Class Politics All about to kick off....

Doesn't bode especially well for a settlement anytime soon, but keeps the status quo functioning until the case is heard I guess? Technically you can't buy parts for the season with out a "builder"
 
Doesn't bode especially well for a settlement anytime soon, but keeps the status quo functioning until the case is heard I guess? Technically you can't buy parts for the season with out a "builder"

At least until the dealer's stock runs out.. not like we haven't already had that issue with lp as a legitimate builder.
 
And in breaking news... ISAF just approved the change to the ILCA Fundamental Rule which was was passed by Laser Class members in 2012. The amended rule allows ISAF and ILCA to approve Laser builders who have the right to use the Laser trademark, even if they are not approved by Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc.

http://www.sailing.org/news/34222.php

And ILCA has also made their position a little clearer
http://www.laserinternational.org/info/statementfromtheinternationallaserclassassociation

Will it come down to who has the deeper pockets to keep up the fight ?
 
ISAF and ILCA have taken steps to assure the uninterrupted supply of class legal Laser brand sailboats around the world. This includes making newly designed ISAF plaques available to all the current ISAF and ILCA approved manufacturers of the Laser dinghy in accordance with the ILCA class rules.

Sounds like they took Kirby's name off the new ISAF plaques.
 
How did the Laser logo ownership get separated from the hull design? Obviously a major mistake of Kirby's. The "brand" is often worth much more than what they make.
 
And Bruce Kirby responds...

“The ISAF announcement confirms what we feared. It would appear ISAF has been complicit all along in the efforts of Laser Performance and ILCA to steal the Kirby Sailboat design by refusing to pay royalties, issuing plaques to terminated builders, and now using a flimsy pretext to alter the Laser class rules and purport to allow builders to make the Kirby Sailboat without Bruce Kirby’s authorization.


“The only path forward that does not require a Court Order is the Kirby Torch. We remain available to negotiate with ISAF and/or ILCA if either or both of them is willing to meet.”
 
And in breaking news... ISAF just approved the change to the ILCA Fundamental Rule which was was passed by Laser Class members in 2012. The amended rule allows ISAF and ILCA to approve Laser builders who have the right to use the Laser trademark, even if they are not approved by Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc.

http://www.sailing.org/news/34222.php

I think ISAF and ILCA might just have killed the class. To have come to a working arrangement regarding the Torch, etc. would have helped recover from the disaster of the last few years. If this were happening in the UK I would expect Kirby to take out an injunction against ILCA/ISAF/LPE to stop them building the boat with immediate effect - but who knows what may happen in the US.

They (ISAF/ILCA) have made a bad situation (with light at the end of the tunnel) into a complete disaster that had a great solution they have mostly closed-off. And ILCA are meant to be working on behalf of the membership!!!

Ian
 
There are more than just Purple and Sailboats you can get sails from. We bought a sail and top section from Guildford Marine earlier in the year in their sale (20% of everything in the shop)
 
There are more than just Purple and Sailboats you can get sails from. We bought a sail and top section from Guildford Marine earlier in the year in their sale (20% of everything in the shop)

Interesting - it's a pity they're not listed on the LaserPerformance "Dealer Locator".
 
I think ISAF and ILCA might just have killed the class. To have come to a working arrangement regarding the Torch, etc. would have helped recover from the disaster of the last few years. If this were happening in the UK I would expect Kirby to take out an injunction against ILCA/ISAF/LPE to stop them building the boat with immediate effect - but who knows what may happen in the US.

They (ISAF/ILCA) have made a bad situation (with light at the end of the tunnel) into a complete disaster that had a great solution they have mostly closed-off. And ILCA are meant to be working on behalf of the membership!!!

Ian

Disagree. They just saved the class and its about time.

Nobody is stopping you from buying a Torch, or Kirby from making one. Go ahead, buy it and enjoy it.

