The $18 billion AirAsia deal with Airbus which I mentioned a few days ago has been announced, breaking all records for the largest single airline deal in history with the company having committed to buying no fewer than 200 jets from Airbus in the years ahead. This is an indication of the ambitions of the Malaysian entrepreneur, and at the same time, of his ability to go out into the marketplace and raise money for his projects. In addition to his booming businesses in the airline and hotel business, Fernandes intends to turn Caterham into a much bigger car company, while also building up his credit card business called Tune Money, his mobile phone empire called Tune Talk and his own natural energy drink brand, called EQ8. When one has successful businesses one can leverage these to produce big sponsorships, as has been seen in the case of the recent General Electric deal, which is clearly linked with aero engines. Initially Fernandes wanted to use the Lotus brand but that plan was torpedoed when the national Malaysian car company Proton handed over Group Lotus to Dany Bahar, who had ambitions to use the sport in much the same way as Fernandes and wanted the latter out of his way. Bahar’s attempts to stop Fernandes were frustrated in the High Court where a judge ruled that the AirAsia bass had the right to use the Team Lotus brand and an exclusive right to call his F1 racing cars Lotuses. Bahar’s cars everywhere else can be called Lotuses… Bahar has since tried to appeal that decision but this has been rejected in recent days while we hear that Group Lotus has now filed suit against Fernandes and his partners for confusing customers by buying Caterham. Given that Lotus signed over the rights to the Lotus 7 to Caterham Cars many years ago and they were renamed Caterham Super 7s, it is hard to see the logic of this case. To all intents and purposes it is not really that valid as Bahar has declared the intention to take Group Lotus upmarket and challenge Porsche and (originally) Ferrari, rather than building cars for traditional Lotus buyers. The case is expected to get a fast trial in a month or two.
One can only speculate about why such a case has been brought after the failure to win the original legal action, but it might be better if Bahar simply saved on his legal bills and made Fernandes a financial offer that he could not refuse to allow Group Lotus to take over the Lotus name in F1. As previously stated this could be achieved by Bahar acquiring the Lotus Renault GP team from whoever it is that owns it at the moment, and selling that to Fernandes in exchange for Team Lotus. The two parties would keep their respective assets and then have cars that they could use to promote their various businesses. The problem for Bahar is that Fernandes is busy developing a whole range of Team Lotus-related products and that such a deal would mean that Fernandes would get all the “historical money” related to the Renault F1 team (which has a history stretching back to the early 1980s), while Bahar would get no such financial incentives because the current Team Lotus is new and not earning anything like as much money from the Formula One group. Trying to market a company without properly owning the brand is an odd way of going about business but if the product is good enough that might work.
Fernandes may want to hold on to Lotus and may not be overly interested in changing his brand to Caterham, although the Lotus brand is somewhat dented from all the adventures over the years and is perhaps not quite as shiny as it once was. Caterham has a small and loyal following in Europe but in terms of brand values, it is something of a blank canvas in Asia. Fernandes can make of it what he pleases.
joeblogsf1 
Okay,
challenge to the crowd here:
limit conversation to strike outs on summary application . .
let me start,
with a goody, because this is the counter,
“tortious interference”
and for bonus, can anyone tell me which part of civil procedure rules apply, and if they have not been done, why this is not vexatious?
or, is this in fact, a run around of the defamation laws, and so abuse of procedure?
bless y’all.
– j
p.s. this is not one i shall guess to give you hints to. Just put yourself in a Justice’s seat for a moment, and wonder, really, what are the facts brought to you. – j
What’s that sound? Might be the sound of Bahar clutching at a handful of straws. Let’s hope that the writing is on the wall for him and his ridiculous decisions.
Why does Bahar bother? Seems a waste of resources to me.
Crikey John(other John), I wish I could understand legal speak! I’d love to engage but I don’t understand that stuff!
I do think however (would like to think), that despite TF having a very sound business head and that he’s as cool as the Arctic Ocean in January, his attachment to Team Lotus has a significant emotional component and he’s not gonna do a swapsies with Dany Baharsteward/Renault any time soon. And anyway, Danys’ chickens are on there way home to roost…just a matter of time and TF will bide it.
Apparently Dany Baharsteward has recently denied to told the Lotus workforce…..
“With the quality of vehicles as they are, would you spend £60,000 on an Evora? I wouldn’t, that’s why I drive a Porsche!”.
He has a point mind you. But he ain’t gonna turn that one around in a hurry and meanwhile he’s set up Group Lotus to bleed money into motorsport with not a lot coming in all said and done.
With an $18 billion purchase, I can see Airbus kicking back a portion (even 1% is $18 milllion) in return for space on Team Lotus race cars. But will AirBus become a technical partner though?
Just a thought – sometimes these impressive business people come crashing down – it’s happened before. I do not wish it to happen, TF seems a good egg,
but just a thought.
TF won’t be crashing down anytime soon.
On a sidenote, Joe, how about Group Lotus’s “new” testing circuit in Hethel, with sections named after Mansell, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Andretti, Senna?…
Any thoughts on that one?
Cheers!
Victor Serrao,
I always wanted to be able to spend other people’s money….
I have 2 thoughts about the reasoning behind this latest lawsuits. Firstly, it might be Bahar wants to put the pressure on Fernandes to budge into a better deal for Bahar (not very likely to work and Bahar would know that), or alternatively, and more likely, it is to show Bahar’s pay masters that he is doing all he can to stop Fernandes, before having to present them with another costly deal to buy off Team Lotus, and a way to save his own skin.
Joe,
You say that Caterham is a blank canvass in Asia, but Bahar has virtually the same problem with the Lotus brand… it simply has nowhere near the cachet of Porsche or Ferrari in the Middle and Far East, and I don’t believe he will ever be able to compete with them in those (or any other) markets.
Bahar is coming across like a complete tit.
before this season I had an extremely positive image of Lotus cars, now I think they’re a ridiculous, unethical organisation, using stupid legal tactics just to be an annoyance. So top PR then.
Group Lotus could still end up in Tony’s hands!!..
Without even reading this story I hope Renault, Proton, the Malaysian Govt. et al have given Lotus to Mr T Fernandez by now, surely this guy is some sort of spiritual reincarnation of Colin Chapman. Or something.
I’d buy a Lotus from that guy, if I had any money. Maybe he will give me one (hint)
I see Group Lotus are going to launch a city car in 2014, which will also be branded and sold as a Proton.
