Class Politics All about to kick off....

Let's say you buy a new Laser now, without the Kirby sticker. If LPE/ILCA/ISAF lose the court case the boat becomes counterfeit..? Can you then go to the dealer and get a refund? Clearly, what you bought was not fit for purpose i.e. sail in regattas? So perhaps dealers will become the bunnies in the middle? Getting money out of LPE in such a situation will not be easy.
 
Let's say you buy a new Laser now, without the Kirby sticker. If LPE/ILCA/ISAF lose the court case the boat becomes counterfeit..? Can you then go to the dealer and get a refund? Clearly, what you bought was not fit for purpose i.e. sail in regattas? So perhaps dealers will become the bunnies in the middle? Getting money out of LPE in such a situation will not be easy.

IMO you would be a fool to buy a new boat without the plaque that mentions copyright to Kirby. Most people who are likely to buy a new Laser at this point in time are aware of this. The other option is to buy an Oz boat and ship it privately.

Caveat emptor.....never has the phrase been so true in the Laser class!
 
bunny_pancake.jpg
 
It would appear that the "intent" behind publishing pictures of the new class are having the intended effect. We are moving toward asking feasibility questions.

What happens if PSA announces tomorrow that they will no longer build Lasers and are moving to Torch production? If you had to choose between an LP Laser or a PSA Torch, which would you choose? Sort of depends on why you sail. Mr P will go where the competition goes. I'll make a more practical choice.

I hope the ILCA will at least speak to Kirby before this goes any further.

Looks like we possibly have been speaking with him both here and on SA. He appears to maybe have "outted" himself on SA if a post there is to be believed.

Have to agree with Redstar. The Kirby Torch photoshop move appears to be another PR stunt and attempt to deceive (if the original shots and sequence of photoshopping on SA are accurate). Makes me wonder how many other strings and blogs might be tugged in a similar fashion.

No idea what to belive anymore other than its clearly tough times for the Laser class and sailors. If not for the Olympic status of the boat maybe this is more easily resolved in the interest of the majority of class sailors. It got me wondering what those generic Lasers in Eastern Europe that somebody posted about (w pics) actually cost. That is sounding really good about now.
 
How many other classes in the last olympics had a Oligopoly besides the Laser Class? Why is ISAF soooo selective with Free Market Capitalism!
 
1. The Oz boat will also be without Kirby sticker since the ones without Kirby will be the only ones issued by ILCA.

Depends on stock levels of plaques at the builder(s) I would guess.... I would also guess that PSA will be able to issue the correct plaques, if required, once this mess is all sorted out as I cannot see BKI penalising them for making a boat they are fully licensed to make.
 
Been reading the discussion about the pictures of the Torch. The point is that the Torch can be produced now, because it uses the same production line as the Laser. So blank hulls coming off the mold could be Lasers or they could be the Torch. So in that context the production line is ready - and it would appear the PSA is ready to produce the Torch. I'm not sure how many molds there are in the world, or what their location or status is, however I am sure that at least some of them are ready to be used to produce the Torch right now.

Perhaps Jeff and Heini may have thought the that prospect of what we know as the Laser being rebranded was a hollow threat? We now know that this is not true. This is what Tracy said back in 2011:
Quote
I would argue that who is right or wrong in the dispute is irrelevant to the larger problem that there is a dispute and it has the potential to very soon adversely impact Laser sailing. The crux of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, one builder owns the trademark to call the boat we sail a Laser and affix a Starburst logo to its sail, while another party, independent of ILCA, owns IP rights to the boat and the current ILCA rules (of which WE the sailors control) require an agreement between the two. In today's world, if the two parties cannot come to agreement then, under the current rules, we are in a situation where a builder cannot build a boat but can prevent any other potential builder from building a boat called a Laser and selling it in their trademarked territory. I would argue that who is right or wrong in the dispute is irrelevant to the larger problem that there is a dispute and it has the potential to very soon adversely impact Laser sailing. The crux of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, one builder owns the trademark to call the boat we sail a Laser and affix a Starburst logo to its sail, while another party, independent of ILCA, owns IP rights to the boat and the current ILCA rules (of which WE the sailors control) require an agreement between the two. In today's world, if the two parties cannot come to agreement then, under the current rules, we are in a situation where a builder cannot build a boat but can prevent any other potential builder from building a boat called a Laser and selling it in their trademarked territory. (Source = http://sailingforums...tal-rule.21064/)

Now we now know that BY CHANGING THE RULE, Chris Caldecoat, General Manager of PSA responded:

Quote
As a current compliant builder of Laser boats, and an owner of the Laser Trade Mark, PSA has not been consulted by the ILCA or ISAF with respect to their proposal to keep issuing plaques to a boat building company that has failed to comply with their Laser builders contract and has lost the right to build the Kirby Designed boat. (As the Laser is referred to in the LCM.)

