What is wrong with the NOC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed that the club dragged this out and mistakes were made. Part of the problem was the consensus required by the club that is being changed. Copies of the blueprints were offered to Andover which they turned down. Andover clearly believes it has exclusive rights which could disadvantages others and is willing to put a gun to the head of the club to force a sale.
This is why the question of IP ownership of central to the whole issue. This has ramifications for the production of Norton parts generally. I’m sure Les and Roger are watching this carefully.
 
Well, there’s always two sides to a story and always more to both than first meets the eye.

Nevertheless, what I do know is that the NOC has had a strange, dare I say, unhealthy relationship / allegiance to Emery for many years.

I wonder if this is at the root of their issue?

When all said and done, ANIL simply wish to make parts available that currently are not, and that the club is simply unable to do.

It’s very difficult to see how the NOC position is in any way to the benefit of Norton owners.

Based on what we know thus far, I’m with ANIL.
 
If legal action had already started ie the courts system had a claim raised then changing the NOC to a limited company is not going to work, but no legal action has started only communication from legal advisors so the NOC has some time. But going on past performance they will procrastinate and all the EC will be on the hook.
 
puffer_nutter said:
Agreed that the club dragged this out and mistakes were made. Part of the problem was the consensus required by the club that is being changed. Copies of the blueprints were offered to Andover which they turned down. Andover clearly believes it has exclusive rights which could disadvantages others and is willing to put a gun to the head of the club to force a sale.
This is why the question of IP ownership of central to the whole issue. This has ramifications for the production of Norton parts generally. I’m sure Les and Roger are watching this carefully.
Click to expand...
why refuse copies?
 
84ok said:
why refuse copies?
Click to expand...
Because the originals are still left in with the NOC who could have more copies made and then passed on. AN will no doubt have in the back of their mind the Norvil trademark hijack and the weird attempt of the NOC to buy Norvil.
 
Copies were refused as legal proceedings had already started, see Joe's announcement.
You cannot sell CR without the owners permission, with books you have the owners permission, just because it has Norton / AMC on the drawing does not mean that even AMC or Joe Francis could sell them as they may not have owned the drawings themselves.
Very few drawings drawings are patent, only those that are unique to the idea that is subject of that patent, the protected life of patent is very short, compared to CR.
AN does not have a licence with Kenny Dreer, it has an licence with Norton America LLc, who own the TM.
 
thought not having original drawings was an issue for reproducing a part, working from a copy makes that a non issue
 
Madnorton said:
just because it has Norton / AMC on the drawing does not mean that even AMC or Joe Francis could sell them as they may not have owned the drawings themselves.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point.
They say possession is 9/10th of the law.
This is the other 1/10th - Joe Francis came by these drawings somehow, but was he ever the legal owner?
 
Madnorton said:
Copies were refused as legal proceedings had already started, see Joe's announcement.
Click to expand...

Legal proceedings have not commenced, lawyers have sent a letter and no doubt included information on possible risk of litigation. Still to be sent will be a formal Letter before Action giving at least 28 days notice of the claim being lodged in the court system and the actual lodging of the claim.

Also it needs to be taken into consideration that the England and Wales court system sees a claim as being a last resort, the Judge expects to see that both parties have made attempts to reach a settlement up to the hearing date, rejecting an offer just because the lawyers have sent a letter could, depending on the level of offer compared to the final judgement, be reflected in not being able to recover costs from the defendant.

Win or lose the lawyers always get paid.
 
swooshdave said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why? Even if AN own, by whatever route ,the patent ,that does not surely confer ownership of the specific drawings that the NOC have.
 
oldmikew said:
Why? Even if AN own, by whatever route ,the patent ,that does not surely confer ownership of the specific drawings that the NOC have.
Click to expand...
Mike,
The issue is not ownership of the drawings, otherwise this would have been resolved earlier, it is the right to produce parts using the original drawings that is the contentious issue - hence why so many on here are confused why NOC would not pass this right to a company that has the ability to produce these parts when they clearly do not!
John
 