Here’s a thought, how about TF buying Proton which would then give ownership of Lotus and allow him to do an ‘Air Aisa’ on Proton?
“Group Lotus has now filed suit against Fernandes and his partners for confusing customers”
I can see only one confused person, and it ain’t me or any of the customers.
Joe,
Mr F. is doing a great job and as somebody who spends a lot of time in Asia, I believe he is a breath of fresh air. However he has a long way to go in seeing this all through, orders are only that and with issues with hubs, delays in KL and new competition from SQ he perhaps may have more of hockey stick curve to survive than a straight ascent to business greatness.
His ancillary deals are interesting and he is smartly leveraging his trade relationships and suppliers, such as GE, but from time on the ground in region, the Tune companies lag a long way behind Asia Air in much more competitive markets.
I really also don’t see Caterhams selling in climates such as S.E. Asia and as you say with no brand to build on, engineering a new car would be a mighty challenge for an airline! Even in a mild climate with (relatively) good roads they struggle for sales in the UK. They’re a track toy and with limited tracks in that part of the world and track days being the preserve of the Ferrari and Lambo boys I cant see any self made Asian buying one over an established brand, how ever well it handles or is marketed.
I hope he doesn’t stretch himself, and lose sight of the first goal, actually establishing himself as the perfect hybrid a Richard O’Leary / Michael Branson offering low cost intra and inter continental travel to the masses.
As to Mr Bahar I have no idea what he is doing and why he is still there but time I’m sure will solve that. Hopefully not at the final expense of the Lotus brand. There is a good brand here with a history and it needs a dedicated team to take it forward; on the road and in F1 – unfortunately I think neither of the two current protagonists are the right people.
Hopefully sense will prevail, we can have AirAsia F1 and the other Malaysians sell Lotus to an international brand who could do something with it – TATA Lotus ?? Re engineered cars could deliver on the idea of a true competitor to the established firms with strong JLR and Indian technical support, distribution and target the US, European and immerging Asian / Indian markets both on track and road. But then when ever does sense prevail…..
Simon.
Somehow Caterham doesn’t have the same élan (!) as Lotus, hmm?
cyberspace…
Surely elan is something that comes with time.
If Tony Fernandez spends his time off from the real world, F1, picking up a more than a few billion $ of aeroplanes I’m sure he could sell a few Lotuses.
“Group Lotus has now filed suit against Fernandes and his partners for confusing customers”
Lets all file suit against all of them for confusing everyone.
Having read the judgement, I can’t see where the judge rules that TF has the exclusive right to call his cars Lotus in F1. I don’t believe your are correct to state that?
Ben G,
Well that is how it is interpreted by all those concerned. They pay lawyers to decide such things and I leave it to them to know. I just report what is happening.
The motoring media say that by ‘rebuilding’ the test track, Danny Boy has inadvertently ruined Lotus because it last the dodgy, unmaintained tarmac on the track that let the engineers develop the ride and handling characteristics of the cars. Now, with a billiard smooth test track, Lotus will assume ‘Germanic’ ride qualities…
Forza,
Ruining Group Lotus is not the work of a moment, more of a longterm “plan”
For the sake of accuracy, Air Asia’s order is not in fact a record, although it is huge. To quote from Flight International’s story:
“AirAsia’s deal is worth $18.2 billion at catalogue prices, ranking it as the third largest, in financial terms, in Airbus’s history.
“One and two are Emirates and Qatar but they don’t count because they have oil and stuff,” said Fernandes. “We had to do it the hard way.” ”
Also worth noting that no airline ever pays “catalogue price”, so it’s anybody’s guess how much the deal is really worth, although it sure makes Team Lotus’ budget look tiny!
Charles,
I am not an expert in these matters. The deal was widely reported as being the biggest and so one assumes that the aviation folk know what they are talking about. Whatever the number it is a massive amount whether it is $15 billion or $25 billion with the engines included. The key point is that this deal moves Fernandes into the global big league. He is not just a Malaysian boy done good.
As I read the existing judgement, Tony has the right to call his F1 cars “Team Lotus” not “Lotus” on it’s own, while GL have the right to call theirs “Lotus”, if they want to change the team name, at no point in the judgement are chassis names mentioned, from reading the judges comments he clearly believes the chassis and team name are indivisible. However as has been mentioned before they would need to forfeit their points make prizes money if they changed from Renault to Lotus.
If this new lawsuit is a fit of pique from Bahar, the circumstance is comic, because the judge did make the comment that there would be no possibility of confusing Lotus Cars products with Team Lotus’s because Team Lotus did not manufacture road cars, whilst almost at the same moment the Caterham deal was announced.
Of course we all think of the 7 as a Lotus, ever since “The Prisoner” made it famous, the fact that it became Caterham is not relevant, in this way Bahar is justifiably miffed that Tony has got another one past him when he was looking the the way, but has not a legal leg to stand on.
I worry that the many excellent guys at Lotus Cars are having their name lowered into the mud by Bahar. Surely Proton must twig soon.
rpaco,
Well, I guess that must be wrong because the cars are called Lotuses and the Renaults and called Renaults… I am not a lawyer but I believe that you have the whole thing wrong.
Lotus-e-Clan,
don’t worry, all Greek* to me, best of days. I think i left that there late at night to kick myself up the arse this morning!
here’s the first explanation:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tortious_interference
and the second:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
the key words are “interference” (with third party business) and “without merit”.
Those whopping great big books junior barristers lug about are usually the Civil Procedure Rules. Very occasionally, Chitty On Contract or something a bit more specialised. At this level, you don’t walk in with bundles of earlier decisions, because you’re expected to know what they mean, and refer to them. The career objective is not to memorise this lot, but to get promoted Silk, so you can get a junior (or three) to carry them**!
Anyhow, the point of looking up the rules, is to find out how to establish the link between grounds for claim and what to do next, or what can be done next. Honestly, it may be a lot, but it’s a very plain speak guide to what you can get away with.
My take, not a surprise, is Bahar cannot get away with this. Especially if he is threatening in the media, and hasn’t at least put the other side on notice. Has anyone seen an application yet? I did read the last decision, but though i sense wiggle room, i thought it also closed the door when it said Tony had actually breached the license agreement, and ordered against him there.
Anyhow, as far as i can find out, time of writing, there’s nothing in motion, and apart from me now going to dig out the rules and if i can, re-read the case so far, i think my challenge stands, if reworded: “can anyone work out what this Bahar chap is trying to do, and will it actually get listened to for more than a split second in Court?”
