torrid
Just sailing
I think the relevant term is "trademark".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
torried you are correct - the "LASER" name is a trademark and the builders hold the trademarks in the various markets.
However, Bruce Kirby has a copyright on the Laser Construction Manual.
Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TXu001362085 / 2007-06-21
Title: Laser construction manual.
Copyright Claimant: Bruce Kirby, Inc.
Date of Creation: 2005
Authorship on Application: Bruce Kirby, 1929-.
Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Names: Kirby, Bruce, 1929-
Bruce Kirby, Inc.
The ILCA has stated that they "control" the Laser Construction Manual but there is no record at the Copyright Office of Bruce Kirby having ever assigned his rights to the ILCA. I'm not sure if the ILCA understands that "control of" does not equate to "ownership". Simply having a Word document that they can make changes to doesn't mean that Bruce Kirby doesn't own it. A copyright (and it's derivative works) expires 70 years after the death of the author.
I can see now that I'm going to have to take my favorite IP attorney out to lunch and pick his brain. There are just so many unanswered questions and from the statements I've seen the ILCA make that are "according to their attorney" ... there seems to be a breakdown in communication and understanding between their attorney to them and what they convey to us.
Yes, that is correct, but...
Is having a copyright on a Laser construction manual a bit like having a copyright on a vanilla cake recipe and trying to tell everyone that they can't make vanilla cake?
I am just a confused...
Old Dude
One reason it would be worthwhile going after LPE even if they have no money would be to force a foreclosure and thus allow an administrator to sell the copyright "Laser" and for a new builder to be established - one who would pay as per the contractually agreements. Or to force LPE to be sold. Thaat might mean losing past revenues but at least it would start them again from a new company.
I'm confused, Deimos. What makes you think LPE owns any "copyright" related to the Laser?
Sorry. Brain not in gear. Yes, I did mean trademark. Same point, just I used the wrong word.I think the relevant term is "trademark".
The ILCA office has several full time and part time staff, Jeff is one of these.
Old Dude, none of the parties involved including the ILCA have ever stated if legal action between GS/Kirby and LP has ever occurred, you are simply assuming that none has occurred and that may be incorrect.
That is correct, but...
I believe such actions are public domain in the likely venues and there are tools for searching for same. No such legal action was located in a search. And the parties have not indicated legal action is proceeding.
We can not know any of this for certain. All I am doing is trying to find the most simple and obvious explanation that fits what we know.
Old Dude
Old Dude, none of the parties involved including the ILCA have ever stated if legal action between GS/Kirby and LP has ever occurred, you are simply assuming that none has occurred and that may be incorrect.
I believe such actions are public domain in the likely venues and there are tools for searching for same. No such legal action was located in a search. And the parties have not indicated legal action is proceeding.
We can not know any of this for certain. All I am doing is trying to find the most simple and obvious explanation that fits what we know.
Old Dude
I imagine it would depend on what country any action might have brought in. I would assume that when Kirby sold his <whatever he had> to GS that payments were still being made normally - otherwise I doubt they would have been worth much. So with a NZ? company seeking payments from a UK? company, might be difficult to determine what courts would be used. And might depend if the contracts had a "... under <country> law ..." included, etc. A lot of variables, even assuming that somebody took action.
Ian
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Old Dude