IOMICA Forum

Just to clarify a few points. IOMICA, in fact, does own and control the text of its rules, the class symbols, and the "words and numbers on paper" that are used to specify the IOM.

If you think about it, its pretty clear. A boat design is also just a series of numbers and lines on a piece of paper but no individual has the right to copy and use those numbers and lines without permission from their creator.

I personally think that the IOM Class should not permit its intellectual property to be used by any other class. And if the class decides it does want to licenser its ip at the very least a negotiated royalty should be paid.

But I am basically in agreement with the post below. If you want to start a new class, do it from scratch and come up with your own rules. Don't copy the work of others and don't take your rules from another class. If you want to allow IOM parts or sails or rigs or hulls in your proposed class, then write specifications under which such components can be included (for example, create sail specs that are slightly bigger than an IOM rig and then an IOM rig could fit inside).

RoyL wrote:Just to clarify a few points. IOMICA, in fact, does own and control the text of its rules

Just to clarify some of Roy's, ah, "clarifications".

If you were to actually read the IOM Class Rules, there are some interesting points you might note. One is the fact that their copyright is held by the ISAF, and not by IOMICA or by any other body such as the ISAF-RSD:

IOM Class Rules, page 24 wrote:© 2003, International Sailing Federation

RoyL wrote:own the class symbols

I think there is only one "class symbol", and that is the class sail insignia. When IOMICA was first formed, the new Exec investigated its ownership of the class insignia, and found that it did not own that insignia in any legal sense. That is, the insignia had never been registered as a trademark (or as anything else). It is not ISAF policy, apparently, to encourage such registration.

RoyL wrote:own the "words and numbers on paper" that are used to specify the IOM

One of the reasons why ISAF owns the IOM Class Rules is that the format of these class rules is completely based upon an ISAF document called the "Standard Class Rules". Almost all International classes have their class rules in this format at the request of ISAF, in order to ensure coherence and completeness. This is certainly the case for the other radio sailing International classes, the Marblehead and 10R classes. The "A" class has yet to conform, but part of the issue there is that it is no longer an International class. So most of the "words on paper" belong to the ISAF Standard Class Rules.

The IOM "words and numbers on paper" are licenced to anyone who wishes to build an IOM. If you were to actually read the IOM Class Rules, you will see this notice:

One Metre hulls, hull appendages, rigs and sails may be manufactured by any amateur or professional manufacturer without any requirement for a manufacturing license.

The intention of this notice is to make it explicitly clear that there are absolutely no licensing issues around the use of the IOM Class Rules when these rules are used to build hulls, appendages, rigs, or make sails.

RoyL wrote:the IOM Class should not permit its intellectual property to be used

I've asked earlier what, exactly, is the intellectual property that IOMICA might own. I'll have to answer my own question. IP is not (yet!) a coherent body of law and practice, but is an amalgam of four main areas of legal practice (there are other areas of IP, such as plant breeders rights, but these do not apply to the IOM or IOMICA): Copyright, Trademarks, Patents, and Designs. From this list, we can note:

• Copyright -- belongs to ISAF
• Trademarks -- none registered, though it is clear that the IOM insignia morally belongs to IOMICA and should morally not be used by anyone except on IOM sails and in persuance of official IOMICA or IOM NCA business
• Patents -- none
• Designs -- permission is freely given without any licensing requirements to anyone who wants to use the IOM Class Rules to build anything

So... the reality is that there are no substantive legal issues surrounding IOMICA IP in regard to another class.

With regard to copyright, another class does not violate copyright when it simply refers to the IOM Class Rules, and this is the only way, in general, to respect someone else's copyright. In fact, copyright might well be violated if another class actually copied out some or all of the IOM Class Rules. Suggestions that this is what another class should do are therefore misleading at best, and deviously disingenuous at worst, because this is exactly how you *do* violate copyright, by copying stuff that belongs to someone else.

Now we are talking.

Regarding the legal stuff I will not go into that. I think that Lester has a much better overview of that then me.

I have read the draft of the phigit, yes it simpifies some matters, but the clear references ti yhe IOM rules removes a lot of the complexity from the phigit rules.

If the legal stuff alows us to prohibit such references I will strongly support that. I personally dislike this initiative. I agree with the first post, make your own rules.