Equally, Kirby sold the rights (trademark) to Laser and should not be trying to stop the class from continuing or extract money after he sold his rights away. How many bites at the aple does he get? If I sell you my car can I take it back and demand more payment yet again and again? In my opinion I think its fair to conclude the neither the class, ILCA or ISAF took anything from Kirby at all. Maybe they actually went out of their way to continue to give things away even when there was little or no basis too do so because they wanted to avoid a fight. Think about it for a moment. If Kirby had a strong argument that they thought would prevail in court, why on earth would they be on this path. It would negatively impact their ability to work with any other class/designer/builder.
 
Disagree. They just saved the class and its about time.

Nobody is stopping you from buying a Torch, or Kirby from making one. Go ahead, buy it and enjoy it.

Equally, Kirby sold the rights (trademark) to Laser and should not be trying to stop the class from continuing or extract money after he sold his rights away. How many bites at the aple does he get? If I sell you my car can I take it back and demand more payment yet again and again? In my opinion I think its fair to conclude the neither the class, ILCA or ISAF took anything from Kirby at all. Maybe they actually went out of their way to continue to give things away even when there was little or no basis too do so because they wanted to avoid a fight. Think about it for a moment. If Kirby had a strong argument that they thought would prevail in court, why on earth would they be on this path. It would negatively impact their ability to work with any other class/designer/builder.

Not correct.

The Trademark (i.e. the right to call a small sailing dinghy a 'Laser') are not controlled by BKI.

The rights to use the design and the copyright to the construction manual ARE owned by BKI. This is common place in several classes that I am aware of the the UK (the SB20 (formerly SB3), the Blaze and the 2000 (formerly Laser 2000)).

It is worth mentioning that the 2000 and SB20 also split with LPE recently over non-payment of royalties. In these cases the relevant CAs worked with the design rights holder(s) to move away from LPE and set up their own builder.

I am also told similar moves are afoot for the Laser Vago.

So in summary LPE can build a small dinghy and call it a Laser. What they should not be doing is building it using the construction manual and infringing on the design rights of the rights holder without paying the relevant royalty.

To compare this to another area of leisure. This is similar to who authors and music artist get their income. They get a small 'royalty' for each book/track/album that gets sold. When someone comes along and starts producing their material without their consent they get not royalty. The difference is that these people have things like the MPIAA to back them up. There is nothing like this in place for sailing (except the ISAF who have chosen to go the other way and set a worrying precedent IMO).
 
Hey Guys, Just thought I would post something from a slightly different perspective. I have been out of the class for 10 years now. Previously raced for 10 years, served on association committee and really enjoyed my time in the class. Recently I been thinking about getting back into Lasers.
I have to say that all of this talk of class splits, litigation etc is not filling me with any confidence to go out and buy a new boat. I think there would be others similar to me.
Cheers

Peter
 
I would not worry about that too much.

The Torch have said all boat with ISAF plaques will be class legal Torch dinghies so if they win your boat will be fine.

If Laser wins then nothing more to say.

Persoanlly I would not buy a brand new boat right now anyway they are far too expensive for what you get.
 
Not correct.

The Trademark (i.e. the right to call a small sailing dinghy a 'Laser') are not controlled by BKI.

The rights to use the design and the copyright to the construction manual ARE owned by BKI. This is common place in several classes that I am aware of the the UK (the SB20 (formerly SB3), the Blaze and the 2000 (formerly Laser 2000)).

It is worth mentioning that the 2000 and SB20 also split with LPE recently over non-payment of royalties. In these cases the relevant CAs worked with the design rights holder(s) to move away from LPE and set up their own builder.

I am also told similar moves are afoot for the Laser Vago.

So in summary LPE can build a small dinghy and call it a Laser. What they should not be doing is building it using the construction manual and infringing on the design rights of the rights holder without paying the relevant royalty.