PSA does not support this action by the ILCA and ISAF, which is in contravention of the LCM.

Any changes to the LCM (including changes to the plaques) requires approval of all the signatories, these include Bruce Kirby Inc. and PSA. Without those signatures any boats built are not Class legal boats.


For ILCA and ISAF to attempt to change the rules regarding the manufacture of the Kirby designed boat (currently called a Laser) without due process and consideration of all stakeholders is contrary to the principles of our Class.

It is against the sailor’s best interests, the best interest of the builders who do comply with their contracts and support the Class at Olympic, World, Regional and National level, in fact the very future of the Class within ISAF and the Olympics.

PSA would urge all sailors and ISAF Member Nations to support designers and authorised builders across all classes of sailing by acknowledging the invaluable role they play within our sport in creating and developing the equipment necessary for us to go sailing at whatever level we choose. (Source = PSA release)

So on one hand ILCA say that the rule change was to facilitate boat production, then by making the change, another builder and Laser trademark holder says that they are unable to make class legal boats because of the agreements that they have. WE NOW KNOW THAT THE RULE CHANGE WAS NOT A GOOD SOLUTION.

Tracy also said back in 2011:

Quote
I agree with the comment that Bruce Kirby has always acted in the best interest of Laser sailing, deserves to have a well earned retirement and is completely blameless in whatever disputes are going on.
(Source = http://sailingforums...le.21064/page-3)

Here are some facts:

  • Bruce Kirby has launched the "Torch" as a way forward for what we now know as the Laser class
  • He has links with builders who have the capability RIGHT NOW to produce the Torch
  • A growing number sailors support sailing the same old boat under a different name
All of this HAS to be of HUGE concern to the ILCA, and to all sailors of Lasers everywhere.

To me, the was forward is for the ILCA to reclaim neutral ground by repealing the rule change. It does not have to go to the vote. My understanding is that all it needs is the withdrawal of approval from the Advisory Council and / or the World Council.
 
Fwiw: PSA generally request batches of about 50-100 plaques at a time, based upon the groupings of sail numbers observed in the boat parks. Which is about 2-3 months production in peak periods. Currently, we're going into Winter and the racing season in the southern regions is reduced. Our seasons kick off again in early September, with new boat sails picking up in August. I suspect in 3 months time, the issues between Kirby, LP, ILCA and ISAF may have progressed significantly that we know where we stand with the Laser/Torch class. Basically, PSA is likely to have a stock of ISAF plaques with Kirby on them at this time of year and will only re-order when the need them placed on to hulls leaving the factory.
 
Here's another shot that appears to have the exisitng sail design, but that's not the interesting part.

torch4.jpg
I pretty certain that these photos of the Torch were taken in Australia of boats produced by PSA.


The boats in the background are the PSA stackable trolleys.
The other photo has eucalypt leaves on the ground
PSA also kept a couple of Sydney 2000 Olympic Sails, I suspect the Scheidt sail is likely to be one of them.

As for the Torch logo being photoshopped, why? I can go down to the local printer and get them the stickers produced in a few hours for a hundred dollars (cheaper in bulk). Assuming this photo was taken up at the PSA factory, they could easily put a sticker onto a new hull which they have produced which could eventually be sold either as a laser or a torch with the change of stickers as they are licensed to build either.
 
Alan - I think what caused the most amusement here and and elsewhere was that this pictures appears to have a Torch sticker on the side of the hull and a Laser sticker on the rear of the cockpit. And when people drew attention to this fact, the photo on the KTC website was hastily edited to white out the Laser sticker.

I understand that PSA are in a position to produce either Lasers or Torches - or even hybrids - Lorches? - like the one in this photo. Is it your understanding that they are actually planning to produce both Lasers AND Torches depending on what demand they get from dealers? Or are they committed to moving over to 100% Torch production?
 
No idea. I can only speculate like everyone else here.

