What is wrong with the NOC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting a consensus from a motorcycle club is quite different than getting a corporate board of directors to come to a decision. As the NOC is concerned, the memory of the Les Emery/Fair Spares vs. the club's spares scheme may be making some hesitant to lose control of the documents. Not saying it is right or wrong. I believe that AN has the only chance of making spares from the drawings, but some members of the NOC believe they are "historic documents" that must be protected.
 
Seems these drawings could be made "open source" like is done in the programming world....to allow useage by individuals and/or organizations that wish to build parts. Maybe have a small useage fee to cover administration etc.
 
It is very easy to discount new technology, The files made from these lasers can be adjusted and the final product with the use of modern machinery will be ten times as accurate as anything that was made in the day.
 
What puzzles me is just why AN did not pursue the issue with the supplier who allegedly witheld the property they had purchased in good faith from Mick Hemmings... The key item presumably would be not computer programs but the patterns . Perhaps they figure the NOC is a softer legal target
 
In the world of pre-cad engineering drafting, that was similar to "reference planing" The drawing is "zero" and anything removed from that is a copy. With each added layer away from the reference plane, more inaccuracy per layer is the result. So the copy (original part made from the drawing) is one layer of inaccuracy away from the ideal tolerance and every copy of that is two layers of inaccuracy. A copy of a copy of a copy is.....well, you get the idea.
 
I am a customer of AN, and am very happy with their products. I was about to join the NOC and still may. However, I would like to see these parties work out their differences and learn to play nice in the sandbox--together. Attorneys: they're only in it for themselves. (Soapbox back into the basement).

Cold, clear, sunny day here in California. Will go for a short ride.
~998cc
 
Tornado said:
Seems these drawings could be made "open source" like is done in the programming world....to allow useage by individuals and/or organizations that wish to build parts. Maybe have a small useage fee to cover administration etc.
Click to expand...
This could be a route for both parties, NOC state they have made digital copies (to protect the original “frail” paper documents) ANIL might be able to use GDPR to force access to the digital drawings...?
I get the copy of copy of copy analogy but am also aware of 3D laser renderings of parts and CADCAM production of said parts in other areas of manufacturing.
Tolerances COULD be an issue if we are talking thousandths of inches.
John
 
Triton Thrasher said:
Following research and taking advice, the Executive Committee has concluded that the only way forward is to convert the Norton Owners Club into a limited liaibility trust or company. Accordingly, the Executive Committee will be submitting a formal proposal at the next AGM. It will not be the intention to remove any aspects of the Club's democracy. The NOC Constitution will be incorporated into the Articles of the new organisation; members should not notice any difference.
Click to expand...

Sounds like another stall. Not sure about the laws there, but in the US, forming an entity after the fact certainly would not help you. AN could still sue any and all members they wanted to for the infringement that took place when it took place.

AN is a for profit company, but as far as I am concerned they are great. The things they sell are generally correct and not over priced. I wish that existed for Triumph! The NOC should be happy to turn over the drawings - AN would certainly use them to make more parts which would benefit all Norton owners. If I ran the NOC, I would copy the drawings and RUSH to give them to AN as long as they promised to preserve them.
 
Hortons Norton said:
It is very easy to discount new technology, The files made from these lasers can be adjusted and the final product with the use of modern machinery will be ten times as accurate as anything that was made in the day.
Click to expand...


The nominal dimensions on the new file will match the actual dimensions of the sample part used. The problem is that sample part was made using the tolerances on the original drawing, so it is not perfect. While modern machining methods produce very accurate parts, there are still tolerances involved. The net result can be a stack-up of original plus new tolerances resulting in ill-fitting parts.

It is true that a designer can adjust a CAD file, but a designer reverse engineering a part may not know what to adjust and by how much.
 
It can be done. It would be hard to believe that everyone that produced after market crankshafts, cases, and all the other parts had drawings and maybe we can ask Fullauto if he had the drawings for his head, maybe he did?? I mean they already produced Dunstall barrels years ago. I don't mean to cause an uproar and am sorry if I did so, but starting with a 3D cad file would make for a great start.
 
Straying back to the NOC position, it does seem to be muddied by the non incorporated status of the club. With each and every member of the executive personally liable then they can only act when they have a unanimous agreement. Achieving unanimity will be quite a challenge with any contentious committee decision, and much more so than the usual situation of getting a majority decision which the individuals of the committee are then obliged to at least publicly support.
I am glad i am not one who has to work through this, no matter what the outcome there will be those who will be vocally unhappy.
 
ANIL either does or doesn’t own the copyright to these drawings.
The NOC certainly doesn’t.
What the NOC are proposing isn’t going to strengthen their position, yet it is clear that as an entity they don’t appear to have one?
If they have grounds to contend ANILs position then it should be made clear.
The NOCs naivety with respect to the proposed acquisition of Norvil a while ago was nothing short of breathtaking.
I’ve never used their spares scheme as they didn’t have much that I could use.
 
Copyright or patent?

In the US, copyrights for works published prior to 1978 is a set 95 years. For works published after 1978 it is the life of the author plus 70 years

Patents in the US are, generally, good for 20 years.

The NOC, as Marshg246 points out, is naïve in thinking that forming an LLC or corporation will protect them from any action/situation that occurred prior to limiting individual liability, under US law, but given that virtually all the tenants and precedents for US law came from England, I would think similar applies.

So, do these drawings support a patent?

Or, are they unique and are in the possession of NOC, I suspect that that they may be "personal property", like your Norton???

Seems very much like "dog-in-the-manger" on NOC's part if they aren't actively making/selling parts from those drawings, but just sitting on them, I can't really say, just seems that way.

Sounds like both parties will be of the same mind soon enough?
 
Hortons Norton said:
It can be done. It would be hard to believe that everyone that produced after market crankshafts, cases, and all the other parts had drawings and maybe we can ask Fullauto if he had the drawings for his head, maybe he did?? I mean they already produced Dunstall barrels years ago. I don't mean to cause an uproar and am sorry if I did so, but starting with a 3D cad file would make for a great start.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can copy a sample and if you luck out have a serviceable part but I believe the biggest problem with Triumph, BSA and others is the pattern parts don’t always fit. While this can happen on the Norton side the assumption is that if you’re bike is completely to original spec and dimensions (which it may or may not be after 50 years) it should fit.

But I trust Andover over a club-ran endeavor and certainly over Les.
 
You can read Andover’s point of view on their website under news and there is more info in the NOC forum.
It seems Andover have a license from Kenny Dreer which pertains to all IP relating to vintage Nortons. Andover believes this covers the blueprints and makes it their IP and have challenged NOC’s ownership of the blueprints.

They believe that they have IP infringement type powers based on copyright term limits (70 yrs) without the need for any patents which have obviously all expired. I think this is optimistic. At most they have only copyright and so what they can assert is limited. NOC could sell the blueprints just like selling a book and avoid any copyright problems.NOC could not, for example, make money from selling copies of the blueprints.

Do others agree?

NOC have consulted counsel and have stood firm on the ownership question but are negotiating a settlement and forming an LLC.
 
If Andover made a fair offer for the drawings and the NOC couldn’t agree that working with Andover is what’s best for Norton owners then they should dissolve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top