To compare this to another area of leisure. This is similar to who authors and music artist get their income. They get a small 'royalty' for each book/track/album that gets sold. When someone comes along and starts producing their material without their consent they get not royalty. The difference is that these people have things like the MPIAA to back them up. There is nothing like this in place for sailing (except the ISAF who have chosen to go the other way and set a worrying precedent IMO).


Sorry but we disagree.

We are both saying the same thing in that the tradmark was sold (for certain territories) by BK and LPE now controls it. That was BK's bite at the apple and his rights.

In my opnion the construction manual argument is a red herring (attemped second or third bite at the apple) and obviously LPE, ILCA, and ISAF all thought so. Yes you can copyright a cookbook on hopw to make ham sandwich. And I can't make an EXACT copy of that book. I can however make and sell and eat as many ham sandwiches as I want and shall do so is what is happening here. If you try to hold up a contract that says I need to pay you a copyright fee on your ham sandwich cookbook in oder to make, sell or eat my ham sandwiches there is a very reasonable chance the courts will say no because there has to be valid consideratio for the contract to be valid and in my opnion that does not seem to be so here and again all three parties (LPE, ISAF, and ILCA) that have no vested intrest to agree - agreed!

Anyway, if the courts will decide but I think BK tried to take too many bites at the apple.
 
They (ISAF/ILCA) have made a bad situation (with light at the end of the tunnel) into a complete disaster that had a great solution they have mostly closed-off. And ILCA are meant to be working on behalf of the membership!!!

Ian

Whichever side you take on this issue you can't really argue that ILCA aren't listening to their membership in making this latest move. When members were asked to vote on this rule change, the proposed change won with 89.3% of the vote. ISAF just approved the change and ILCA put it into effect.

What ILCA did this week is EXACTLY what their members asked for.
 
BK had a contract with LP to pay a royalty on each boat. They paid that royalty until they, LP, decided not to. The contract did not end. LP should pay BK and get the class moving forward again. If they don't like paying royalties, negotiate a new contract or sell the building rights to someone else.
 
For those of you that think the Torch is going to be able to be launched without a lawsuit from LPE, I also have some prime swamp land to sell. This issue is going to be a disaster for the class unless cooler heads prevail.

My humble prediction is this: Lawsuits are going to fly around and as posted a few pages ago, some lawyers are going to make a fair amount of money. No progress is going to be made, and the market is slowly going to be starved for new boats and parts. I agree that it won't kill the class, but may wound it to a degree that will affect it for many years to come. With the other options out there for the kids that are more "extreme" and wider boats like the MC (of which I own one of those as well, and that class is growing) for the older sailors, the Laser has more competition than ever before. What a selling point for a competitive fleet, "Hey, the Laser is a great boat, owned one myself, but the class and builders are in this lawsuit, you can't get class legal parts or new boats, they are so messed up. Say, have you see the new XYZ123 I just bought?"

Bottom line, I tend to agree with BK on this lawsuit. The research I've done on LPE makes me think they are a shady company, and the driving force behind this whole mess (and some inept leadership on the class level). IMHO, BK is most likely right and given a good attorney, will prevail. It's just going to get very ugly before it gets any better! You are dealing with people with bruised egos and money. That combination is usually a bad thing. Reminds me of a comment that a former vendor of mine said when we had a dispute, "Jack, I'm going to sue your ass, and who knows I would win if I sued you or not, probably not. However, you have pissed me off and I have a damn good lawyer that I pay a lot of money to. Do you?" I swallowed my pride (knowing I was right), and we settled before it got out of hand...

It's my hope that cooler heads will prevail. I will also wager that the Torch will never see the light of day (either through cease and desist legal action or it's just a proactive move by BK to scare the crap out of LPE).

Great read though. I've enjoyed the opinions of everyone.
 
If, as is suggested by the ISAF "news" thing on their site, the plaque is modified to remove the Bruce Kirby reference, then I suspect BK would then say that only those Lasers with a plaque including BK would be valid for the Torch class. And were that to happen, anybody buying a new boat before the court case is resolved might end up with a Laser (defunct if BK wins) that could not be sailed in the Torch class. So it would be a big risk buying such a Laser as in a year it might be worthless (at least above club level). Of course BK might not win and it would still be a Laser and fine - but a lot of money risked on something that at the moment looks like BK and the Torch will prevail.