  1. If Kirby wins the court case and can regain the trademark and the class continues as the Laser.
  2. I could see the Laser disappearing if BK wins the court case, but BK doesn't regain the trademark.
  3. I can see Kirby producing Torches in competition to the Laser in the regions where LP supplies, if neither party clearly wins but both can continue to build laser/torches.
  4. I could see the Kirby disappearing if BK loses the court case and the class continuing as the Laser with LP being one of the builders.
With the supply issues you guys have, I think the your best interests are served by LP no longer being involved. For the class' best interest, retaining the trademark including the name & logo is in our best interest. So I'm hoping that the #1 occurs.

As for PSA, even though they have worked with BK, they will move on in a manner for their best interests, based upon the above 4 points. It could be that they produce dual stickered boats and let the sailors decide which class they wish to sail and at which events. Ultimately they are boat builders and building sailing dinghies is solely what they do. If #3 occurs, I can see world wide, the sailors making the decision which boat to sail, based upon who can supply boats at the best price and has the ability to supply boats and spare parts.
 
In my estimation, having spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the available information, something just doesn't add up about the ILCA's position. ILCA said back in 2011 "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements."

Rob Kothe in his article for Sail-World said "It's noteworthy that the ILCA Executive Secretary Jeff Martin, is also the Classes Committee Chair within ISAF. His initials JM appear on many of the documents in the list of Exhibits presented to the court." (source = http://www.sail-worl....cfm?nid=107549)

The crystal clear implication is that Jeff Martin knew a lot of the details that the ILCA apparently claimed not to know. At least that's what it seems. It just doesn't add up in my mind. Of course Jeff has done an enormous amount of work for the Laser class over the years. Surely I have it wrong. I would appreciate if someone could explain this to me.
 
I think the construction manual is very critical. Surely this must have been given under non disclosure and has numerous statements such as "this CM may not be shared ...etc. " This means that LPE, even though they know HOW to build a laser, they cannot use this information without formal access to the construction manual. When the text say reinforce with cloth xyz, size 10x15 they have to achieve the same reinforcement some other way... which means the boat would not measure in as a laser/Torch.
 
I think the construction manual is very critical. Surely this must have been given under non disclosure and has numerous statements such as "this CM may not be shared ...etc. " This means that LPE, even though they know HOW to build a laser, they cannot use this information without formal access to the construction manual. When the text say reinforce with cloth xyz, size 10x15 they have to achieve the same reinforcement some other way... which means the boat would not measure in as a laser/Torch.

This would make the most sense and be in line with Kirby's assertion that all the IP is protected by contract alone. Any decent NDA should have a termination agreement about the return of proprietary materials and the discontinuation of the use of any IP. When you sign such a document, you are explicitly acknowledging the proprietary nature of the information.

The construction manual may have a copyright, but that isn't what protects it as proprietary. It's the contract that builders (and apparently the class) signed.
 
Agree that the construction manual is very important, however my feeling is that the agreements are even more important, and I'm still trying to figure something out about the ILCA where they claimed not to know about the agreements.

In Sail-World "It's noteworthy that the ILCA Executive Secretary Jeff Martin, is also the Classes Committee Chair within ISAF. His initials JM appear on many of the documents in the list of Exhibits presented to the court." (source = http://www.sail-worl....cfm?nid=107549)

So surely Jeff Martin knew more than the ILCA claimed to know. Seems like Jeff stood by while Tracy said a whole lot of stuff like "According the the Bruce Kirby interview in SailWorld, Bruce Kirby, Inc, licensed the IP rights to the builders through contractual agreements. ILCA is not party to those agreements, has no knowledge (as far as I know) of what they contain." (Source = http://sailingforums...e.21064/page-10)

And now the ILCA say:
"ILCA has been named as a co-defendant in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and has been recently notified of the plaintiff’s intention to formally serve ILCA with the complaint. ILCA intends to vigorously defend itself if necessary, but our primary focus continues to be facilitating a meaningful settlement dialog between the parties in the hopes of reaching an amicable resolution. ILCA has always favoured a negotiated resolution to this dispute.

To be clear, ILCA is not a judge or a court of law and takes no position on the relative merits of the claims made by either of the commercial entities involved in the law suit. ILCA has always maintained that this dispute is based on contracts to which it is not a party and has repeatedly encouraged and requested the commercial parties to these contracts to voluntarily engage in meaningful settlement negotiations. ILCA once again urges the real parties to this dispute to settle their differences and avoid unnecessary expense and damage to the reputation of our sport." (Source = http://www.laserinte...lassassociation)

It just doesn't add up at all. Of course, by issuing plaques and changing the rules the ILCA took a firm and resolute position that supported LP over Kirby. And by doing so became a party to the disagreement.

