There would be a lot less speculation based on assumption if the ILCA leadership could actually give out some information. They were repeatedly asked for it during the voting process and kept silent. They are now releasing the minimum. Maybe it is a cultural thing because in Europe we believe that organisations "for the membership" should be transparent. They should communicate with the membership (those who elect them and who they are meant to be acting on behalf of). I'm quitting the Class Association now because it is a joke. When you are told nothing except "Vote Yes and really urgently" it makes a farce of the concept of a Class Association. Maybe in the US it is normal to accept people in charge to treat their roles more akin to dictatorial, but over here we are more used to greater transparency, more information and some communication.
Let's not turn this into a US vs Europe thing. I think all of us, at least those of us living in western style democracies, expect transparency, information and communication from our leaders. And let's remember that it is the North American President of ILCA, Tracy Usher, who has been the most forthcoming on this forum about the issue (including clearing up my recent confusion about baby buggies.)
The baby buggy company has been involved in sailing for a while now, most recently as Anna Tunnicliffe's sponsor, as well as sponsor of the Laser Slalom last summer. Interestingly, the sponsorship does not offer anything more than the name, no mention of what the company makes. Not sure what they get out of it.
Hmmm. When I saw all that Maclaren sponsorship I never even thought about who they were. But if Maclaren really are somehow involved in the ownership structure of LaserPerformance (as 49208 suggested) then maybe they are getting something out of their sponsorship of Anna and the Laser Slalom: brand name recognition in the sailing community. I wonder what they might be planning to do with that??? Will we see Maclaren Sailboats competing with Kirby Sailboats somewhere down the road?
From my own experience at my club (at least one which I will be at next year), after 31 Dec this year the Laser fleet will have no Class Association members (some certainly not renewing because of this farce).
GS definitely aren't angels in all of this. I agree with this idea!
Maclaren also sponsored the Sunfish Worlds in Curacao last summer. I don't know if demand for Maclaren baby buggies skyrocketed in Curacao following that event or not.But if Maclaren really are somehow involved in the ownership structure of LaserPerformance (as 49208 suggested) then maybe they are getting something out of their sponsorship of Anna and the Laser Slalom: brand name recognition in the sailing community.
You are aware that virtually all boats are illegally rigged or have some piece of illegal equipment on them. Does this mean we give a life time ban all the fleet. I can just see my world championship cube on the shelf.Why measure any boats at regattas other than spot checks followed by lifetime bans for those caught with modified boats??
It seems my suggestion proposed we continue certifying buiilders with regular inspections of their products and we allow anyone to build a boat and it may be raced forever once individually inspected.
Did you fail to comprehend my post or are you just making up arguments for the sake of argument??
I believe my system would allow for tighter controls than simply trusting anyone who has a traemark to build our toys.
You are aware that virtually all boats are illegally rigged or have some piece of illegal equipment on them. Does this mean we give a life time ban all the fleet. I can just see my world championship cube on the shelf.
Well put Alan, you beat me to that and I am no measurer!
Perhaps a ban for those told to change thier boats and are then caught with the same modification at the same event (subsequent events would be impossible to police given the current resources).
Whilst I cannot see any change happening, I think it is a question of degree. Somebody who has e.g. incorrectly knotted the end of their mainsheet is very different from somebody using e.g. an illegal sail. Questions of intent and advantage come in. If you broke a rule deliberately to gain an advantage then it becomes worthy of stiffer penalty than accidentally breaking a rule that gave you no advantage. So you could implement a judgement based penalty system, small time penalty for the trivial with no advantage to points penalties for more serious violations. But in practice, those organising open meetings (regattas) have more than enough work already so to introduce a sliding scale of measurement failure penalty, with a right of appeal, etc. - would it really enhance the sport ?
For years I rigged my Cunningham/kicker illegally (I used fast-pins/push-pins to attach as it made rigging much easier and faster and gained me no performance advantage - legal now but I was doing it long before the rule change). Although I knowingly broke the rules, would such a transgression really warrant a ban for life ?
I appreciate that some sailing events now have on the water judges, but I've never been to one and I suspect most events most people go to rely on the sport being self policing and an occasional protest hearing.