I cannot understand what is going on at the ISAF and ILCA. They should be acting in the interests of people who sail - but seem to be behaving like their pride has been dented. They need to grow-up and remember what this is all about.

The uncertainty and the escalation the ISAF/ILCA seem to be starting is just madness (like stage in rutting season). They should be talking to BK and thinking about people who sail this boat, trying to cone to a sensible solution for all - not escalating). It seems to me that so far BK has acted both in the interests of those sailing the boat as well as to defend his own rights. That the ISAF never acted on the rule change vote and suddenly acted when a legal case was started shows the madness. If it was right to change the rules it should have been done ages ago when first put to the ISAF. If it was not right to make the rule change then it should not be made now. Either way I cannot see that what the ISAF have does has any justification and will likely mean more legal cases are started (as BK defends his rights). Hence my bad situation (with light at the end of the tunnel) has been made much worse.

Ian
 
1017 ‘yes’ votes (89.3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10.7%), With over 15,000 members organized in over 100 countries...

if you divide 1039/15000 you come up with 7.5% of the voting population..
 
1017 ‘yes’ votes (89.3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10.7%), With over 15,000 members organized in over 100 countries...

if you divide 1039/15000 you come up with 7.5% of the voting population..

(Edit: USA182772 Sorry, I misinterpreted your post - so below is not so much in response but dragging up an old argument - that resulted in my departing the Class Association - something I am unhappy about because I have always been a member of the Class Assn. for boats I sail).

Quite a few people had issues with the biased way the "question" was asked. When you have a proper vote the question should be neutral rather that sort of "You want the Class to survive don't you ?". That the ILCA asked a biased question and pushed people towards the Yes vote is disgraceful and I suspect the outcry had something to do with the guy in charge going (it should have anyway). I don't dispute the result, just the way the question was asked (including background supporting information provided and NOT PROVIDED despite repeated requests from members).

But the ISAF are the ones who have dug themselves a big deep hole because, as I commented earlier, if it was right to approve the change then they should have approved it when the ILCA put it to them. If wrong to change they should have done what they did. And a legal action brought by somebody should not change the right or wrong for the rule change. But is implementing the change now they are in my opinion saying "we thought the rule change was wrong but now we are being taken to court that change might protect us so ...".
 
Remember when the rule change was first proposed, Kirby had technically sold the rights to the Australian builders. They were trying some sneaky stuff themselves, apparently trying to set up their own distribution network in North America. Yes Kirby bought the design rights back before the end of the voting period, but there was still not a wealth of information.

And yes, I voted for the rule change.
 
What happened in the backroom of ISAF?
First 'NO' to the Change in the Fundamental Rule
And then, a few months later, 'YES'

Are the minutes of these meeting(s) available to outsiders? If somebody could come up with them, it would be insightful, I imagine.
 
What happened in the backroom of ISAF?
First 'NO' to the Change in the Fundamental Rule
And then, a few months later, 'YES'

Are the minutes of these meeting(s) available to outsiders? If somebody could come up with them, it would be insightful, I imagine.

Not so. Come on, you have to dig a little deeper. They did not say "no." They just didn't say yes. In retrospect it looks like what they were doing was cutting BK some slack and hoping he would find some middle ground.

Just like the direction to stop issuing plaques. Turns out that is stop issuing plaques with BK's name on it. Can't blame them. Nothing requires BK's name to be on it AFAIK. Remember, BK's rights were wrapped up in the trademark. That was his to sell. Its now owned by LPE.
 
Nothing requires BK's name to be on it AFAIK. Remember, BK's rights were wrapped up in the trademark. That was his to sell. Its now owned by LPE.

