Bruce Kirby: "It's the Boat That Matters, Not the Name"

Michael,

€8000 is a huge bill, IF the only job the engineer did was to fly in to the boat, make a 2 hr survey, receive the necessary documentation and then fly away. But I doubt that his job ended with that visit. There was probably much more, before and after your meeting. I also don't know whether his bill included the dues and taxes he had to pay on behalf of your client, for the completion of relative bureaucratic tortures.

And besides that, if it was a Class or Fag-related survey, most probably the high cost of that particular engineer's service is driven by high fees of the Class society. Perhaps we have a Surveyor here who could tell us how it works for him.

But, besides that, one of few beauties of the free market is that you are given a choice between various parties who are offering the desired service. The last time I had to undergo a small wart-removal surgery, I have called several doctors and asked them to tell me their fee for the surgery- After having all the fees, and after confronting them, I took my decision and went to the surgeon who left me the best impression and asked an acceptable fee. And once accepted, the agreed fee has to be payed, of course.

It is the same thing which the people do when it comes to my engineering services. They never tell me "please come here, I have a job for you right now". No, the first question is always "please tell me what is your fee for this job". Then they ask the same question to other engineers and only at the end of this inquiry process will they decide who will do the job.

Cheers

 

Yah...huge.

Hows this... When a Non EU vat paid boat is imported, it must pay tax.

How about 6500 euros for a VAT valuation ? I must go to an approved NA for this valuation. He comes to the boat...has a coffee, makes notes....then presents his fee with a poker face. If I complain about the cost, I might not receive a " favorable" valuation .


Manytimes ...just as Eric points out...Engineers have you by the balls.

Its elitism, arrogance.

Not long ago I replaced a generator on a yacht. This was a strait plug and play replacement...no modifications. During the project I carelessly damaged the ships Generator Alarm Electrical Schematic Sheet . I contacted the Electrical engineering Company in The Netherlands with build number, sheet number and asked for a replacement sheet. No problem !!! 500 euros. When I complained they stated.. "single use only"...intellectual property

Grrrrrrr....and never use original ship drawings on a project...always photocopy !

I know nothing of the Bruce Kirby case. I would expect that the Manufacturer negotiated a fee schedule for the design. The more successful the design, the more units sold, the less the royalty payment for each unit. Perhaps the manufacturer didnt negotiate correctly and its Kirby's right to take advantage of this to seek full royalties on each unit sold.

 

I recall seeing several hundred thousand dollars mentioned as the amount of the several years unpaid royalties so it appears that a lot of $6000 boats continue to be sold.

 

Ok, ok, touch-screen has made another victim... It was meant to be "Flag-related survey", of course.

Thanks to Philsweet for noting this small detail.

 

I simply despise these Ipad type touch screen things......who invented this junk

 

...........................Made several billions dollars and changes

 

Michael,

While some consultants may be arrogant, which I suppose may be read into my story, not all behave that way. The better consultants will work with the client to make the client's job easier and/or better. In my case, I always endeavor to give a little more than the client asked for, if it is in my power to do so.

As for Bruce Kirby's dilemma, I don't know the whole story, but from what I gather so far, the design of the Laser, conceived by Kirby way back in 1970 and put into production in 1971, was eventually licensed to Laser Performance who are the authorized builders and marketers of the design for North America, the UK, and Europe. The Laser has been in continuous production since its inception, now with over 200,000 units sold around the world, one of the most popular sailboats ever. There is a very nice biography of Bruce Kirby in the current issue of Professional Boatbuilder magazine, issue #142, April/May 2013.

At some point recently, Laser Performance stopped paying Kirby the royalties due on the licensing agreement. Who owns what licenses seems to be a point of contention that has yet to play out. The upshot of it is, though, that Kirby was being paid properly, but now he is not. So he filed a lawsuit against Laser Performance for non-payment of royalties and demanded that they stop production. Since the Laser is a one-design (with three rig configurations), the boats have to be certified as being in compliance with class rules by the International Laser Class Association (ILCA) and the International Sailing Federation (ISAF). When Kirby gave notice that Laser Performance had to stop production for non-payment of royalties, he also gave notice to ILCA and ISAF to stop issuing plaques of compliance to Laser Performance boats. Laser Performance continued to build and sell boats, and ILCA and ISAF continued to issue the plaques, so Kirby added them to the lawsuit for recognising unauthorised boats. It is now in the courts to decide, and all that that entails. No one knows yet why Laser Performance stopped paying the royalties, so that is a story we have yet to hear. What I posted above in an earlier post were my own opinions, based on what I have read so far.

