Spyker launch arbitration

[ioan]

It's started, let's see what it gives.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57540

[Hawkmoon]

I can understand Spyker's point of view but considering the 2008 regulations allow customer cars isn't all this somewhat futile?

[tinchote]

I can understand Spyker's point of view but considering the 2008 regulations allow customer cars isn't all this somewhat futile?

The 2008 regulations should be that, the 2008 regulations. Not 2007 regulations. Unfortunately, because this is just a big business and not a sport, nothing will happen as F1 cannot risk losing 4 cars.

[PSfan]

Man do I love this BS...


Team boss Colin Kolles made it clear at the weekend that he was adamant that only constructors should be eligible for points in F1.

"We have a constructors' championship, and I repeat that: a constructors' championship," he told reporters. "So you have this defined in the Concorde Agreement. It is in singular and you must manufacture your car. This qualifies you to be a constructor."

Guess that was the reason Midland dropped the idea of running a Dallara designed and built chassis:


Late in 2004 the nascent Midland team announced that Dallara would be designing and building their Formula One chassis which was due to be entered for the 2006 season.

Considering this hoopla is coming from a team that almost started life out buying essentially customer cars, it screams of irony and hypocrisy.

[ioan]

Man do I love this BS...

Guess that was the reason Midland dropped the idea of running a Dallara designed and built chassis:

Considering this hoopla is coming from a team that almost started life out buying essentially customer cars, it screams of irony and hypocrisy.

F1 is all about hypocrisy, they all try to push the limits of the rules and get offended when others do it.

I bet that Torro Rosso and Super Aguri knew what they were doing and were given very good legal advice about it. Koles should be looking ahead for some bad news coming his way.

I wonder why Williams isn't doing anything, for now. Maybe they wait to see what it gives, if Spyker win than It's good for Williams too, if they don't than there is no use to do it!

[ArrowsFA1]

I quickly read the title of the thread and thought another team had taken Spyker to arbitration over the launch of their car :eek: Perhaps I should get more sleep :p : :s nore:

[FreshF1]

It's all about the money...It's all about the dum dum du du dum dum...
:)

[tinchote]

Man do I love this BS...



Guess that was the reason Midland dropped the idea of running a Dallara designed and built chassis:



Considering this hoopla is coming from a team that almost started life out buying essentially customer cars, it screams of irony and hypocrisy.

From what you said, they did drop the idea. Then why wouldn't they complain about others doing it, taking into account that it is not permitted by the rules?

[ioan]

Thinking of it I think that Midland didn't drop the Dallara chassis idea because of the rules, after all they could have bought the intellectual rights for the chassis as Super Aguri did last year with the Arrows chassis.
Midland must have dropped the Dallara chassis for other reasons. Competitiveness, money?

[Gannex]

I wonder why Williams isn't doing anything, for now.
I think it's just a matter of time before Williams join the litigation, ioan. There is one matter still under consideration by Williams, and that is the question of whether Red Bull should be joined as well, on the theory that both their car and Scuderia Toro Rosso's car are manufactured, according to the teams themselves, by a third party.

Hawkmoon, you suggest that it is pointless to litigate the matter when customer cars will be legal next year in any case. But that point is not conceded by Williams. The company has claimed that the 2008 Concorde Agreement terms regarding customer cars have not been fixed yet; so it is far from clear that customer cars will be legal in '08, though it has to be said that Max Mosley and others at the FIA have said repeatedly that they will be. But whatever the FIA might opine on the matter, the law is not the law until it has been signed, sealed and delivered by the FIA, something that is quite a long way off. And the question of customer car provisions from 2008 onwards, being under dispute, is a question unlikely to be settled until the last minute.

I would add, Hawkmoon, that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that customer cars will be legal in 2008, it is still worth arguing their illegality in 2007 because there is a lot of TV money at stake. Williams and Spyker spend millions on research, development and manufacture of their cars; Scuderia Toro Rosso and Super Aguri are able to spend far, far less. Is it not fair that the actual constructors should be the only ones to share in 2007's constructor points-related TV revenue, especially since that is what the current Concorde Agreement clearly implies?