And if Jeff Martin was the "JM" who had initialled the documents that are now part of Kirby's civil action exhibits, then he certainly knew a lot more about the agreements than the ILCA claimed to know. As I said, it just doesn't add up.

I hope the ILCA is not hell-bent on spending ILCA funds on trying to defend the indefensible.
 
Kirby today asked the Connecticut Federal Court to issue a prejudgment remedy ("PJR") against Rastegar and the LP Defendants. If granted in its totality, the PJR would prevent Rastegar and LP from use, disposal, and/or transfer of all production tooling, molds, and plugs for producing Kirby Sailboats, copies of the Construction Manual, ISAF Plaques, and New ISAF Plaques.

https://sites.google.com/site/kirbytorch/news/kirbyseekscourtorderagainstlaserproduction
 
I think I understand the Photoshop now. It was advertising a product with a trademark belonging to someone else visible. Not particularly legible, but still visible.

Oops.
 
In my estimation, having spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the available information, something just doesn't add up about the ILCA's position. ILCA said back in 2011 "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements."



Rob Kothe in his article for Sail-World said "It's noteworthy that the ILCA Executive Secretary Jeff Martin, is also the Classes Committee Chair within ISAF. His initials JM appear on many of the documents in the list of Exhibits presented to the court." (source = http://www.sail-worl....cfm?nid=107549)

The crystal clear implication is that Jeff Martin knew a lot of the details that the ILCA apparently claimed not to know. At least that's what it seems. It just doesn't add up in my mind. Of course Jeff has done an enormous amount of work for the Laser class over the years. Surely I have it wrong. I would appreciate if someone could explain this to me.

Nothing to explain. You're probably right. It will probably all come out in court. Stay tuned.
 
Kirby today asked the Connecticut Federal Court to issue a prejudgment remedy ("PJR") against Rastegar and the LP Defendants. If granted in its totality, the PJR would prevent Rastegar and LP from use, disposal, and/or transfer of all production tooling, molds, and plugs for producing Kirby Sailboats, copies of the Construction Manual, ISAF Plaques, and New ISAF Plaques.

https://sites.google.com/site/kirbytorch/news/kirbyseekscourtorderagainstlaserproduction

Not surprising.

But what is interesting is that it is almost certainly the recent actions of the ILCA and ISAF that have driven BK to take this action. Were it part of his original plan then it would have been done some time ago (e.g. with the courts case submission or shortly afterwards). That the ILCA and ISAF have subsequently acted in a manner he believes escalate things (e.g. to break and/or encourage others to break contracts and to enable and/or encourage others to produce counterfeit boats) probably gives him little choice.

To me it is further evidence as to how the actions of the ILCA/ISAF have made this all a lot worse for the people sitting in boats (some of whom they are meant to represent and act in the interests of).

There must be some way for ILCA members to maybe call an e.g. Extraordinary General Meeting or something and have a quick vote to push even a little common sense into the ILCA. I would have thought they should be accountable to their membership beyond the "I'm resigning to spend more time with my family ..." (after creating a complete disaster for the class).

However, I still believe that the current "crisis" is better than sticking with LP as a builder. The "crisis" is not necessary to sort things out but does seem the route the ILCA/ISAF want to push things (given their determination to support LP and keep them going whatever the cost and impact to those with bums in boats).

Ian
 
What is the ILCA going to do? Their deadline for the summons is only a few days away. How committed are they for resolving this matter out of court?

ILCA on 23 April 2013 said:
"ILCA has always maintained that this dispute is based on contracts to which it is not a party and has repeatedly encouraged and requested the commercial parties to these contracts to voluntarily engage in meaningful settlement negotiations. ILCA once again urges the real parties to this dispute to settle their differences and avoid unnecessary expense and damage to the reputation of our sport."

Of course we know that the ILCA is not only a party but a defendant because of it's actions, and because of agreements that Jeff Martin signed on behalf of the ILCA with Kirby.

