on, but it looked like a status report was extended to July 15 (the report on the Rule 26(f)conference), not ICLA and ISAF's response deadlines.Pretty sure the deadline was extended to July 15.
Frankly, looking at their response makes the changing to the Torch look more valid. Though if we were to change, then we'd expect a lawsuit from Ragestrar.
The whole "Introduction" section seems to be not for the court, but LPs first public statement. Their "coming out party", if you will. Much of it is contradictory.
First they disingenuously dismiss Kirby as merely Ian Bruce's draftsman. Yet he was paid royalties for close to 40 years. They claim the design rights have "long expired", but cite the very contracts to which they were a party. They do much to outline a conspiracy between Global Sailing, PSA, and BK. That may actually have some sway with the jury.
I am not a lawyer and each court has its own rules, so I may not understand what is going on, but it looked like a status report was extended to July 15 (the report on the Rule 26(f)conference), not ICLA and ISAF's response deadlines.
I suggest that you look very carefully at the 1983 agreement between Bruce Kirby, BKI, ILCA, ISAF (IYRU) and Laser International Holdings (referred to in the document as "Trade Mark Holder") that was an exhibit in Kirby's original complaint. It defines the Laser as the Kirby Sailboat and goes on to give Laser International Holdings the sole rights to approve sail makers for the Laser (which is the Kirby Sailboat).
Thus, according to my (inexpert and non-lawyerly) reading I think that Kirby cannot get sails made for the Torch without violating this agreement. Ouch!
Also, it makes no mention of the Laser trademark being owned by different companies in different countries. The document suggests that the sole owner of the Laser trademark (presumably worldwide) is Laser International Holdings.
However, I think that I would disagree with you a little about what drives the concept. I think that it is more than the boat -- rather it is people, rallying behind the one design/one manufacturer concept and the organization. The organization creates the venues for people to race their lasers, without this it would be nothing. That's why the 1983 (and presumably earlier agreements) include the ICLA and IYRU/ISAF.
In Australian case Yachting Australia (and I suspect it's the same with ISAF), are completely out of touch with the club level sailors. They have forgotten that sailing is meant to be fun and not just about winning medals or major titles or ocean racing. It's only a matter of time here before another national organisation begins to represent the people who sail dinghies.
Pass, no thanks. Then we'll get to the point of who makes the best equipment and people will go shopping for it. I know this already happens at the elite level to some extent, but they still end up using boats provided to them at major regattas, equalling their playing field again. We don't need people shopping around at club / district level, because of the harm it will do to the "one design" concept of the class, which has been the thing that held the class together for the last 40 years........ In an ideal world the class would control the trademark (and oddly Kirby might actually cause the trademark Laser trademark to have no commercial value such that the class could use it) set a spec and then any builder would be free to make and sell and compete to produce the cheapest boats to that spec. Lower cost means improved access and more club sailors that can control their own destiny.
Pass, no thanks. Then we'll get to the point of who makes the best equipment and people will go shopping for it. I know this already happens at the elite level to some extent, but they still end up using boats provided to them at major regattas, equalling their playing field again. We don't need people shopping around at club / district level, because of the harm it will do to the "one design" concept of the class, which has been the thing that held the class together for the last 40 years.
Yes, the same family have been involved in the building for decades. I think we've only had the two builders since production first started here.
I've also sailed many classes, everything from development classes, limited development, quasi one design, to strict one design. My experiences with one design classes are different from yours, in the points you raise.I hear you but a benefit of having sailed in a number of different classes is that you see the pros and cons of different structures. For the average club racer there are OD classes you can think of I am sure that use a structure different than Laser and similar to what I have described, and it works fine with a benefit of older boats that are still competitive and new boats that are affordable.
What we seem to have here is a bunch of greedy people on all sides of the design/build/market table (I don't mean ISAF or ILCA) all trying to grab as much cash as they can any way they can and its us - the sailors - that pay. I love the Laser - likely more for the people and fleet than the boat - but equally enjoy other OD classes, with fun fair racing across a range of boat ages and manufacturers, that don't suffer from the problems (costs or other) that seem to come from our structure.
Tracy has explained why the class is expensive several years ago, it's not the percentages people are taking, but the number of levels in supply chain and that at various major events, brand new boats are supplied.
We pay a lot more than you guys, we are after all a small market. But PSA actually builds a quality product, employ qualified boat builders both on the floor and in management. They are concerned with quality (although that can always be improved in any environment).It can be done then as long as you get the model right and do not get greedy.
No to say they have not diversified a little as I believe they distribute RS boats (which are also SMOD like the Laser).
I've also sailed many classes, everything from development classes, limited development, quasi one design, to strict one design. My experiences with one design classes are different from yours, in the points you raise.
Tracy has explained why the class is expensive several years ago, it's not the percentages people are taking, but the number of levels in supply chain and that at various major events, brand new boats are supplied.
We pay a lot more than you guys, we are after all a small market. But PSA actually builds a quality product, employ qualified boat builders both on the floor and in management. They are concerned with quality (although that can always be improved in any environment).
Still no more documents on the docket, it looks like ILCA and ISAF are planning to ignore the Connecticut court.What is missing however, are replies from ICLA and ISAF. I thought that these were due June 14. It's possible that they filed on paper and the filings will take a day or 2 to show up on Pacer, or they decided that, as UK and Isle of Man companies, a Connecticut court can do nothing to affect them.