As Greg pointed out earleier that they had some simplifications which was worth considering. Well there are specially one issue and that is the watertank which we have discussed here earlier.
The way the Phigit has solved this is a depth gauge, basically copied from the MArblehead gauge and a Centre of gravity measurement. There is nothing wrong with the method as long as the class starts out with this system.

Our problem is that the IOM didn't have the depth gauge when it was started, Introducing such a system will introduce limitation to the hulldesign which will govern the way the IOM is designed.

The idea with COG could be an idea to dsicuss, but again this will restrict the weight distribution.

What people do to promote other classes I don't mind, what I dislikes is that this class promotes itself based on the IOM rules and claims it to be simpler, easier to build by non professionals, which im my opinion is wrong. The IOM class is.
Simple, easy to build by non professionals, higly competitive, Modern and resembles modern high performace yachts.

Yes I am concerned specially since this class is promoted by such high profiled radiosailors as Graham, Charles and Lester.

Let us discuss the legal stuff, conclude and then put it to rest

Roy and Lester obviously have widely differing opinions on what, if anything, IOMICA has the right to control the use of. It’s my fervent hope that we don’t have to find out.

Let’s assume for a moment that IOMICA does have the right to deny the Phigit Class Rules from referencing parts of the IOM Class Rules. Should we insist that they don’t? Or, as Roy suggests charge them for the privilege?

Neither I think, Allowing those IOM sailors that are frustrated with the hull restrictions the opportunity to build a hull to the Phigit Class Rule and sail it with their existing IOM rigs & appendages is a good thing. They’ll either find that it’s a marvellous alternative and start to drift across as IOM numbers dwindle, in which case IOMICA needs to start asking serious questions of itself. Or, more likely in my opinion, they’ll realise what a fine yacht the IOM is and continue with renewed enthusiasm & vigour (Assuming you can actually sail an IOM vigorously )

Alternatively of course it gives those of us who like to sail more than one class another option, and the similarities between the Phigit and IOM present some interesting opportunities for collaboration.

Ultimately I’d like to take an attitude of “OK, let’s see if we have any opportunities to play nicely togetherâ€

Well, gee, I've practiced law in the field of entertainment, copyright and intellectual property for over twenty years and Lester teaches engineering. Without getting overly technical just let me say that Lester's understanding of the legal rights of the IOM class is perfectly consistent with his engineering background and is simply WRONG.

Let me make the point simply, under virtually all systems of law, regardless of copyright or trademarks or other specific statutes you are liable if you copy, use and exploit the work of someone else. You can't duplicate a company's lamp and sell the copy without liability. A "license" to designers to build IOMs is not a license to other classes to incorporate the IOM rules. To the extent the IOM Class rules incorporate ISAF terms and conditions those terms and conidtions are the property of ISAF, to the extent that the IOM rules are original to the class they are in all liklihood the property of IOMICA. (Oh, and Lester, copyright and trademark notices while having a value are not determinative).

Bottom line is, IOMICA has the absolute right to prohibit any class from using our rules and the class symbol should we choose.

Most importantly, this is not a case of sour grapes from IOMICA nor a new class trying to be formed by Marine Modeller. To be very frank as to what I believe is going on here, it is exactly the opposite. I think there are some individuals who feel that they no longer have control of the IOM Class and are unhappy with that fact and are trying to create their own competitive class that they can rule over as they see fit. To the extent these people want to take their bat and ball and go home, so be it. But, I do not believe IOMICA should help them in their efforts.

RoyL wrote:simply WRONG

Hi Roy

You make a bold claim. What, exactly, is WRONG about the list I provided?

• Copyright -- belongs to ISAF
• Trademarks -- none registered
• Patents -- none
• Designs -- permission is freely given without any licensing requirements to anyone who wants to use the IOM Class Rules to build anything

RoyL wrote:what I believe is going on here

I thought we were discussing IOMICA IP, and how and whether another class could use it. Your characterisation of my understanding and speculations about my motives and those of others are untrue and uncalled for. You are not being frank, you are merely being grossly offensive.

Having been around attorneys too much (!), I can see Roy's points regarding the IP of the IOM class. It appears to this layman that under certain circumstances, the IOM class could attempt to enforce its IP rights should another group try to use IOM IP to promote a competing class. The one thing I know is that it costs money to enforce rights, because that requires litigation. In this instance, it would likely be a lot of money as multi-national jurisdictions would be involved.