(and therefore, i kept my promise, of no hints, possibly because there are none to be had, else they’d be being used by Danny boy? I await to be corrected . .)
cheers!
– john
*I blagged Latin too. Wonderful later teacher: “too bloody good at English, John” Me, “prefer French, read the books anyhow”. Never dared tell the second teacher my first was a effing literary genius who got this kid interested enough to remember the good bits.
** QCs job is to present and argue, not drudge the case. Must be lovely if you get that far . . not my game, i should add, just absolute respect how these people work on a good day.
Joe, surely that makes Caterham a sub Lotus then!
How about a Fiat 500 “Ferrari” Cygnet competitor
Hmm the Lotus Evora is a v6 …
Joe, any word of Proton boardmembers getting fed up with Bahar’s antics? Or are they still fully behind him?
rpaco, et Joe,
yup, the thing is here that the Justice basically said anyone could call a racing car Lotus. But dear Danny is also bound by the F1 rules, and so aint got a Lotus racing car 🙂
sometimes justice is sweet!
– john
Joe,
on not being a work of a moment, Group.
Yes, but blowing reputation and capital always seems to get done much quicker, i should know, i was getting some Judo Dans in that before i worked out the point of life wasn’t to beat yourself up* . . . – j
*and suddenly, from a personal perspective, i’ve got all matronly concerned about this Bahar chap. It’s one thing to call out nonsense in a court, where the rules of engagement and behaviour are very well laid, another to gloat at failure which will probably haunt someone’s later life. Or not, but i don’t have words to explain what that would mean, too much “stare into the abyss” stuff, if the clue ever hits home, which i assure you can hit home without the nincompoop (i cite my younger self as example, not Danny B) ever realising.
Forza,
Thanks for the giggle! But isn’t [sic] “a Germanic ride” one involving air suspension, and a ride height to rival a Land Rover? 🙂
– j
rpaco, Autosport also reported that TF had won the right to call his F1 cars Lotuses, and most people seem to think that that is the case.
Bahar is on a hiding to nothing trying to upmarket the Lotus brand. Lotus was never about posing it was always about fun for your money.
All TF has to do is wait. Dany Bahar is burning money that Proton don’t have (especially on pointless court-cases) and his days in charge are numbered.
Proton will discard Group Lotus at some point to try help it’s leaking finances. TF can then unify both parts of Lotus again. Race under the Lotus banner (using Caterham in junior formulas) and build ‘cheap’ sports-cars for the Asian market based on the Elise.
@Ben G under the 1985 agreement (which the judge said still stands) Lotus Cars can only go racing with a name that Team Lotus (the racing entity) approves and if Lotus is part of the name it must be made up of at least two parts and it cannot include Team. This is why Bahar challenged the ruling as GL cannot enter a team in F1 simply called Lotus – neither can TF (yet).
Irish Simon
“I really also don’t see Caterhams selling in climates such as S.E. Asia and as you say with no brand to build on, engineering a new car would be a mighty challenge for an airline! Even in a mild climate with (relatively) good roads they struggle for sales in the UK. They’re a track toy and with limited tracks in that part of the world and track days being the preserve of the Ferrari and Lambo boys I cant see any self made Asian buying one over an established brand, how ever well it handles or is marketed.”
The self made millionaires (of Asia or Britain) have never really been the target market for Caterhams. Caterhams are designed as relatively inexpensive track toys that can (in the right hands) embarass your average self made man in his Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo or Veyron at a track day.
I assume they’ll market it it in the same way as is done in the UK. With several Race Series’ used as a relatively inexpensive way into motorsport, which is growing in popularity thanks to the number of Asian F1 races and teams looking for future F1 drivers from that region to increase audiences.
Group Lotuses problem is that the Ferrari/Porsche market is exactly where its aiming and Lotus just doesn’t have enough “Badge” for your average millionaire.
At this point, Renault would be advised to change the name of their car company as to get away from the horrible taint brought on by Bahar and Briatore.
Dave Myers
That quote that only Tony has the right, actually came from Tony himself in his tweet just after the judgement.
The only mention of the word “chassis” in the judgement was in reference to Colin Chapman separating the chassis, engine, gearbox, wheels etc into products to be bought from different Lotus companies (he set up 5 or so) in order to avoid purchase tax on the cars sold as kits.
The whole judgement revolved on team names not car chassis names. The judge did say that anyone could call their team Team Lotus but not Lotus, he also said that Tony needed to re-register the name Team Lotus since he (the judge) was cancelling the original registration for non-use. (I assume Tony did so) As I read it then Bahar could have registered Team Lotus first if he had had his wits about him.
However the chassis naming situation within the FIA is a separate matter entirely. Legally now GL have the right to start a team or to buy a team and call it “Lotus” as opposed to “Team Lotus”, however since Tony already has a “Lotus” chassis entered in the championship it would be up to the FIA to allow another or not. However at the time for entries for next year which is soon I think it is possible that Bahar may get in first and enter Lotus as his team and chassis name, (as the judge has said he can) but he will need a team to do that with, which he has not got.
I see this as likely to continue, because there is the distinct difference between FIA chassis/team entry registration and the legal brand/logo/wordmark/trademark registration, the latter has been settled but the former may well erupt with next year’s entries. In fact both parties are to blame because they did not make clear to the judge the significance of car/chassis naming within an F1 entry as opposed to team naming, nor did they even mention it.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1366.html There it is, wade through it yourselves.
rpaco,
This is not right. It is all about the Concorde Agreement. It is not down to the FIA or any entries. As to the legal stuff if you are right why is everyone doing as they are doing? Are all their lawyers wrong?
Joe
Yes I agree technically you are right but also wrong. Maybe you can hold a vote in the press room/tent.
rpaco,
We are a bit busy for that sort of stuff
Joe,
when can we have the Prequel?
Episode . .
Jean Reno and Nat Portman. We know the baddies 🙂
I think you should get a cartoonist for GP+!!!
(pointers who would be good, above)
– j
rpaco has it right.
The only thing stopping Lotus Renault GP calling their cars ‘Lotus’ are the FIA rules about naming chassis. The naming of the actual cars was not decided exclusively in favour of Team Lotus by the judge.
Paragraph 287 of the judgement states:
“Equally GL [Group Lotus] has the goodwill associated with Lotus and its Roundel and it is free to compete in F1 under that name using that Roundel.”
Ben G,
rpaco does not have it right. The naming rules have nothing to do with the FIA. It is all in the Concorde Agreement, a confidential document that is not published.