Yea, I am kinda in agreement with Jeffers on the second line. Not so sure this helps, as opposed to hurts, the typical club level race.
On the first part maybe we are just thinking about different levels of sailors but be it Opti, Snipes, 420s, etc... it just seems like paths other than SMOD can benefit the club level folks. I agree it might be less than ideal for the folks at a professional/semi-professional level but really that seems to bde aiding the top 10% at the expense of the other 90%.
Depends what you call better. All the boats world wide are built within tolerance and by the builders manual, but the PSA boats are built within tighter tolerances than those specified and this leads to consistency between all the boats built. Having people with expertise that care about the finished product also means that things are done properly.Are the Lasers built by PSA objectively better than those built by LPE? If so, then the SMOD model has failed.
I disagree with the assertion that ILCA's rule change is not neutral. Perhaps ILCA has no way to be neutral, but without the rule change, what are ILCA's options? Either ILCA can ignore the notices from BKI that the builder agreement is no longer in place (which has the same effect as the rule change), or cut off LPE from the supply of plaques and sail numbers. Clearly, the latter option would define the outcome by pushing LPE into bankruptcy.While the rule change is in effect, the ILCA continue to support Laser Performance's position
I don't see anywhere in the 1983 agreement that ICLA is restricted to providing plaques and sail numbers to authorized builders. The agreement appears to be silent on this, presumably because BK was supposed to enforce the builder agreements.The ILCA have an agreement saying that Kirby & Co must approve Laser builders.
I disagree with the assertion that ICLA's rule change is not neutral. Perhaps ICLA has no way to be neutral, but without the rule change, what are ICLA's options? Either ICLA can ignore the notices from BKI that the builder agreement is no longer in place (which has the same effect as the rule change), or cut off LPE from the supply of plaques and sail numbers. Clearly, the latter option would define the outcome by pushing LPE into bankruptcy.
I don't see anywhere in the 1983 agreement that ICLA is restricted to providing plaques and sail numbers to authorized builders. The agreement appears to be silent on this, presumably because BK was supposed to enforce the builder agreements.
We can say a lot more about the 'advice' the ILCA had received in 2011 and ILCA's resulting position, however we can now say with the benefit of that hindsight whether or not the continuation of the rule change is a good move. In spite of Tracy's summary, the ILCA and others called this position neutral. I agree with Tracy - it is not neutral.Obviously the proposed rule change benefits LP over Global Sailing and certainly gives the appearance that ILCA has "chosen a side." In effect, it has, but I can assure you that it is not out of love for LaserPerformance. As stated above, when push came to shove it was determined, through the best legal advice that ILCA could get, that if the goal was to preserve Laser sailing as we know it then the trademarks trumped all. If we, as sailors, want to continue to sail the same boats we have now, including calling them Lasers with a starburst logo, then the proposed modification of the Fundamental Rule was deemed the best course of action.
As far as I can tell from the filings, ICLA has continued to issue plaques to LPE, ignoring the requests from BK to stop. Changing the rules only formalizes this. Perhaps it would be better to state that if ICLA had stopped recognizing the boats built by LPE, LPE would probably go bankrupt.Laser Performance needs the rule change or they will go bankrupt? I've heard this several times over the last couple of years. Remember that the rule change was not put into effect until 23 April, 2013, seven weeks ago. It would appear that laser Performance did not go bankrupt - so you are sure that it is clear that Laser Performance would be pushed into bankruptcy? I'm not so sure and have hindsight on my side.
It's right at the beginning of the ISAF agreement. Point 20 from Kirby's amended civil action nicely summarizes:
"20. The ISAF Agreement governed the production, distribution, and management of Kirby Sailboats approved for officially sanctioned sailboat races worldwide. Section “Agreement 1” specifies that all authorized builders of Kirby Sailboats must have a license from Kirby."
That wasn't what I was trying to say. Rather that Kirby's rights under the agreement with respect to ISAF and ICLA are not very strong.I don't see Kirby being in a weaker position because of a potential violation with the Torch.
What I see is that the ICLA is in a position of having to decide if Kirby's termination of a builder is valid. How can ICLA know if royalty payments have been made or not? Especially if royalty payments were made to Global Sailing? How does Kirby prove the absence of a payment?I contend that he ILCA have taken a position by saying that they recognize a builder, they recognize Kirby's right to terminate that builder however believe by changing a class rule that somehow releases them to issue plaques and releases Laser Pacific from their obligations under the various agreements.
The claim that royalties have been overpaid is surprising. How could LPE's employees not know how much to pay after decades of shipping Lasers? Yes, know that LPE is not the same legal entity as the original builder, but I assume the same people were involved.I agree with you assessment about the royalties though would be surprised if Kirby had made a fundamental mistake in the calculation of royalties. I expect that this is news to Kirby as well and this may just be a tactic of Laser Performance to add confusion and give legitimacy to their position of not paying the royalties. If successful, that confusion certainly undermines the strength of the termination on the basis of royalties not paid.
That wasn't what I was trying to say. Rather that Kirby's rights under the agreement with respect to ISAF and ICLA are not very strong.
What I see is that the ICLA is in a position of having to decide if Kirby's termination of a builder is valid. How can ICLA know if royalty payments have been made or not? Especially if royalty payments were made to Global Sailing? How does Kirby prove the absence of a payment?
The claim that royalties have been overpaid is surprising. How could LPE's employees not know how much to pay after decades of shipping Lasers? Yes, know that LPE is not the same legal entity as the original builder, but I assume the same people were involved.