Litigation would be destructive on a number of fronts, but I will address two. The obvious one is financial as someone would have to pony up for court costs, even if the legal representation is gratis. The monetary resources would be best used elsewhere. The second is relationships broken. Sailing is a small community, and RC sailing as a subset of sailing, is a much, much smaller community yet. We really can't afford for people to become so polarized that the hobby suffers. Litigation has a tendancy to polarize people.

I am very much against the initiative of the proposed new class as I believe it will further dilute the hobby generally, and the class I love, the IOM class, specifically. If another group is going to use the IOMICA's IP for a competing class, ultimately, it can probably do so due to the impracticality from a dollars and cents perspective of enforcing the IOMICA's rights. So, I am on record as not liking the use of IOMICA IP for a competing class, but I will not close the door on the folks who might promote that other class either. Rancor has no place in a small community.

two comments, both somewhat off-topic

1. The Naviga F5-E class is already using a word for word copied version of the ca 1995? IOM class rules. So if Roy feels he can help bring in big cash for IOMICA this would be the place to start I think.

2. again about bringing in the cash: instead of arguing about a magazine article and the content of two or three webpages, can I again suggest that the people wanting to do useful work for IOMICA would instead concentrate on selling the TV-rights for the 2007 worlds ? (that's something IOMICA actually owns, I think ?)

Anders

Out off town, so just checked in. Lester, it is not in the interest of the IOM Class or anyone here to have long public discussions of the law of intellecutal property.

One simple example might help to clarify this situation. "Thou shall not steal". Hopefully, most of us have heard of this simple and longstanding legal and moral precept. It is the basis of most of the common law and statutes in most of the world today. Using someone's property or the fruits of their intellectual labor without their permission is stealing. You can try to hide behind legalistic jargon and technical excuses but morally and (usually) legally it is plain and simple wrong to take someone's else property without their permission.

For me, the present case is simple. Another competitive class shouldn't be allowed to copy the IOM rules. If you want to start something new, start something new; If you want to take an ideal from someone else at the very least ask for permission first. This is particularly troubling where the people involved certainly should have known better.

Finally, as to costs, it might just be that the cost to IOMICA might not make it effective to try to block the unauthorized use of our IP. However, there are steps short of litigation that can easily be taken. First, the class can decide to not support the business efforts of those involved. Second, ISAF could be contacted and the offending parties could be banned from all ISAF sanctioned events and classes. And that is without thinking too hard.

Oh, and one unrelated point. As to tv rights to model sailboat races, so far there doesn't seem to be any interest from any broadcasters regarding rights to any radio controlled sports/hobbies. However, IOMICA could consider setting up a broadband site to televise the IOM worlds via the internet. Quetion is there enough paying support to make this viable?

OK, we have some fairly strong opinions from not very many people. Of the 224 views of this thread only 7 people felt strongly enough to voice an opinion, 3 of those are Exec offices and 1 is on a sub committee.

I take it then that nobody else has concerns? Assuming that’s the case I suggest we put this to bed and leave the Phigiters alone. Frankly I feel any other course of action is going to lead to a whole lot of no good.

Cheers

Andy: I agree 100 percent that we should leave Lester and the Phijet class alone. By leaving them alone, however, I think that means we should NOT grant them permission to use the IOM Class rules in their venture.

If we want to look at the response on this board for some guidance, (and I believe the responses we get here do represent the thinking of the class) I would say that the overwhelming choice is to not support this new class. It appears that virtually no one here is supportive of this venture, at best, people think it is not worth the problems that might come from engaging in litigation or other disputes. Please note, in fact, that we have one post here that suggests that an entire NCA would want any mention of this group removed from the IOM forum. Of all the IOM sailors I have spoken to both in the US and elsewhere, no one thinks letting a new class incorporate the IOM rules is a good idea.

Accordingly, unless there is a vote of the membership authorizing the exec to grant permission or some other overwhleming expression of support, I would have to say our position has to be "Permission denied".

What happens next is in the hands of Lester et. al.

Roy wrote:I agree 100 percent that we should leave Lester and the Phijet class alone

It seems you and I have different ideas of what constitutes leaving something alone!

Roy wrote:I would say that the overwhelming choice is to not support this new class

Can’t agree with that. The overwhelming choice is not to care, plenty of IOM owners have read this and the previous thread, precious few cared to express an opinion.