Bahar must be barking mad if he thinks Fernandes owning Caterham confuses anyone. When he bought it I explained to a few people the history of the 7 and how Caterham came to own it. Most people just laughed at the stupidity of the situation. No-one was confused.
Can i be realy snotty, and suggest Joe had this naming thing bang to rights, from a F1 man’s view, and i had it right pointing out the judgement basically let it up to F1 to sort out?
Snottier: there aren’t really chassis anymore, since monocoques, but since so much of that judgement dated back to when there were, it got used as a reference.
Now that i spent three whole days chasing an engineer so my printer works again (just as business closed, oh yeah, and three nights stuck up in Kinkos, yuk) I’m going to print and read that decision for real. Just still have to clear the confetti of hundreds of pages strewn about thrown every which way by a sick machine . .
Snottiest: all very good, boys and girls, harping on these points (me too) but can anyone see anything which is actually appealable here?
If only i could, i would pay Stephen Fry to do a QI episode on this. Joe, there you go, if they do, you can get your money back for writing the blog!
Seriously, though, i do not want Renault to be brought to their knees, just because. That would be too sad. But i feel it worthwhile to dive again into that rich vein which rpaco conveniently linked for us, the decision. I thought that a work of art, first time.
Only call i am making now, is a guarantee: I shall have been dim enough to miss something. But i think still odds on, that anything i find will not make a case. Think about it, this must be the most scrutinised legal ruling in F1 in recent years. What team was not interested, even by the by? I would be expecting rumors to be out there, if there was a clanger.
yours, with touch of summer cold,
– john
I am just wondering, whether, on an absurd technicality, which i doubt would be heard, there is argument in the tit for tat trademark filings, all of which had no basis. I mean, that was all bunk, flim flammery, both sides were playing silly buggers, and has all been overruled in effect. But because of the differences in courts, maybe there is a further silliness to be pursued. Still, the thing i love when any case i want to try is up in High Court, is that they all there, right down to the doorman, have an excellenbt sense of throwing rubbish off their doorstep. I think i said as much before, that there is no exact pair of clean hands in this. Most people just like TF because he’s a tryer, but i early on remarked he was playing as dirty as the opposition, as sadly sometimes you have to (think even i gave personal examples) but this is why i hand such questions over to the pros. Those pros then tell me i need a big team and about 50 grand a day, if i really want to know, and several times that per day in trial. Interested as i am in trademarks, i don’t think the dispute about those filings, all posted here on Joe’s blog, have wider interest enough to make a real court interested. – j
If Team Lotus owned Caterham is confusing customers, then what about this: Group Lotus’ partner Jinhua Youngman who produce Lotus L3 and Lotus L5 sedans (based on GL designed Proton GEN-2 platform and powered by GL designed Campro engines) in China, use Caterham (yep, the current Caterham, not a historic Lotus 7) photo on their website: http://www.youngmanlotus.com/l5/ (click the second from the left Chinese link thingy on the bottom of the flash page)
Welcome to this years Auto-Spatz Awards.
Nominations in the category for sheer petty, not to mention bloodymindedness include Dany Bahar. Yes, Dany has taken pettiness and bloodymindedness to new heights, or should that be lows?
Bahar features prominently this year, and as well as this, is nominated in several other categories, not least that for wantonly spending vast amounts of other peoples money on hopeless causes.
Ben G,
don’t you just love that word, “equally”,
“Equally GL [Group Lotus] has the goodwill associated with Lotus and its Roundel and it is free to compete in F1 under that name using that Roundel.”
equally, i agree! 🙂
– john
Joe, you say you can’t see Bahar’s point on this one, but I think that if you consdier his endgame, the point becomes clear: Bahar doesn’t want to be *a* Lotus team on the grid, he wants to be *the* Lotus team. Everything he is doing is intended to get Tony Fernandes to drop the Team Lotus name.
When Fernandes bought Caterham, he wanted to introduce the car to Asia. It’s a brilliant move, because the potential market there is massive. But if Fernandes markets the Caterham 7 on its connection to Team Lotus, it stops being brilliant and starts being an exercise in shooting oneself in the foot.
As dedicated Formula 1 fans, we know the difference between Team Lotus and Group Lotus. But it’s a tangled skein, and not one that newcomers to the sport could unravel on their own. If someone in China or Korea or wherever bought a Caterham 7 and learned of the connection of the current company to Team Lotus, and/or the past connection to Lotus Cars, he or she could easily make the connection that they are buying a car from a subsidiary of Lotus Cars. Which they are not – but because of the ownership row, they may be under the impression that they are.
I suspect that what Bahar is trying to do is create a scenario before the courts where Fernandes’ interests as Team Lotus and his interests as the owner of Caterham collide. We know his appeal claims that by racing as Team Lotus, Fernandes is doing damage to the Lotus Cars name, especially since the courts agreed that Group Lotus was entitled to end their licencing agreement from 2010. I believe Bahar’s objective is to try and get Fernandes to drop the Team Lotus name on the basis that the Caterham name would serve his purposes better.
Prisoner Monkeys,
Other people think he just wnats to make money for himself as the Group Lotus plan is unworkable. But what the Hell, it is not my money…
The point is it isn’t in the judgement, as you have repeatedly claimed as fact. I know you like to have the last word tho, so I doubt you’ll ever concede the point!
Ben G,
Surely, if it is not in the judgement, then it isn’t in the judgement…
The really sad thing is that in the first year everything seemed rosy to the point of GL launching a few new track cars in the same livery and using the services of the TL f1 drivers.
Then DB turns up and throws toys out of his pram making it into a farce.
I can’t believe somebody who is supposed to be a brand and marketing expert can get the media aspect so wrong on all fronts.
It seems quite shady that the Concorde Agreement isn’t published! As a sport I would have thought it would be in the fans interest to know what is going on. However this is Formula 1….
I do think Bernie or whoever is in charge of the Concorde Agreement needs to bang heads together so they can sort something out and bring this farcical situation to an end. They fundamentally have the power or knowledge that Peter Justice Smith didn’t to resolve the issue.
Reading the other posts has reminded me about something Bernie said after the first judgement in Monaco, that he expected Team Lotus to have a slight name change on the Chassis front due to how their revised team name was configured. Then yesterday I saw that Team Air Asia has been renamed “Caterham Team Air Asia”. I think a good solution to this mess in which Tony can walk away with his head held high (and which Joe hinted at in earlier articles) would be to call the team “Caterham Team Lotus” and rename the chassis as a Caterham next year. The Team Lotus fans stay happy as their team gets to claim the history (sort of) of the great team of the past but by running cars called Caterhams they don’t need to involve themselves with purchasing Group Lotus.