ILCA on 13 March 2013 said:
"The decision to continue ISAF plaque sales (and continue to report them to Kirby, Inc.), taken only after consultation with ILCA's legal advisor and close discussion with ISAF, is seen to be in the best interest of the sailors as it maintains the flow of boats and equipment until such time as a resolution to the dispute is reached."

Of course if Kirby's latest action to prevent LP from manufacture is successful, that will test the ILCA's resolve to maintain the flow of boats and equipment, and maintain the rule change which is apparently in breech of the agreement that Jeff Martin signed on behalf of the ILCA.

ILCA on 23 April 2013 said:
"ILCA has always favoured a negotiated resolution to this dispute."
and:
"ILCA has been named as a co-defendant in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and has been recently notified of the plaintiff’s intention to formally serve ILCA with the complaint. ILCA intends to vigorously defend itself if necessary, but our primary focus continues to be facilitating a meaningful settlement dialog between the parties in the hopes of reaching an amicable resolution. ILCA has always favoured a negotiated resolution to this dispute."

On 23 April 2013 ISAF said:
"ISAF remains committed to working with all the parties to the dispute in order to negotiate a settlement. Our primary concern is for the sailors around the world and we will continue to work towards a resolution."

Nearly a month has passed since those statements and there have been several developments. I not only hope that these statements of acting good faith are still true, and hope that behind the scenes our representatives are working hard for a resolution.

We all wait for news of their efforts.
 
Nearly a month has passed since those statements and there have been several developments. I not only hope that these statements of acting good faith are still true, and hope that behind the scenes our representatives are working hard for a resolution.

"Our representatives"?

If you are not even a Laser class member, who are your representatives in this discussion?

If you want to be represented, join the Laser class and vote when they ask for your opinion on these issues (as they did back in 2011.)

By the way, based on two confidential emails received in the last couple of days, I am confident that my representatives are working hard for a resolution.
 
"Our representatives"?
If you are not even a Laser class member, who are your representatives in this discussion?
If you want to be represented, join the Laser class and vote when they ask for your opinion on these issues (as they did back in 2011.)
By the way, based on two confidential emails received in the last couple of days, I am confident that my representatives are working hard for a resolution.


Based on the confidential emails that I have received (as recent as Thursday), I wasn't so confident. I have to say that's really good to hear that you (Tillerman) are confident your representatives are working hard for a resolution - and as I said - we await news of their efforts. It's been nearly a month since last hearing anything official from the ISAF or ILCA - and time is marching on.

[ Personal note: To answer Tillerman's personal questions and in the interests of openess, the "our representatives" I refer to are the ISAF and ILCA. I am represented, specifically, in my case, by the ISAF as I am a current member of a local club. I am a past member of the ILCA and did not mean to imply anything more. The "our" part in that regard comes from my being part of the Laser community and is based on my sailing lasers as far back as 1983 and a recent as April 2013: a time span of 30 years - the vast majority at club level. (Of course I've been open about disclosing who and where I am. Are emails are circulating behind the scenes discussing my ILCA membership status? I hope not. My membership status is hardly the issue here; the points I raise are not more or less valid; or the passion I have for Laser racing is not diminished in any way because of my membership status. As stated preciously, it's my intention to renew my membership with the NZLA this coming season.) I'm by no means 'anti' the ILCA, though have many misgivings about the rule change as evidenced by the posts I have made previously here in this forum. These events have the potential to impact all people who race Lasers, whether they are members of the ILCA or not (and the vast majority are not).]

I believe the ILCA's role in this dispute to be critical. Would have LP acted differently were it not for the rule change and the issuing of plaques? It certainly would have made their position far less stable and I believe that yes, LP would have acted differently.

Look, let's say that Jeff Martin did sign an agreement on behalf of the ILCA with Bruce Kirby Inc. And let's say the rule change and issuing of plaques was in direct violation of the agreement made. All that means is that a mistake was made. The right thing to do in my estimation is to admit the mistake, repeal the rule, don't issue plaques and move forward. I'm confident that Bruce Kirby holds no personal grudge against the ILCA per se. He may even agree to drop the civil action against the ILCA and not pursue damages.

If ILCA truly want to broker a settlement out of court - then they should do so from a neutral position, not one that favours LP over Kirby.
 
Easy there, Tillerman. ILCA are not the only "representatives" of sailors in this mess. Also those currently sailing the boat are not the only ones concerned about it, either. I'd like to think I'll be buying a Torch for my grand daughter in a few years so she can be a world class sailor.