Ian
Some answers to the patent and trademark rights of Bruce Kirby and some theories ...
http://www.impropercourse.com/2012/05/kirby-sailboat.html
Some answers to the patent and trademark rights of Bruce Kirby and some theories ...
http://www.impropercourse.com/2012/05/kirby-sailboat.html
Old Dude,
I’m afraid I cannot disagree with your disagreement. My thoughts actually went where yours went but, admittedly, out of respect and admiration for the man that designed such a remarkable boat, I chose to look for support that somehow, Kirby’s attorneys had drafted a contract that protected his rights. I’m still hoping that is the case.
Regardless, I realize now that my post started in one direction (information) and then went another (opinion) and I’ve decided to re-write it. It’s my blog and I control it (with Mr. P, our course) and can call do-over if I feel like it and just wipe the slate clean and try to make a more objective attempt. Look for the re-write soon.
The re-write will be with one purpose ... publicly available information without attempting to draw a conclusion about any of the parties but to simply show that a vote was taken without enough information being made available to those casting the votes and a demonstration that there is enough evidence now to prompt a do-over. Hopefully, the World Council and/or the ISAF will agree and toss the existing vote and allow the class to vote again and this time let us hear from the ILCA, Kirby, LPE, and GS so that we can make an educated decision.
"There never were any patents. You can't patent a sail boat design. These were contracts, legitimate contracts drawn up by lawyers and there is no suggestion that I had a patent on the boat. These were long term contracts that were renewable every so many years."
Old Dude, your opinions and guesses are most interesting. Another angle to ponder. I will say that I recall reading that GS did take action against LPE and terminated the contract and, as was commented on my blog, LPE hasn't been building new boats and the supply is limited or gone. I certainly didn't hear about any further legal action taken by GS or Kirby.
It does beg the question of whether LPE's alleged default was a financial can't or won't issue (or both).
And as you pointed out, was the return of rights to Kirby because of an unenforceable contract issue or was it some type of cleverly drafted buy back clause.
Answers would certainly be nice. I believe you are saying, yes, you'd like more answers but you also understand the need for confidentiality and trust that the ILCA is more informed and making good decisions.
I wish I had that same trust but I do wonder about the ILCA. While in Brisbane for the Laser Master Worlds, Jeff Martin, who I understand is always at the Worlds, was not there. I heard that he had been made "redundant" and was either on his way out of the ILCA or would soon be out. Mr. P and I mentioned the this several people, and before we left, we received a message that Jeff Martin "had survived". I've seen absolutely nothing disclosed about this going and returning. Now, Eric Faust has been named General Manager and Tillerman has been asking, so what will Jeff Martin do? Without speculating as to what that all means, it makes me wonder what's happening inside the ILCA. More transparency would certainly be nice. Somehow, I'm expecting Eric Faust to restore my confidence in the ILCA.
Employee? I thought our leaders were volunteers.
Old Dude, I have another possibility on why there has been no follow up legal action. It might be totally incorrect information, but I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the financial health of LPE was in question. If they didn't pay because they couldn't pay, then suing them would be throwing good money after bad with little promise of any return. And to further speculate based on possibly incorrect assumptions, if their financial health is in question, then the rule change might not have the desired affect. Perhaps the delay is because things have become further complicated.
And the longer we speculate, we could soon have Tillerman accepting a volunteer position at the ILCA as the official blogger.
Absolutely agree its possible but I doubt it. Here is why:Old Dude, I have another possibility on why there has been no follow up legal action. It might be totally incorrect information, but I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the financial health of LPE was in question. If they didn't pay because they couldn't pay, then suing them would be throwing good money after bad with little promise of any return. And to further speculate based on possibly incorrect assumptions, if their financial health is in question, then the rule change might not have the desired affect. Perhaps the delay is because things have become further complicated.
If I had legimate rights to sell and the person I had sold to was not paying (had breached) and was in such poor shape that they could likely not recover, I would sue for breach immediately so I could reobtain my legitimate rights and grant another party those rights to the territory.
That Kirby now and GS before, have not and do not sue LPE for breach - especially when LPE is weak - just means those legitimate rights in that territory - if they (the rights) actually exist - are getting less and less valuable each day as the brand (Laser) suffers.
The situation you describe leads me to a very different conclusion from what you suggest... namely that the rights are not legimate and/or have no value... or else why would they do nothing and let them gets less valuable with each passing day.
In the mixed up and distorted opinion of an,
Old Dude