Another assumption that people keep talking about is that if Lotus was to run out of money (or Proton out of patience) that Lotus’ only buyer would be TF. The engineers and managers Bahar has hired are genuinely world class and have worked for some of the worlds top manufacturers prior to coming to Lotus and over a year after joining they are still there. Outside of F1 there is a growing feeling that some (if not all) of what Bahar promised will happen so there may be a number of potential buyers if the first of the cars are engineered and ready to go preventing a knock down price. Plus Proton may decide that they will wait for a buyer who isn’t TF out of pride.
I hope both sides can prosper though as I think they both have strengths as well as weaknesses.
Well, the number one function of a business is to make money. If Group Lotus isn’t making any and shows no interest in it, one has to wonder what they’re doing in the first place.
I think Bahar has been painted as the villain in tis set-piece since the outset – and perhaps unfairly so. Since Group Lotus received no penalty for breaking their contract with Fernandes, they obviously had a justification for doing it. And all they’re trying to do now is protect their name. Unfortuantely, because Tony Fernandes was in the sport first and was the most successful of the newcomers, people automatically side with him – but if Virgin or Hispania had been saying some of the utter rubbish Fernandes has been saying over the summer, the fans would be all over them for being moronic drama queens.
On point 5 of the judgement:
‘In this judgment when I refer to Team Lotus I intend to refer to the activity of racing Lotus cars in Formula 1 without thereby indicating who has the right to race Formula 1 cars under that expression. I am merely echoing under what actual name Lotus cars were raced in Formula 1 until 1994. The only other occasion when Lotus cars raced in Formula 1 was in 2010 under the License and under the name Lotus Racing.’
… the judge appears to make it clear that he’s not talking about chassis, or ‘car’ names. As long as TL continues to run cars called Lotus Dany Bahar cannot.
Bobo,
It amounts to the same thing.
Prisoner Monkeys,
Okay, i can see your point, what Bahar wants.
However, just how is that aligned with the health and wealth of his company and employees? Forgive me if i misremember this, but i think rpaco wrote in here about layoffs. If so, given the state of the mess we’ve made of the economy, how exactly is that the right thing to be doing?
I work in a business notorious for staff turnover (much of it i wryly note because it’s hard to keep the best salesmen, whole other debate there) but i’d be ashamed, mortified, if i hired and couldn’t say i can deliver on at least a medium term plan if they stick around.
So, how does this plan of Bahar’s feed back into something tangible? Red Bull, one of the smartest operators, is pulling back even, in the US. I’d also say that whilst a truism a business must make money, doh, it’s first purpose in making money is to reinvest in ways that keep the right people employed, and *then* find out how to make an excess to pay dividends. That must sound rather pro – labour, but it comes from someone who knows a lot more than most about how to do investment maths, and i say when you invest to start or buy into a company, caveat blasted emptor, and don’t dump on your people if you get your arithmetic wrong. I want to puke when people blame the economy “climate” or whatever, as if no-one experienced any hard times before. If you don’t believe me, take a look how much cash on hand the biggest most successful companies have stored up now, or go back to Bill Gate’s original and possibly only financial insight, which was to always have enough cash for the next year’s wages, even if you sell nothing.
You see, i don’t wish to bash Bahar, if it will by proxy hurt his company. But i cannot fathom any argument – thus far – which suggests his ideas are concrete. But the way he is piling in, is committing the company he is employed to run, to what looks increasingly like a personal vendetta. That “greed is good” quote, bear in mind, was all about stopping execs from running companies as personal feifdoms, as was the original bond financed LBO game. If you care for the history of that, it went wrong only when banks who had not the requisite knowledge, piled in and went for sillier and silier deals.**
Point taken, about the childish talk which was bandied about. But i could (if called upon, at tremendous length) tell you of how my usual policy of not commenting on trash talk, ended up with my name being mud in a section of my game, for . . . it was years until i crossed paths again and then spent another year, and a stink load of political capital, unravelling the rubbish. Oh, and irony of ironies, there never was such an argument at the origin, the alleged infractions were simply mis heard!* There’s a lovely arabic expression, along the lines that silence is the answer to fools. But silence faced with idiots can validate them, also. TF also, might take consideration that there are different perceptions of business talk.
so, bottom line, how do you think Bahar can make this come good?
– john
*put it this way, i remain solid friends, always have, with the person with whom i disagreed in business, and not so much, with those who ran with the interpreted “story”. Blast it, i hate social politics, so does my pal.
**here’s a little read book, which might explain those references in part:
Joe, how the eff, did i paste a normal link, and suddenly see an Amazon logo?
Reposting without that link, just in case. – j
Prisoner Monkeys,
Okay, i can see your point, what Bahar wants.
However, just how is that aligned with the health and wealth of his company and employees? Forgive me if i misremember this, but i think rpaco wrote in here about layoffs. If so, given the state of the mess we’ve made of the economy, how exactly is that the right thing to be doing?
I work in a business notorious for staff turnover (much of it i wryly note because it’s hard to keep the best salesmen, whole other debate there) but i’d be ashamed, mortified, if i hired and couldn’t say i can deliver on at least a medium term plan if they stick around.
So, how does this plan of Bahar’s feed back into something tangible? Red Bull, one of the smartest operators, is pulling back even, in the US. I’d also say that whilst a truism a business must make money, doh, it’s first purpose in making money is to reinvest in ways that keep the right people employed, and *then* find out how to make an excess to pay dividends. That must sound rather pro – labour, but it comes from someone who knows a lot more than most about how to do investment maths, and i say when you invest to start or buy into a company, caveat blasted emptor, and don’t dump on your people if you get your arithmetic wrong. I want to puke when people blame the economy “climate” or whatever, as if no-one experienced any hard times before. If you don’t believe me, take a look how much cash on hand the biggest most successful companies have stored up now, or go back to Bill Gate’s original and possibly only financial insight, which was to always have enough cash for the next year’s wages, even if you sell nothing.