On top of that, nearly 90% of ILCA members didn't bother to vote, even on something as important as a Fundamental Rule change. That's a pretty high horse you're pontificating from when your fellow members obviously don't care that much. Historically, this is consistent voter turnout over the years.


Good to hear you've had some encouraging words from your elected volunteer reps. If ILCA was really working for its members all the time (as they should be), Jeff Martin would have been gone many years ago. Just remember that no matter how it may appear, Jeff Martin is the tiller man at ILCA and those World Council volunteers don't want the huge hassle of trying to replace him. He got the Class into this mess by thinking he can be ISAF's man, and the builder's man as well as ILCA's man (a long way in 3rd place). No volunteer WC member has ever had the temerity to ask for an audit of Jeff's personal finances. I've always thought it would be a very interesting exercise.

Got a story to tell about the first few weeks after I was elected to be NA Vice Pres back in 1997. On a forum that gave birth to this one, I made some statement that went sort of like this " Jeff Martin is employed by the ILCA, he holds his job at the discretion of your elected volunteers on the World Council, and we work for The Members."

Now, back then it was still relatively expensive to call long-distance from Falmouth, England to Salt Lake City, Utah but I got a call from Jeff the very next morning at just after 8 am . . . . He was not the least bit amused to have me say "he works for us and we work for you" Low man on the totem pole as we say in British Columbia. It was the first direct contact I had from him, but certainly not the last.
 
The decision-making process is cumbersome, and getting a volunteer council together - even electronically - to set the process in motion is like herding cats. Sounds to me like Tracy's been herding the cats for nearly a month now . . ? This delay is being caused by your representatives trying to jump through the hoops that keep the decisions transparent.

Then you have to propose the decision and write up the proposal. Then get the cats, er, volunteers together again to vote to approve the proposal. Then you have to officially notify the membership of the proposal and set a date by which they have to vote on it. Then they have to verify that everybody who voted is a member, count the votes, have them audited (or whatever it is they do), and then IF it passes, send it to ISAF for their approval. Then ISAF has to get their cats together, too . . .

One could wish decisions were made in a vacuum, the process also sucks.

signed respectfully,
One of the people who aided and abetted the guy who is "Still the last person to run a growing North American Sailing Association of over 3100 members."
 
[quote="dyzzypyxxy, post: 133259, member: 4275"IF it passes, send it to ISAF for their approval. Then ISAF has to get their cats together, too . . .

[/quote]

I am a bit confused. ISAF decided to approve the rule change...Then a few weeks later they have the semi-annual meeting...Shouldn't it have been the other way around!
 
I'm guessing they have electronic meetings, so that decisions don't wait 6 months. (like it used to be)

Maybe ILCA has delayed this long hoping ISAF would reverse their decision to approve the rule change? They didn't, so now ILCA is up to bat.
 
For some strange reason, I don't want to give up on on the ILCA!! Maybe it's because I owe both ILCA and Kirby a lot of goodwill - because of the enjoyment I have gotten out of Lasers over the last 30 years.

Once again, here are the the big points of the Kirby versus ILCA/ISAF dispute.
  • The agreement between ILCA and Kirby was signed by the IYRU and ILCA on November 30, 1983. Part of that agreement deals with the issuing of plaques. There is a copy of the agreement lodged with the courts, it is referred to as "Exhibit 3". This has been lodged with the courts. We can now see the relevant parts of the agreement. This is not opinion or speculation - it's a verifiable fact. The ILCA will have a copy of this agreement now - though they should have had access to a copy of it all along.

  • The rule change was proposed and voted on in 2011. The ILCA write up included the following statement: "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when it was believed that Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these 'Kirby' agreements."

  • Kirby advised the ILCA that he had terminated the builder contracts on October 11, 2012. There is a copy of the letter lodged with the courts.

  • ILCA/ISAF do not contest that they issued plaques. The ILCA state this on 13 March 2013 here: http://www.laserinternational.org/i...isputebetweenbrucekirbyincandlaserperformance.

  • 23 April 2013. ISAF and ILCA acknowledge there are "agreements" between themselves and Kirby, and claim to terminate them because Kirby is in breech of them by launching the Torch class. ISAF approves the 2011 rule change, though says that it was approved by the ILCA in 2012 (It was actually approved in November 2011). Here is the ISAF statement: http://www.sailing.org/news/34222.php

  • 30 April 2013. Kirby lodges an updated civil action to include further breeches of agreements by the ILCA/ISAF. Kirby now seeks damages from both ILCA and ISAF.