So everything remains to be played for in this dispute, as I see it. I'm glad Williams and Spyker are keeping the issue alive. Everyone wants stability in the sport but I, for one, don't want stability if it comes at the cost of destroying F1's status as a design competition as well as a racing competition.

[Valve Bounce]

I can understand Spyker's point of view but considering the 2008 regulations allow customer cars isn't all this somewhat futile?

No because at the end of this year, the amount of money the team will receive from the F1 organisation, whatever that is, will depend very much on where they finish in the championship. Just ask Paul Stoddart.

[PSfan]

From what you said, they did drop the idea. Then why wouldn't they complain about others doing it, taking into account that it is not permitted by the rules?

Whoops I forgot to add the sarcastic lookup with my "guess this is why" statement. If they had discovered that having Dallara design and build their chasis was outside the rules then sure it wouldn't be a factor, but the reason I read concerning Midlands decision to give up on the Dallara team was due to a lack of commitment on Dallara's part. I also think that Midland might have liked the "Jordan" way off designing their own chassis, and have different 3rd parties build the various parts.

And futhermore, what do we know what is or isn't permitted by the rules? Its not like we have a copy of the concorde agreement sitting next to our computers, and even then I'm sure its just as open to interpretation as the bible. Do we even know where Aguri's and Team Toro's cars were built, and by who?

[Ian McC]

So what's the worse we are talking about here? Teams kicked out? Or expected to run and not score any points?

[PSfan]

The worst I imagine is, this drags out for months, the cars are found illegal, and then the previous results are re-calculated to reflect, and then the teams wouldn't be allowed to score contructors points (not sure about the driver points though)

[Dazz9908]

I'm in two minds,
I like to see F1 teams develop their own cars for creativity and individualism and how each can twist/interpret the rules.

But Customer cars to New teams could help swell the field sizes, in time.

[V12]

Running a Dallara built chassis would have been allowed - provided nobody else did - like Scuderia Italia did 1988-92, and the Lola in 1993 (and Larrousse running Lolas 1987-91)

[Gannex]

Whoops I forgot to add the sarcastic lookup with my "guess this is why" statement. If they had discovered that having Dallara design and build their chasis was outside the rules then sure it wouldn't be a factor, but the reason I read concerning Midlands decision to give up on the Dallara team was due to a lack of commitment on Dallara's part. I also think that Midland might have liked the "Jordan" way off designing their own chassis, and have different 3rd parties build the various parts.

And futhermore, what do we know what is or isn't permitted by the rules? Its not like we have a copy of the concorde agreement sitting next to our computers, and even then I'm sure its just as open to interpretation as the bible. Do we even know where Aguri's and Team Toro's cars were built, and by who?
The Concorde Agreement says that "A constructor is a person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of Formula One racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment. Provided always that nothing in this Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis." Gerhard Berger has conceded that Scuderia Toro Rosso uses fundamentally the same chassis as Red Bull Racing. But according to Scuderia Toro Rosso, they are not using "any part designed . . . by any other constructor" because the chassis is designed not by Red Bull Racing, but by Red Bull Technologies who, so the theory goes, is not itself a constructor.

[ClarkFan]

Guess that was the reason Midland dropped the idea of running a Dallara designed and built chassis:

I thought that Midland dropped Dallara when Dallara insisted on being paid before they delivered chassis..... :s

ClarkFan

[wmcot]

The Concorde Agreement says that "A constructor is a person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of Formula One racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment. Provided always that nothing in this Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis." Gerhard Berger has conceded that Scuderia Toro Rosso uses fundamentally the same chassis as Red Bull Racing. But according to Scuderia Toro Rosso, they are not using "any part designed . . . by any other constructor" because the chassis is designed not by Red Bull Racing, but by Red Bull Technologies who, so the theory goes, is not itself a constructor.

Doesn't that define Red Bull Technologies as the constructor of BOTH the Red Bull and Toro Rosso teams?

[aryan]

IIRC, the fallout between Midland and Dallara was purely based on financial reasons. Dallara was actually intrested in the project as they had some unfinished business in F1, but they were not sure the Midland guys would ever have the money to pay them back.