You see, i don’t wish to bash Bahar, if it will by proxy hurt his company. But i cannot fathom any argument – thus far – which suggests his ideas are concrete. But the way he is piling in, is committing the company he is employed to run, to what looks increasingly like a personal vendetta. That “greed is good” quote, bear in mind, was all about stopping execs from running companies as personal feifdoms, as was the original bond financed LBO game. If you care for the history of that, it went wrong only when banks who had not the requisite knowledge, piled in and went for sillier and silier deals.**
Point taken, about the childish talk which was bandied about. But i could (if called upon, at tremendous length) tell you of how my usual policy of not commenting on trash talk, ended up with my name being mud in a section of my game, for . . . it was years until i crossed paths again and then spent another year, and a stink load of political capital, unravelling the rubbish. Oh, and irony of ironies, there never was such an argument at the origin, the alleged infractions were simply mis heard!* There’s a lovely arabic expression, along the lines that silence is the answer to fools. But silence faced with idiots can validate them, also. TF also, might take consideration that there are different perceptions of business talk.
so, bottom line, how do you think Bahar can make this come good?
– john
*put it this way, i remain solid friends, always have, with the person with whom i disagreed in business, and not so much, with those who ran with the interpreted “story”. Blast it, i hate social politics, so does my pal.
**here’s a little read book, which might explain those references in part:
Payback, ISBN-13: 978-0887307577
Very sorry to all, for the double post. This may be because i started to let all the adverts through on Joe’s site, and never saw anything but the plain text, before.
I just realized, that anything to do with Mike Milken is going to get polarized opinions, maybe enough to put some off investigating, so i suggest instead, the Primus Inter Pares of academics on the subject, Robert Sobel. Anything the guy wrote, but The First Junk Bond is widely appreciated as the best (and thankfully concise, you can do this one on a metro commute) proper history. As to whether Milken was a criminal, you have to wonder why, after a discrete interval, the whole banking world adopted his technique, at the same time as silencing his warnings. Either way, he threw his remaining money at education, which is a decent thing to do, even if it is not strictly pennance.
I think the fundamental question, is whether, given the complexity, we are morally equipped, to deal with business. This is all very recent, in terms of human development, and i guess we are learning. It is impossible for me to draw conclusions from a self selected sample, but i find the people i get along with in business, are also privately very religious. That makes sense to me, when in doubt, go back to the earliest texts. This was originally explained to me, not via any scripture, but by my business partner continually asking “but is it any good?”, particularly to any technical deal i proposed. (they usually then fell apart!) So, there is a a-religious path of thought, as well.
I’m writing this, because i do not think it beyond possibility, that Bahar is on the wrong path, and may yet undergo a Damascene conversion. That would be much better, than all this talk of him (and dint, others) being hit about the head with banking covenants, stark monetary reality, or just the terror of being trapped in a unrealisable dream.
To be honest, i find the most interesting meetings happen when i am – superficially – diametrically opposed to another’s philosophy. The question about this Bahar chap, then, is once the rhetotoric, and received but uninspected wisdom, is stripped, how much does he look like any of us? Why is he so tempted? Or is it his masters are so tempted? I have witnessed, in my little corner of the world, bosses arguing such and such a person is good for them, because they can feed the weaknesses. So, maybe, let’s take the focus away from Danny Bahar. I sense he is trapped, and when you are unhappy, it is the easier thing to clutch at straws.
Just another appeal: can anyone work out even a hint of the real story?
– john
so presumably in response at some point TF will file a suit against GL for selling merchandise of Team Lotus cars most notably the Type 78, though I think Jim Clarks Lotus 38 from the Indy 500, was also strictly a Team Lotus car, and that its “confusing” supporters of Team Lotus….or at least I would if I was him 🙂
clives,
i think the classifications of F1, and all it’s history, got a court flummoxed one time, as to what is what. I doubt it will happen a second time, not from the same people.
basically what i am saying is that what resonates with us, fans, all of you more knowledgeable than me, the details of the sport, won’t wash as some argument. I am personally torn between loving all these references, from before my time, and seeing other racing links, and wondering how this is supposed to make a legal case. Nonetheless, absolutely love your references, thank you!
– j
Joe, I think your wording is a little misleading on this one. Dany Bahar cannot take action against Tony Fernandes for “confusing customers” – but he can take action against him for a marketing campaign that implies a connection between Caterham, Group Lotus and Team Lotus. As Justice Peter Smith said in ruling on the Lotus vs. Lotus court case, fans of the sport should have the required knowledge to distinguish between teams … but Fernandes is moving into markets where the awareness of the sport is considerably lower than elsewhere in the world, and therefore the same assumptions about knowledge cannot reasonably be applied.
Bahar isn’t claiming Group Lotus own Caterham. He’s claiming there’s no connection between them, but that Fernandes’ plans to market the Caterham Seven ina way that implies there is.
Prisoner Monkeys
I do not have access to the legal papers. I have just picked up the rumour. When the papers are available I will be able to give more information. I would be delighted to know how you know so much.
Prisoner Monkeys,
is any of this campaign visible on the internet, a picture e.g.?
Fair point, about moving in different markets, but also it is usually quite hard to, say, place an advert in a reputable publication, without legal clearance of the copy.
TF was pleasantly coy in his BBC interview today, as to the affair, and i take that as a sign that he’s not so crackers as to keep pushing this. Anyone who runs a company, big or small, gets headstrong legally time to time (always cracks me up when the big men who can afford top advice get it badly wrong, though. I’ll leave alone the overgrown ape who get the law changed to suit them . .). Tony however has to make things nice for GE next year, so what gives? I mean, how nuts would it be to caught doing what you suggest, when you have to look after sponsors with massive and much copied / imitated brands? Does not compute. Also, if true, wouldn’t be an appeal, but fresh action.
If, and only, if, this is somehow true, i would argue that life is sharper (particularly in advertising standards) out where Tony’s from, and that he needs a rapid mindset adjustment. Just something tells me what you are suggesting cannot be proven. If you can find some evidence, consider the challenge accepted to debunk anything further!
Thank goodness sometimes for the BBC’s coverage. Dullencia indeed, Joe, well put!
– j
Prisoner Monkeys,
do i take your tenses literally,
” that Fernandes’ plans to market the Caterham Seven ina way that implies there is”
keyword: “plans”?
well, i have often gone quite bonkers / paranoid, when i can see how a nasty game plays out (most are so unoriginal, you can guess quite effectively), but i have never been able to persuade a court (or anyone!) to listen to me getting upset about just a *possibility*.