Roy wrote:Please note, in fact, that we have one post here that suggests that an entire NCA would want any mention of this group removed from the IOM forum

What Ken actually said was:

Ken wrote:IOMICA is for IOM's, it is not the role of the ICA (or NCA's) to promote/discuss other classes

A far cry from your suggestion of denying the Phigit Class Rules from referencing the IOM class rules.

Roy wrote:I would have to say our position has to be "Permission denied".

Nobody’s asked for permission.

Roy wrote:What happens next is in the hands of Lester et. al.

To be brutally honest, I don’t care what the Phiget Class do next. My concerns lie with what the IOM class does next. As I and Anders have said already, we have better thing to do with our time that argue over this.

Cheers

Allthough a relative newcomer to the class, I wish Lester and the Phighet class all the best. I can imagine that the class appeals to IOM owners, as these can use their existing rigs; it certainly does to me.

It surprises me a lot that some people in the class get all defensive about this. In my opinion even thinking about legal issues would be unthinkable.


Wim Bakker
IOM NED 11
and M, A, 6M, MicroMagic

Quoting Andy

What Ken actually said was:

Ken wrote:
IOMICA is for IOM's, it is not the role of the ICA (or NCA's) to promote/discuss other classes

I want to reinforce that my posting on the Phigit thread was, as stated, my own opinion and not that of the NCA I represent.

I still hold the view that this forum should be restricted to discussions relating to the IOM Class and recent postings have only confirmed this.


Ken Dobbie
AUS950

RoyL wrote:Lester, it is not in the interest of the IOM Class or anyone here to have long public discussions of the law of intellecutal property.

Roy, that's curious, because it was you who said that this discussion should be thrown open to the public IOM Forum. This discussion can easily come to an early and short conclusion if you would address the list of matters relating to IOMICA IP that I posted earlier:

• Copyright -- belongs to ISAF
• Trademarks -- none registered
• Patents -- none
• Designs -- permission is freely given without any licensing requirements to anyone who wants to use the IOM Class Rules to build anything

RoyL wrote:Another competitive class shouldn't be allowed to copy the IOM rules.

As you know perfectly well, the Phigit class has not copied the IOM Class Rules. Endlessly repeating that claim does not make it true.

RoyL wrote:This is particularly troubling where the people involved certainly should have known better

And this is particularly troubling where you should certainly know better. (So, how does calling each other names like this, and accusing me of being a thief, cheat, and liar, take us any further forward, exactly?)

RoyL wrote:And that is without thinking too hard

Indeed. Just as you say...

RoyL wrote:As to tv rights to model sailboat races

All TV rights to IOM international events are vested in ISAF, under the terms and conditions of the IOMICA Memorandum of Agreement. I really do suggest you first read the documents which are relevant to what you want to say, if you are to put yourself forward as a legal expert in these matters.

Lester: Unlike your students, I am not required to answer whatever "questions" you decide to put.

Further, to keep the record straight I accused you of using the intellectual property of the IOM class without asking for persmission first. I stand by that accusation. It is for each individual here to judge your character (and for that matter, mine) by our actions. I know I sleep well at night knowing I am standing up for the rights of the IOM Class.

Finally, without a vote of the class, I do not believe it is in power of the Exec to grant permission to any person or entity to use the IOM rules and symbols. I suppose the only question to be resolved is to what should be the legal, ethical and moral consequences of people's actions.

RoyL wrote:I do not believe it is in power of the Exec to grant permission to any person or entity to use the IOM rules and symbols

Roy: Permission is already granted within the IOM Class Rules to anyone who wishes to build any IOM parts to do so. The IOM Class Rules themselves make it explicitly clear that there are absolutely no licensing issues around the use of the IOM Class Rules when these rules are used by anyone to build hulls, appendages, rigs, or make sails for any purpose. Anyone may use the IOM Class Rules, perfectly legally and perfectly morally, to build any IOM parts.

The Phigit Class Rules do not "use" the IOM Class Rules in any illegal or immoral way. They simply refer to the IOM Class Rules, carefully and respectfully, in a perfectly legal and perfectly moral way.