From BK's "complaint" he says he has/owns the "Construction Manual", "production tooling", "moulds" and "plugs" (in that the court documentation (page 21, section E of the complaint document) BK is requiring that the Defendants forfeit and return to Kirby those items. So can you build a Laser without the Construction Manual? 'cos I thought it was a critical part of the Laser class rules. And them keeping a photocopy or "writing their own identical version" could not work either (different "construction Manual" and it is a different boat and (assuming Kirby wins the case) same "Construction Manual" would be contrary to court ruling It would seem to me that he is claiming ownership of items other than any trademark.

Ian
 
From BK's "complaint" he says he has/owns the "Construction Manual", "production tooling", "moulds" and "plugs" (in that the court documentation (page 21, section E of the complaint document) BK is requiring that the Defendants forfeit and return to Kirby those items. So can you build a Laser without the Construction Manual? 'cos I thought it was a critical part of the Laser class rules. And them keeping a photocopy or "writing their own identical version" could not work either (different "construction Manual" and it is a different boat and (assuming Kirby wins the case) same "Construction Manual" would be contrary to court ruling It would seem to me that he is claiming ownership of items other than any trademark.

Ian

Yep, saw that and agree. Guessing its small potatoes (tooling, molds, plugs) if they were not sold w business originally. Was curious what LPE would say about that.

IMHO, the construction manual (and the BK name trademark) is the meat of this but I doubt their value in eyes of the law given what I can figure and the ISAF and ILCA actions aligning with LPE (also that PSA had these so-called rights, did not want to take on the fight and so sold(?)/gave them back(?)/for refund(?) to Kirby).

As for making a copy of a Laser that would measure in without reading the construction manual... yea, I am pretty sure that would not be hard. And I think(?) the class rule that ISAF allowed just opened the door to that.

All in my best guess/opinion...

Otherwise known as ramblings of an...

Old Dude!
 
Here is a statement, straight from the horse's mouth. I think it's worth repeating verbatim.