All of the above is verifiable. If I have missed something significant out or have made an error, please feel free to correct me.

Now, inconsideration of the above, I have a few questions:
  • What mistakes have Kirby, ILCA or ISAF made?

  • Is it reasonable to think that ILCA (particularly Jeff Martin) were not aware of the agreement with Kirby? (Remember the 2011 ILCA statement "The ILCA is not a party to any of these 'Kirby' agreements.")

  • Is the ILCA aware of their agreement with Kirby now?

  • Have the ILCA/ISAF actually rescinded their agreement with Kirby? (They claim they had on 23 April, 2013 - though to actually rescind they must follow the terms of the agreement).

  • Can the ILCA effective broker a solution while they effective support LP with the rule change and issuing of plaques - plus are in dispute with Kirby?

  • What is the best course of action if Kirby is successful with terminating LP as a builder of Lasers (as we know them) via his PJR?
I maintain the right thing to do in light of the above is for the ILCA to do is to repeal the rule change, uphold the agreements that they already have with Kirby (as honourable people uphold what they agree to do) then, from a position of neutrality figure out what to do next regarding the LP and Kirby - securing boats for contests etc.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I was walking down by the Taylor river yesterday. I saw a bird. It looked like a duck. It quacked like a duck. I got close to it, and it flew away - just like I expect a duck would. I reached the conclusion and was pretty sure about it - it actually was a duck. You know what? It probably still is a duck - though if someone claimed that they waved a magic wand and changed that duck into a flying pig - I'd kind of want to see it before I believed it.
 
What hasn't been mentioned in a while is that LP (the US company) manufactures other boats like the Sunfish and the 420.
In the worst case legal scenario for LP, they would presumably continue to roll those boats out of their Rhode Island facility. Or sell what's left of LP to ???

As an aside, it has been reported that LP (USA) currently imports Lasers from their UK facility.
 
Hm, I thought somebody said (back a page or two) that LP was "dead in the water" in the UK, too.

Ya can't tell me boat builders have been making any money in the last few years. Plus the people who sail little boats were the hardest hit by the poor economy so they'll be a while getting back to where they can spend money on toys, I'd think.

Gantt, on your duck story, nobody's said anything about changing the duck itself. Only the name. Nobody suggested the Laser should now be called a Beneteau 44 (aka sailing pig).

The basic rule that has kept Laser the best one-design class for so many years is that if the Class rules don't say you can do it, you can't. I'm pretty sure that Bruce K came up with that rule, but Ian can tell us for sure. So if the name is changed, given BK winning his legal wrangles, nobody knows better than he does how important it is to change nothing except the name. ILCA will become ITCA as soon as ISAF accepts the name change and declares the Torch class to be an International class. For them to do that, boats must be built in at least 3 different countries, I think.

Just my opinion, but I think ILCA has made all the mistakes you ask about, at least initially. ISAF at first did not accept the rule change, and their mistake was in changing their mind about that.

As far as ILCA "not knowing" that stuff, well, we're back to the question - What exactly did the lawyers do for ILCA that was worth 60,000 pounds for their services? If I were a Class member, I'd really want to know where that money went and why. They've sure made some ignorant decisions, and in my simple mind, the reason you employ expensive legal counsel is to prevent you from doing that.
 
Gantt, on your duck story, nobody's said anything about changing the duck itself. Only the name. Nobody suggested the Laser should now be called a Beneteau 44 (aka sailing pig).

What I was thinking when I wrote it was if it looks like a mistake... specifically thinking about ILCA thinking that all they needed to do was to change a rule and things would be all right (at least for a while). It's all very well to say this in hindsight, at the time, most of the World Council seemed to think they were doing the right thing. (It's my view that ILCA need to simply admit they made mistakes then put it right before they can move forward - otherwise they are waiting to be moved forward by the civil action - and I'd like to see them take control of the situation.) Like I said, there is the possibility that I have it all wrong - hence the flying pig metaphor - I'm not saying it's impossible - just that I'd want to see it before I believe it.
 
I would still like to know if the original contracts had a transfer clause before the rights were sold to NZ and then sold back again... I would guess that LP will argue that their contract became null and void. I remain impartial until more information is available....which again is why I never voted on the rule change...
 

Back
Top