I note that you have not made any attempt to respond to or dispute my statement of the IOMICA IP that is at heart of this issue. There is little point to this discussion without us knowing, never mind agreeing upon, what we are talking about. To refresh your memory:

• Copyright -- belongs to ISAF
• Trademarks -- none registered
• Patents -- none
• Designs -- permission is freely given without any licensing requirements to anyone who wants to use the IOM Class Rules to build anything

As I have said earlier:

• Copyright -- the Phigit Class Rules violate no copyright issue, because they carefully and respectfully simply refer to the IOM Class Rules, and neither quote them, paraphrase them, reword them, or use them in any way at all. And in any case, the IOM Class Rules are not the IP of IOMICA, however much we both might regret that.
• Trademarks -- the Phigit Class Rules violate no trademark issue, because they mandate the use of a different insignia. And again, in any case, the IOM insignia is not a registered trademark, however much we both might regret that.
• Patents -- the Phigit Class Rules violate no patent issue, for the simple reason that IOMICA IP does not include any patents.
• Designs -- the Phigit Class Rules violate no design issues, because permission is freely given by the IOM Class Rules to anyone who wants to use the IOM Class Rules to build anything.

Barry: You are 100% correct. Time to move on.

Lester: I won't do this dance, don't have to.

Ken: I also am in agreement with you. I tried to be clear that you were not speaking for Australia but that you had a sense of how your NCA feels on this issue. No disrespect of any kind intended.

I think it's a bit disingenuous for someone who has posted opinions on the subject several times to be suggesting that the forum stop discussing it. The fire hydrant is clearly here for anyone to piss on, so y'all come and do it all you want!

I find the defensiveness of the anti-Phigit camp sort of interesting. Perhaps this class concept will (whether it gets off the ground or not) shake the IOM tree a bit, and I don't see any harm in that.

Steve Landeau's point about the deplorable number of classes here in the US is absolutely correct, though -- it just dilutes competition, to the detriment of model yachting participation in general, I think. But Europe doesn't have anything like the problem that exists here.

I wonder why Roy no longer wants to engage in a discussion he was very insistent should be started? But there is one more thing Roy might not appreciate.

RoyL wrote:I accused you of using the intellectual property of the IOM class without asking for persmission first. I stand by that accusation

Hmmm. Does it help to know that the primary contributors to the IP contained in the current IOM Class Rules are, in alphabetical order, Graham Bantock, Jan Dejmo, Lester Gilbert, and Robert Grubisa? Does it help to know that I wanted us authors to assign their IP (copyright in this case) to IOMICA, but it was clear that I was in the minority on this issue. The others made a strong argument for it to be assigned to ISAF, and I now see the wisdom of this.

andy111 wrote:OK, we have some fairly strong opinions from not very many people. Of the 224 views of this thread only 7 people felt strongly enough to voice an opinion, 3 of those are Exec offices and 1 is on a sub committee.

I take it then that nobody else has concerns? Assuming that’s the case I suggest we put this to bed and leave the Phigiters alone. Frankly I feel any other course of action is going to lead to a whole lot of no good.

Cheers

I posted my opinion in the other thread where this all started, but for the record, I'll post it here too.
This is a waste of time. Could IOMICA fight it? Probably. Can IOMICA stop the Phigit? No way. Can the Phigit rewrite a rule that means the same thing? Sure.
I'm sure that we have enough lawyers within our class to fight this till some of our members get so fed up with it they simply quit sailing altogether. If there are people with enough spare time to do that, I have lots of more important things you can spend your time on that will benefiet the class. Just let me know if you wish to volunteer. The Phigit in no way whatsoever is going to have any harmful affect on the IOM. It's bigger and heavier with the same ballast and power, will go slower in light air and faster in heavy air, is even more developmental than the IOM, so will be less competitive boat for boat and more reliant on out designing each other. It's nothing more than a small 10 rater/Marblehead/3 rater/ (and add any other long waterline boat here). All you have to do is take a look at the strength of those classes combined compared to the IOM and you would know it's not worth the paper you'd write your complaint on.
It's not an IOM, will never be an IOM, and those that have embraced the IOM will not replace it with a Phigit. Would they own one as a second boat? Maybe. I know I would if I lived in Fleetwood where it blows like stink all the time. But, I can't carry it on an airplane without being charged extra, so I won't be serious with it.
I can't tell you if IOMICA can "legally" stop the Phigit from using the rule as it's currently written since I'm not educated in that field, but I can tell you from my chair it looks dumb and very "bullyish". I will have no part in supporting any effort to stop the Phigit from using a couple of common words. It's simply a waste of time. This is just not an important battle to fight.

I fully support Steve's point of view

Steve, I could not have said it better.
I 100% agrie with you.

Best regards

hi

Iden ..........like you both

Let´s gona sailling and enjoy

Best regards

J.Camilo