On behalf of consultants everywhere who are worth their fees, I appologize for the treatment you have received. Most of us do not try to grab our clients by the short and curlies because it does not further our careers to do so. As one colleague of mine said years ago, "You get the clients that you deserve." If you are not fair with them, they will not be fair with you. And that does not mean to give license to bribes or bad mouthing, it's just being civil and fair.

Eric

 

The complaint and supporting exhibits filed by Kirby can be viewed at http://www.sailingworld.com/sites/all/files/_attachments_articles/kirby-lpe_complaint.pdf Included at the licensing agreements with the predecessors of Laser Performance being sued. The royalties with one exception are 2%. A letter dated July 17, 2012 states the unpaid royalties exceed $200,000.

 

Stock plans versus custom

I agree if a designer puts plans out there. There should be a royalty paid on each boat constructed to that plan. If you buy a stock plan the understanding is you will build one boat .But say I have a concept employ a designer, pay him to flesh it out .I would then expect that design to be mine to market .Examples would be Bruce Roberts and Steve Dashew. You have ghost writers .Many designers are simply employees who never get their name on a boat and you don't hear any complaining

 

There you are talking about private agreement between Mr. Roberts or Mr. Dashew and persons who design boats or create drawings for them. If these unknown persons accept to work that way, or to become employees, it is their choice.

Apart the legal aspect, paying due royalties is also a matter of plain honesty. If a person earns money by selling boats, which were built according to a set of plans made by a designer, then he owes something to that designer. If people are buying the boat and the boat builder is making a profit, then it means that not only the builder but also the designer has made a good job. And it is both honest and professional to pay a designer his part of the participation in the business.

That's how business is done since the business exists. Even the Bible says "Pay everyone whatever you owe them. Taxes to whom taxes are due, tolls to whom tolls are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due."

If one is able to pay but chooses not to do so, then not paying is equal to stealing. If one is unable to pay due to economical difficulties, that's another story.

It is the basis of living honestly.

 

Hi, I've just read this thread and in one of the first posts by David Cockey he wrote:

Interestingly, (at least to me), I 'found' this forum with the following link:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/building-hull-mold-has-anyone-done-13973-2.html - where the consensus was that it was illegal. Did something change since 2006 or did they get it wrong?

I don't think the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act applies as it was passed in 1998. Besides, the Laser was designed in Canada, so I would think that Canadian law applies?

Now I'm not a lawyer, but because this is such a hot topic right now (At least for Kirby), I'd sure love to know whether or not it is illegal. A number of people have been talking about building a Laser copy, but not calling it a Laser.

I do understand that in order to race in official events, that the boat needs to be one made by an approved builder and carry the official plaque (a sticker) that says as much. Those talking about building non official boats realise that the majority of Laser racing is done at club level and it's that market they would target. They are already produced in a few countries including South America and Eastern Europe.

Seems to me that if it's not illegal, then it should be.

I've sailed a variety of yacht designs since I was a kid, including Lasers. Have kind of become 'obsessed' with the topic and have followed the court case closely and have posted regularly for just over a year on the subject at Sailing Anarchy. I have never met Bruce Kirby but believe that he is getting the rough end of this messy situation. Apologies if I have been long-winded.
__________________________________________________________
Postscript: Just found this: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/kayak-mold-38411-5.html It adds a lot to the discussion, including reference to Canadian law, but it is hardly conclusive. Seems to conclude that boats designed before the 1998 law (Vessel Hull Design Protection Act) in the US can be copied. Maybe the law (or lack of it) is an ***, and should be changed.

 

Based on my research, yes, "they" got it wrong in the 2006 in the "Building a hull mold, has anyone done this???" thread.

"Wrong", "immoral", "unethical" do not always mean "illegal".

A post I made in the http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-molds/opinion-molds-without-paperwork-50922.html thread about legal protections for boat designs:

From the http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/kayak-mold-38411-3.html thread:

 

90% of the food sold in the US with labeled
'italian' is completely false. Speculation.

This is a world in the hands of rascals, in all fields.

 

And, as you'll probably know, a pretty good part of food sold in Italy and labeled as "Italian" is false too, as it doesn't originate from Italy.

That's what happens when Money becomes God and measure of everything. We should start building churches with the symbol "$" or "€" engraved on the pulpit. At least it would make us appear less hypocrites.

Sorry for the rant. Carry on, please.

 

The relevance of this to the current discussion is ?????