Since i’ve before now worked myself into a froth, oooh, proper foamy latte with a triple shot of Cassandric columbian marching strength espresso, (it’s addictive, you always want that next unhealthy slug, babbling away hoping for your perceived plaint to be heard) I err, well, suddenly wonder if i haven’t got something in common with Danny B. Protip for Danny: green tea! 🙂
– j
p.s. if i suddenly stop commenting on this story, trying to debunk it, it’s because i shall have gone off to see if there’s real money in being life coach to failed execs . . .
I’d also be interested to here Prisoner Monkey’s rationale. Given it was demonstrated in court that Team Lotus does and always has have it’s own unique pot of goodwill, I’d like to see how GL can demonstrate they in turn can prohibit Caterham and TL being owned by one entity (since from hearsay this appears to be the crux of the case), particularly since Caterham are not infringing any naming rights or trademarks owned by Group Lotus.
Perhaps instead Group Lotus should examine their own marketing spend and staff redundancy programmes and consider that despite their capital investment on an F1 team they have allegedly only shifted 1500 cars in the last 12 calendar months…
bobo & others
The key point of all this Lotus talk is not the theory of who could use the name Lotus for a chassis. It is the point about who IS doing it. Team Lotus has that right under the Concorde Agreement and that will not change with any new Concorde Agreement as any new/renewed agreement will involve the same parties. The legal action was an attempt to change that situation using the law. It failed.
bobo,
The moral of the tale, is do not abandon any marque in which you have interest!*
I’d dispute that “goodwill” accrued in any way to TL, whilst they were not racing, the definition is incompatible, and none could vest in non – operating companies, attempts at firming that up with registered trademarks was invalidated (and a straight knockout consideration). This was never decided as you pose it. Just that the Chapman legacy was sufficient on it’s own to provide isolation from GL’s claims, provided someone undertook that mantle. Someone did. Which is nice. Court’s job not to meddle in endeavor, but to resolve torts (harm).
That’s long – hand for saying what Joe just said! Shorter: use it or loose it.
How can you apply hearsay in a case where facts were tried?
Oh, i think you’re after the imaginary case, hearsay being there is one to be heard, the fictional “appeal”.
I’m not sure you’re making yourself clear at all. As to GL prohibiting any combination of companies, obviously they cannot. So, part of your argument seems to want to confuse the results which clearly let TL and TF go ahead, and the other half supposedly questions Prisoner Monkey’s position, but doesn’t. On balance, therefore, you seem to be rhetorically for, not against, the Group Lotus position. I’m not saying you are, just suggesting you took a wrong turning somewhere whilst connecting brain to keyboard. Emotive stuff, this appealing to higher authority to solve the dilemmas of us mere mortals, eh?
Easy enough done. I’m highly susceptible to emotive argument, so have to keep head screwed on extra tight.
I actually owe you one: coming back to this thread (i always get lost as to which articles had which comments since so much interleaves here) I realized i had better kick myself up arse (steel booted) to prevent my nicer self from licensing something which has ten times Lotus’s history, and something which has far far less history but i give a damn for. (saved by working slowly) So, err, thanks! and, you blessed ninny you, trying to unravel what the heck you mean just cost me a small fortune in legal bills, but might save me more later on! 🙂 Genuine, not sarky, smiley there.
*I wonder why now, David Hunt could not have at least got some team to license before. In some capacity. Any. But i get the feeling, that even had someone been willing, he would have asked too much. I wonder also, if this is a question of – let me put it inversely – had it been his family’s legacy, would he have cared more to continue? With all the in camera hearings, we will never know if anything was given in evidence to explain his attempts to revive it, in sufficient detail to explain why those attempts did not happen. Another book for the shelf awaits, after a discrete interval . .
– j
@joesaward
“The legal action was an attempt to change that situation using the law. It failed.”
I agree – but some people on the internet do not since the judgement doesn’t explicitly spell out the rights to chassis names, indeed it doesn’t appear to have been under consideration at all in this case judging by what what Justice Smith said in his introduction. It is my contention that since TL were adjudged to have retained the goodwill of the ‘old’ TL (see below) then the question of whether or not they may continue to use a ‘Lotus’ chassis name is answered implicitly as ‘yes’ since Team Lotus always have used a Lotus chassis name. If this were not the case then the court of law would over rule them and as you say, the situation with the Concorde agreement would have been over ruled by a court of law. Since it wasn’t … it wasn’t 😉
@John (Other John)
“I’d dispute that “goodwill” accrued in any way to TL, whilst they were not racing, the definition is incompatible, and none could vest in non – operating companies, attempts at firming that up with registered trademarks was invalidated (and a straight knockout consideration).”
See point 179 in the verdict – I don’t believe the Judge saw it in the quite the same terms as you do:
“As I shall set out below in my view that separate goodwill has continued albeit the activities carried on by TLL/TLIL had diminished. There is no F1 racing. Nevertheless as I shall set out below the goodwill still subsists in my view.”
While he acknowledges the goodwill inherent in TLV is ‘diminished’ he also makes clear they still retain goodwill. And regarding the trademark issue he’s clear that even though those may have lapsed TLV may continue to use the logos and will be able to re-register the trademarks (essentially unopposed), which is currently going though motions now.
“*I wonder why now, David Hunt could not have at least got some team to license before. In some capacity.”
Well he did – in 1995 Pacific GP renamed themselves to Team Lotus Pacific. And there were a few other near misses, not least when the never raced (Postlethwaite) Honda team made up of ex-Tyrell employees attempted to put a deal together to run the cars under the Team Lotus banner. And also of course the aborted entry filed in 2009 – I’d wager there were a few more discussions than just those two as well 😉
Hi bobo,
i still stand by my thanks of you jogging another thought, good and proper.
I have not managed yet to have a sit down with the decision. I’m so dumb, i should have done instead of tuning last weekend (like a childhood not a fan as in would read the press, had the idea during Shumi-time, we got out the tapes of the same races from as early as we had them. Oh Bernie, are you so scared we’d subscribe fo rmore to see those in high definiton, not flakey VHS?)
sorry there bobo,
I do often try to make specific points, and as carefully as i can, not meaning to rip off like Marcus Brutus. I am trying to elicit some wider understanding.
If there had been a continuous use of Team Lotus, for the bare majority of the time, they would have gained sufficient rights to claim a statutory trademark by dint of use, Possibly, enough so, that that would have gained “famous mark” protection. But the key is continuous, or the majority of time, and that allows no-one else steps in unchallenged interim. They did have the unchallenged interim bit, but not really close to continuous.
