Thanks for posting that tidbit.
It appears that the Club version of our beloved Laser can be had for 4250 pounds in the UK and the 'legal' Race one for 5500. I wonder how many 'legal' ones LP still has. Or maybe I should ask how many ILCA stickers do they still have?
From LPE's statement a few weeks back. But not discussed here. Am I too negative when I think that this can/will influence the choice between Laser and the other contenders for a new dinghy?
I don't see it affecting that one way or the other. It rather shows again how LP views the world: their 90 % share is like a fortress, inside the walls of which no one else shall enter. It's a political statement, and purely technically I'd say it's false: the Olympics (or any other regatta for that matter) isn't about selling new boats, which is what the trademark primarily is for. The boats can come from anywhere. And if their magic name or logo aren't even shown or mentioned in anything directly connected with the event in the first place, there's nothing that the trademark holder could be opposed to.
Yeah. LP will probably try to sell the already existing rigs at some price, but it obviously won't be advertised nearly as much as was intended only a month ago.
The whole thing was pretty much doomed to begin with, a desperate attempt to look as relevant and cutting-edge as Bethwaite/PSA/ILCA.
Not everyone goes to regattas, they only sail club races. Further, over here there are a heap of non class sanction events where they could potentially be used. Unless we tell our clubs we don't want them or the other "training" equipment at our club, it will creep as being acceptable.
LaserPerformance has always been proud of the quality and performance of its iconic Laser boats, which are sought out by Laser sailors around the world. Laser has invited, and continues to invite, ILCA and World Sailing to together inspect our UK manufacturing facilities in Banbury to confirm that we continue to conform to the standards established by the Laser Construction Manual. The issue is not about compliance by LP rather it is about ILCA wanting to opt out of its decades long license granted by LP.
The last sentence is correct, of course, and it even contains the reason: it's LP "granting" ILCA a license and not the other way! That's the world according to LP: they're at the top and everyone else is a subject.