In short, it has nothing to do with the current fiasco.

[Gannex]

Doesn't that define Red Bull Technologies as the constructor of BOTH the Red Bull and Toro Rosso teams?
No, because Red Bull Technologies does not race, and has not formally entered the competition. To be a constructor, you have to first enter the competition -- that much is clear from other provisions in the agreement.

[PSfan]

Guess that was the reason Midland dropped the idea of running a Dallara designed and built chassis:I thought that Midland dropped Dallara when Dallara insisted on being paid before they delivered chassis..... :s

ClarkFan


IIRC, the fallout between Midland and Dallara was purely based on financial reasons. Dallara was actually intrested in the project as they had some unfinished business in F1, but they were not sure the Midland guys would ever have the money to pay them back.


In short, it has nothing to do with the current fiasco. [/QUOTE]

As found on a couple of web sites via google search:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallara was contracted to design Midland's cars. It came however to a split after financial problems arose at Dallara's side.
http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/teams/127

and:

Dallara had originally been contracted to develop the M16, however the agreement was discontinued during the design process after a disappointing contribution from the Italian manufacturer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_F1_Racing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But as I had already mentioned in this thread the "quess thats why they gave up on the Dallara chasis was meant to be sarcastic.


In short, it has nothing to do with the current fiasco.

I had brought up the Dallara/Midland deal to point out that Kolles is full of it when he makes a statement like "It is in singular and you must manufacture your car. This qualifies you to be a constructor."

[Nikki Katz]

I was under the impression that the 2008 customer cars were just an agreement anyway, it's not actually stated anywhere in Concorde. So we may have this problem every year if it doesn't get resolved now, and it would also threaten the introduction of Prodrive next year.

[Gannex]

Nikki, the 2008 Concorde Agreement is still in the negotiation stage. Only general principles have been agreed. No drafts have been circulated, as far as I know, so the precise terms are very much an open question.

One of the "general principles" that have been agreed, according to almost everyone, is that customer cars will be allowed. To put it another way, it has been agreed in principle, by most of the interested parties, that the definition of "constructor" contained in Schedule 3 of the current Concorde Agreement will be revised in the 2008 agreement so as to delete the restriction that only engines and gearboxes can be bought from other competitors. Chassis, from 2008 onwards, may be bought as well.

Assurances about this very significant change to the existing Concorde Agreement have been given by Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone to Dave Richards, who has relied on those assurances in preparing his 2008 F1 entry. But Frank Williams has cast doubt on the validity of those assurances by stating that, as far as he is concerned, it is not agreed that customer cars will be allowed in 2008, and that Williams will continue to oppose the introduction of any such provision into the agreement which is currently under negotiation.

Williams and Spyker have a strong financial interest in opposing customer cars. It is almost not too strong to say that the very existence of those two teams depends on the retention of Schedule 3. But almost the entire F1 community is against them, so the struggle will be very hard for these two teams.

[ClarkFan]

No, because Red Bull Technologies does not race, and has not formally entered the competition. To be a constructor, you have to first enter the competition -- that much is clear from other provisions in the agreement.

Gannex, that strikes me as a distinction without a difference. But given that the Concorde agreement is owned by the lawyers (not the racers), I can believe that it is possible.

But that opens up a number of questions. What is the official corporate organization of Honda's F1 effort? What if Honda F1 Racing Ltd. of the UK had sold the design of the RA106 to Honda Development of Tochigi, Japan, which then proceeded to produce chassis for Super Aguri? Would those chassis be sufficiently independent (in the corporate sense ) to be legal? It is enough to make my poor little head hurt. :crazy:

In the broader sense I support customer cars, but in the context of a very different world from the team preservation mindset of Concorde. Let anyone with the money/sponsors buy any legal chassis (eBay, anyone?), bung any legal engine/transmission into it, and go racing. 28 cars allowed in qualifying, 24 in the race, with pre-qualifying for the newbies and slowbies (those who didn't score championship points in the previous season or year-to-date). Teams that lose the plot face their own mortality (See any BRMs, Coopers, Lotuses, Tyrrells or Brabhams in this year's field?). For all the talk about "technical pinnacles," F1 has recently found itself saddled with perpetual loser teams like Minardi and Midland with no means to ease them into a merciful end. Bring in some real competition at the back of the field.