IT’S THE BOAT THAT MATTERS, NOT THE NAME
In an attempt to rescue the Laser Class from its downhill course of the past few years I have reluctantly decided that a name change, or re-branding is necessary. During the past three or four years dealers have had difficulty getting timely delivery of boats, and in particular, of parts. We have had calls and e-mails from various parts of the world asking if there is anything that can be done to save the Laser. To give some idea how critical the situation with Lasers has become (as of mid-April, 2013) there is a boat shop in Toronto which has 52 American-built Lasers that have been brought in for repairs of various kinds.
Laser Performance in both Europe and North America own the name LASER and the sunburst symbol on the sail, but they don’t own the boat. Because I am owed quite a bit of money by these firms in unpaid design royalties it has been possible for me to terminate their building rights at both factories.
What the Laser sailing public must try to get their heads around is that it is not the name of the boat that matters, It is the boat itself - that 13’ 10” bit of fiberglass and aluminum that provides us with untold pleasure. I love the name Laser. I was there in the beginning when then builder Ian Bruce came up with it. I have lived with it and revered it for more than 40 years…but I know that if the boat is to be saved it must have a new name.
Laser Performance were terminated as builders last year, but the lawsuit was filed this year because production of the Laser unlawfully continued after termination. The International Laser Class Association (ILCA) in lock step with the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) participated in this unlawful manufacture by refusing to stop issuing Laser Performance the stick-on ISAF plaques that are attached to the inside of the aft face of the cockpit, identifying the boat as an authorized Kirby Sailboat permitted to be used in Laser class and ISAF sanctioned events.
I have tried to work with ILCA and ISAF on rebranding the boat, but they refused and demanded instead that I get a Court Order. So they are named in the lawsuit. After filing of the lawsuit, ISAF initially asked ILCA to stop issuing ISAF plaques to Laser Performance, but I don’t yet know if ILCA complied. In a new twist, ISAF and ILCA now seem prepared to issue a new version of the plaque to Laser Performance which removes my name from my own design. This is not only against the Laser Construction Manual which ISAF and ILCA claim to hold Builders to, thereby insuring a true one-design class, but also reveals their true strategy to steal my design. The irony in all of this is that by continuing to provide plaques to Laser Performance against my wishes and our contracts, both ISAF and ILCA continue to collect money from Laser Performance for every boat made even while I am not being paid the design royalty.
In any event, all builders of the Laser have been terminated and the Kirby Sailboat will only be lawfully built under the Kirby Torch brand. This does not violate any prior agreement I have with ISAF and ILCA since they explicitly only relate to manufacture of the Kirby Sailboat under the Laser brand. ILCA and ISAF have trumped up a “breach” in order to push through the “Fundamental Rule” change designed to excuse nonpayment of my royalty by Laser Performance. Their actions make their intentions clear: Steal the Kirby Sailboat from its designer.
New builders with stellar sailing and boat building credentials have signed agreements to follow the Construction Manual so that new Kirby Torches will be exactly like old Lasers, and both boats will be able to compete side by side under the rules of the Kirby Torch class. We have asked ILCA to set up the Kirby Torch class, but they continue to ignore us and the Torch even though there are no longer any licensed builders for the Laser. Go figure?!
So if you agree that what we are doing is in the best interests of the boat, please urge ILCA and your district Laser class organizations to cooperate with us for the sake of sailors throughout the world.
This is your boat. It’s my baby, but it’s your boat. With a simple change of the name we can offer a better quality product, consistent delivery and the steady supply of parts. The Kirby Torch Builders and Class Association will serve sailors—that is our promise to you and the reason I am taking on this fight. The fight is about pulling the boat out of the swamp it has been dragged into and handing it back to the sailors cleaned up and ready to move ahead for another 50 years. I have been disappointed with the treatment handed to me by those who should be firmly on the side of the sailors, and so at the age of 84 I am throwing all my energy into meetings, phone calls and e-mails to save the little boat.
Please join me in this endeavor and support the Torch. I can no longer race with you, but I can cheer you on.

Bruce Kirby
Rowayton, Ct. U.S.A.
April 24, 2013


Still waiting to hear something, ANYTHING, from the other end of the horse.
 
What about defamation of the ILCA representatives? These are people we know and have sailed on the course with. Good people. People that are NOT geting rich off this and instead dedicating time and effort to help us - the sailors. Amazing how fast some will throw them under the bus. Wow.
 
Personally, I can't understand why anyone is supporting LPE, many on this forum for the last two or three years have been complaining about the lack of spare parts including sails. Sitting watching these comments it's been pretty obvious that LPE is in financial difficulty. LPE needs to be ditched as the class builder in Europe & North America, and if the only way this is achievable is to change the class name, so be it.

I can wander up the road today, purchase a new North or Hyde Sail, any laser fitting or component, a new boat that I can load straight onto the car or trailer. I can do this from the factory or the local dealer and can do this from essentially any Laser dealer in Australia. PSA isn't causing the supply issues that LPE is causing in North America or Europe. Additionally, I've heard for several years here, that the PSA product is better supposidely than the LPE product. So tell me why LPE is so wonderful?
 
So tell me why LPE is so wonderful?
They seem to have a strong supporter (or maybe more) within ILCA. Evidenced by the way the vote was put to the membership, the lack of requested information and the course they (ILCA) are taking now. I have no idea why but somebody in there loves them.

Ian
 
They seem to have a strong supporter (or maybe more) within ILCA. Evidenced by the way the vote was put to the membership, the lack of requested information and the course they (ILCA) are taking now. I have no idea why but somebody in there loves them.

Ian

Take a look at who is on the ILCA Advisory Council in the 2013 Handbook and you will know why the ILCA is on the side of LaserPerformance and won't pay Kirby his entitled royalties. Bill Crane, aka Chairman of LaserPerformance...
 

Back
Top