I am reading a bit past the LJ’s written conclusions, and looking into what i see as consistent supporting thought for lots of decisions i have read, and one or two i got involved in commercially. There is of course, the note a great Tenor sings, but also the reason he sings it, the libretto. My analogies are awful, i confess to being back on super slug coffee. But if there can be a singular defining high note in a singer’s repertoire, it arose there for a reason. Far easier to read this in law, i think, than music, but that’s just me. What the listener gets, on a high C, is however, definitive.
I also think i covered this fairly well, when i said that the Chapman legacy itself was sufficient to have continuing goodwill, in other words the “spirit” of the endeavor transferred.
Where i was too acute, by a half second a lap, was in transmuting my particular argument, which was unsighted as to the specifics, but not pointing out that distinction. Were you a separate entity, with no possible doubt, no possible doubt whatever, that you flew solo, then all what i say much more strictly applies. That was a key point i tried, ineffectually make. I am going back to the shores of Spain! What LJ recognized was there was indeed a Duke of Plazatore, and this one meant much much more.
For me, what interests, is not reading such a totemic decision literally, but in the way it builds up.
Those new registrations of logos etc., will be new. They don’t have precedent unless there is a date of earlier use, and for Tmarks & Patents Act, there has been effectual abandonment. However challenge to TF and TL continuing, (see OHIM) is effectively barred by the laissez faire, who can do, may, outcome as to this.
So, what i read as “diminished” is the fact that there are so many ways to consider goodwill. In this one, the overarching constraint was a) link any kind to the mark’s progenitor (beautifully put from any analysis i ever read that decided on a man, deceased as almost a witness) and b) they were – TLV – inconsistent. This i took as a very polite and erudite way of telling the rest where to get off. The inverse of feint praise. Imagine being a young teen again, and you are spurned because your buddy just “did something that was cool”, but it is enough you loose your girl / date / team.
So, I am digging deeper into the meter, if not the precise pentameter, of the chorus.
I’m not about to use Joe’s publication to brush up my IP law. But i do hope you can see where i was coming from.
I should note two specifics:
when i said “non operating” (maybe i am confusing this with something current in my sights, separate) i imagine dormant accounts. If TLV or precursors were dormant, one wonders how common-law trademark accrues to them, and all manner of things which makes me think you asked some bloody good Qs. I’ll have to go check that bit about dormant accounts, which was surely in the bundles, but would not be ever, even in open court, part of finding. I also am conscious of what is usually said to me as “proper transfer”, as in if you buy goodwill, you must not only make consideration, but the intangible goodwill must have an equal and opposite effect. This makes for some strange equations that only someone with deep management accounting (CIMA i presume applies) could have a crack at. But i do understand this transferred through a lot of entities. Some of whom may not have kept very good records. Limitations Act runs not just for 6 years, but 6 years from the *discovery* of tort. So, if you play a long game, you keep everything. You can only imagine how difficult it would be to get discovery, because it’s usual not to just demand “everything”, usual rather to say how the court will want such and such, which doesn’t go well on speculation.
Back to my own view. If i held a marque, and it mattered to keep it in play, i would license it almost freely in every category of goods, apparel, all anything i could think of, names on brake discs no-one sees. Because i learned the hard way that *active* use, is the key to solid grounds for infringement. There are many other ways people mess up, usually – oh, i;d say exclusively – because they have been crass.
Sorry, Joe, i am warming up a bit here. If so and so i wonder about, not having had the pleasure, could understand the distinctions i made, that would possibly be help in defending me against the name i founded long ago. Hidden, private, makes no difference. I don’t know that lot, but if they by happenstance (longish shot) benefit from this, well it makes the hearings so much shorter. You do not win by holding back, because the Justice is assumed to know all these things. That was why Laddie resigned, first one of his class, a class of his own, to do so, because he was fed up people thinking his talents in IP law could transmute to general Chancery.
Well, for bobo, i have no idea if you can build an appeal from what i just wrote, but there is an alternative approach, and i am sorry for getting confused by your earlier post. Second far clearer. There is another view. But since big technical cases on the interpretation of law *itself* seem to take a decade out of a man, i still think this is a damp squib. However, if i had the clout which comes with a top engineering team, and therefore access to Universities, i would be trying to find my Alan Dershowitz, because he got through some interesting cases turning theory back into reality. Since there is no existing Dershowitz character about, who took a few cases on himself, so as to teach, especially the ethics of defense, then one needs a different academic credibility. I know that my professor Brother listens not to my commercial talk, in fact it became a proxy for sibling sniping. I’m just saying it’s a high barrier to cross, especially without a real tenured storied prof on “your side”.
I am still appreciating very much your alerting me to some home truths, which i cannot relate here. But bloody good, and i don’t mean the effect, but how you pose.
– john
Oops, i got my tenses messed up again. It’s too long, and i hope who reads got the gist, but my hypothetical concern was i gave some kind of argument which would work against me, not “defend me”. But i am quite gung ho that little room exists for Danny B, just as i am adamant no-one is going to riff off my tiny company’s name. The reason i don’t mind putting such thoughts down, is that cased drag so awful so, when neither have thought through their position, so i would not be taking it personally badly if whoever they are quote “me against myself”!
My pal with the watch old tapes, not 2001 etc races, is deffo a fan, i meant to say he’d never read the press, he has rather a few books, for someone who is not dedicated fanatic! Just didn’t want my mate to think i was saying he wasn’t serious. Just it’s so easy to get so serious you love a sport, and start asking questions. That’s why i try my best to answer here, because it’s in the spirit of your publication, i believe.
The short version of what i said, is i think bobo raised some interesting distinctions, which are not covered precisely, in the court decision. I also think that going this far to push a technical case is a job of a lifetime, few would take up, no matter the money, assuming they are not in education, or writing theses on the usual effups.
Yes, i think bobo is developing an angle. The problem is, that i know i haven;t the years to expand every little bit of good Q’s. I;m relying much on the drift of my speech to convey meaning, but if you are reading this, you’d be right to tear into my every sentence, as i did with bobo. There is such a thing as a Legal Freudian Slip!
Oh, and because i mashed up my writing above, and this does matter a bit, i *did* read the decision in full as it came out. But i absolutely do not think that that was enough, nor my two eyes sufficient. Nope, one pair of eyes leads to mess all too often. And no, i did not Freudian Slip suggesting i would have to defend myself when it’s other way around, but funnily, impostors always accuse their mark as a fake . .
(i broke my promise of no long long scribbles, but i do hope this debate gets some conclusion, somewhere.)
yours & my best to all,
– j