That's what I would do if I were king of the forest.

ClarkFan

[msaxman]

So what's the worse we are talking about here? Teams kicked out? Or expected to run and not score any points?

like they'd score, anyways. it would take a miracle (usgp 2005). i think it would be fair to have non-constructors score no constructor points, but allow their drivers to score drivers points.

but that's an armchair fans opinion. all you know-alls can shoot me off if you like.

[Valve Bounce]

This could be very interesting because Aguri can argue that their car is/was designed by Tochigi. Eiji did say that Toshigi was doing some idependant/separate design/R&D work on last year's Honda.

[Gannex]

Doesn't that define Red Bull Technologies as the constructor of BOTH the Red Bull and Toro Rosso teams?


No, because Red Bull Technologies does not race, and has not formally entered the competition. To be a constructor, you have to first enter the competition -- that much is clear from other provisions in the agreement.


Gannex, that strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Well it is, I agree. But it's the loophole invented by Dietrich Mateschitz and it seems to be working.

[PSfan]

The Concorde Agreement says that "A constructor is a person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of Formula One racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment. Provided always that nothing in this Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis." Gerhard Berger has conceded that Scuderia Toro Rosso uses fundamentally the same chassis as Red Bull Racing. But according to Scuderia Toro Rosso, they are not using "any part designed . . . by any other constructor" because the chassis is designed not by Red Bull Racing, but by Red Bull Technologies who, so the theory goes, is not itself a constructor.

Just gave this some more thought, and assuming that Schedule 3 hasn't been changed to much since 97, then this would explain why Spyker didn't originally go after Toro or Red Bull when they first protested after qualifying. As long as both the Toro Rosso and Red Bull cars are different enough to warrant their own intellectual property rights then there isn't a whole lot that Spyker can do about it.

Aguri on the other hand... While Honda F1 might have shipped off the intellectual property rights to Honda R&D, for this to work, Honda R&D would have to re-design every single piece of the chassis. If there is the slightest carry over from the RA106, then it would in fact be using parts designed by another constructor.

[aryan]

I had brought up the Dallara/Midland deal to point out that Kolles is full of it when he makes a statement like "It is in singular and you must manufacture your car. This qualifies you to be a constructor."

I see your point, I am sorry I didn't read the whole thread fully before that comment.

[aryan]

But that opens up a number of questions. What is the official corporate organization of Honda's F1 effort? What if Honda F1 Racing Ltd. of the UK had sold the design of the RA106 to Honda Development of Tochigi, Japan, which then proceeded to produce chassis for Super Aguri? Would those chassis be sufficiently independent (in the corporate sense ) to be legal? It is enough to make my poor little head hurt. :crazy:
...
ClarkFan

This is my general understanding of coroprate IP law, I have no insight knowledge of the Concord agreement.

Intellectual property (design rights here) can only have one owner at a time, its owner has to be unique and identifiable. Honda could have very well sold their IP rights of their design to Super Aguri, and SA can then use that and create a modified version of the chassis (called a derivative work in copyright terms) based on the design they now own.

But then, Honda would have had to throw away all their knowledge of their 2006 car (and to be on the safe side, fire all their design team and hire a bunch of people with no knowledge and access to the previous car, or to create a sandbox as it is known in the industry) and design a new car from scratch. Their new car would then be called "orignal work". Otherwise, if they had used any of the IP which they had sold to SA, then their own car would become a derivate work of that design.

As it stands, Honda has either sold the IP rights of the previous car to SA, in which case Honda's car is a derivative work and thus Honda does not own its full IP rights and is in violation of the Concord agreement; or Honda hasn't sold the IP rights to SA and has just licensed the rights to SA (which I believe is the case) in which case, SA doesn't hold all the IP rights to their car and they are in violation of the agreement.