John ,
But surely the NOC are not claiming a right to license manufacture of parts they simply wish to retain custodianship of the Joe Francis drawings. I find it odd that AN did not pursue the original supplier used by Mick Hemmings. As they say in Latin Britannia priuilegium praecepta, quod inter praecepta patentibus .
Mike
 
The supplier to MH had the data to machine the alloy barrels to which liners were fitted. The new barrels are cast iron, the code would have needed changing, and a new machine facility would no doubt use their own jigs anyway. That is why it was not chased. For the observant, the Domi barrels vary, they are not machined the same, put a 500, 600 and 650 side by side and you will the differences.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Nevertheless, what I do know is that the NOC has had a strange, dare I say, unhealthy relationship / allegiance to Emery for many years.

I wonder if this is at the root of their issue?
Click to expand...

I am a NOC member, and when I read the "Important Announcement" in their monthly magazine, Roadholder, these were exactly my thoughts as well.

When it is stated by Tim Harrison that "The Executive Committee was concerned that we should be even handed in our approach to suppliers," I would ask the question, is this just a veiled reference that are there some members of the NOC executive committee that have an allegiance with Mr. Emery and due to the recent history between the two parties, and are doing all that they can to sabotage A.N. getting the drawings and having any commercial advantage.

Tim Harrison goes on to say that "we were also considering commissioning the manufacture of the relevant parts ourselves" but as has already been stated haven't, and almost certainly wont be doing so.

Although I most certainly am not aware of all the arguments, to me, this makes the NOC look very bad in my eyes as ironically Tim Harrison also says "Members will be aware that the Club is under considerable pressure to get "hard to come by" spares made" The actions of the NOC seem to be thwarting any possibility of this and look to me to be self serving, and not helping the Norton community at large.
 
oldmikew said:
But surely the NOC are not claiming a right to license manufacture of parts they simply wish to retain custodianship of the Joe Francis drawings
Click to expand...
Mike,
See Reggies post,
NOC are stating an intention to do just that or allow “several other suppliers” to produce parts, apparently with the exception of ANIL?
John
 
Last edited:
None of this is new as far as all the people who think they own Norton and rights to do so, is a 961 a Norton based on the original name the same in context to the name Norton name written on a AN package, I think not but both main entities will say either yes or not so regarding the other.

If you gain control of the original drawings whatever the motive or means, you then have control of the IP and can then forbid others from copying or selling copies be it written (that is you NOC) or parts manufactured from said IP.
If it was about making Dominator cylinders a simple drawing copy would be ample ie a copy of that which the NOC has in their possession and would have supplied.
Politics, nothing more and axes to grind, a storm in a tea cup once again.

Why are there no dispatches for the Mk2a, because they were never important enough to preserve in years gone by and that says a lot including factory ? drawings being sold from some long gone 'bike shop ?

Edit.
I would also add, a drawing is not true IP compared to the IP that tells you how to make that part (castings for one) a drawing in its basic form is just a summary of dimension for the most part.

Instead of all this drawing silliness, get it fixed AN and NOC and then find the Mk2a dispatches so I and the others know the history of our Commando's thanks, you're welcome.
 
Last edited:
swooshdave said:
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.
Click to expand...

They’re not going to dissolve. They meet, have rallies, produce a magazine and all that. Why would they stop?
 
Time Warp said:
None of this is new as far as all the people who think they own Norton and rights to do so, is a 961 a Norton based on the original name the same in context to the name Norton name written on a AN package, I think not but both main entities will say either yes or not so regarding the other
Click to expand...
Slight diversion here - although both have the right to produce using the Norton name, the logos are slightly different, distinguishing between classic and new models?

Totally agree however, NOC and ANIL need to sort this out for owners of classic machines
 
Time Warp said:
None of this is new as far as all the people who think they own Norton and rights to do so, is a 961 a Norton based on the original name the same in context to the name Norton name written on a AN package, I think not but both main entities will say either yes or not so regarding the other.
Click to expand...

Legally it's clearly distinguished.

Andover Norton International Ltd
Norton Motors GmbH
Norton Motorcycles

But then you got the Norvil mess...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top