Your argument that what if SA has vastly changed the design, still doesn't hold ground in a court. As it stands, copyright law goes into extreme details on how to differentiate between an original work and a derivative one, and it would be very easy for any lawyer to argue that SA's car is a derivative work of Honda's last year car. To be called original, the new work should have made radical changes, to be point that the the original work can not be represented in the new work, and that's too hard to argue for a car which is based on last year's car.

[ioan]

This is my general understanding of coroprate IP law, I have no insight knowledge of the Concord agreement.

Intellectual property (design rights here) can only have one owner at a time, its owner has to be unique and identifiable. Honda could have very well sold their IP rights of their design to Super Aguri, and SA can then use that and create a modified version of the chassis (called a derivative work in copyright terms) based on the design they now own.

But then, Honda would have had to throw away all their knowledge of their 2006 car (and to be on the safe side, fire all their design team and hire a bunch of people with no knowledge and access to the previous car, or to create a sandbox as it is known in the industry) and design a new car from scratch. Their new car would then be called "orignal work". Otherwise, if they had used any of the IP which they had sold to SA, then their own car would become a derivate work of that design.

As it stands, Honda has either sold the IP rights of the previous car to SA, in which case Honda's car is a derivative work and thus Honda does not own its full IP rights and is in violation of the Concord agreement; or Honda hasn't sold the IP rights to SA and has just licensed the rights to SA (which I believe is the case) in which case, SA doesn't hold all the IP rights to their car and they are in violation of the agreement.

Your argument that what if SA has vastly changed the design, still doesn't hold ground in a court. As it stands, copyright law goes into extreme details on how to differentiate between an original work and a derivative one, and it would be very easy for any lawyer to argue that SA's car is a derivative work of Honda's last year car. To be called original, the new work should have made radical changes, to be point that the the original work can not be represented in the new work, and that's too hard to argue for a car which is based on last year's car.

Allow me to disagree.
Going by your theory about intellectual property and "original work", every team should come up with their own laws of physics, which is absurd as there aren't any other than those they all use.

[ClarkFan]

But then, Honda would have had to throw away all their knowledge of their 2006 car ....

Looking at the performance to date of the RA107, perhaps they did....... :s

ClarkFan

[aryan]

Allow me to disagree.
Going by your theory about intellectual property and "original work", every team should come up with their own laws of physics, which is absurd as there aren't any other than those they all use.

They should have if basic laws of nature were patentable and copyritghable.

As it is, the founding fathers of the US (who were the first to formulate the notion of copyright in their constitution) realised that copyright or in its broader sense Inettelectual Property as we call it today, should only enhance community knowledge and should not hinder innovation, and therefore IP has limitations. One of those limitations is that it should expire and fall into public domain (at some time). The other limitation is that basic laws of nature (laws of physics, mathematical formulae etc.) are not covered by IP laws and are in public domain.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I have worked in a law firm.

[ioan]

They should have if basic laws of nature were patentable and copyritghable.

Engineering knowledge that team members might have isn't patented either. Or else Newey should have got a brain wash before leaving McLaren.

[aryan]

Engineering knowledge that team members might have isn't patented either. Or else Newey should have got a brain wash before leaving McLaren.

You are most certainly right, and that is exactly why many companies put clauses in their strategic employee's agreements in effect barring them from joining a competitor until X months/years has passed from their current employment.

[ioan]

You are most certainly right, and that is exactly why many companies put clauses in their strategic employee's agreements in effect barring them from joining a competitor until X months/years has passed from their current employment.

Exactly. But however they will use the acquired knowledge after in the next team, otherwise they would be useless.

[Valve Bounce]

Allow me to disagree.
Going by your theory about intellectual property and "original work", every team should come up with their own laws of physics, which is absurd as there aren't any other than those they all use.


Perfectly correct: The second law of physics clearly states : what goes up must come down.

[aryan]

Exactly. But however they will use the acquired knowledge after in the next team, otherwise they would be useless.

Of course they will, and that's perfrectly fine if they are not looking at some of the design sheets they brought from their previous employer.

Ideas are not patentable, implementations of those ideas are.