What is wrong with the NOC?

[Fullauto]

An early post mentioned that the required drawings were offered to AN and AN DECLINED the offer. Nobody from AN has refuted this claim, which leads me to believe that the whole idea of this episode is not the selfless supply of barrels to poor Norton owners worldwide, but the absolute control of all things Norton by AN. If,as Joe suggests, this was about getting barrels made and supplied, then he would have accepted the offer graciously from the NOC.

While I cannot claim to be unbiased regarding AN from previous treatment by them, I just wish that people would follow what is written and make a sound assessment based on what is said, instead of following, pedantically, what somebody says. In my experience, once you tell AN a home truth, if they cannot give an answer based on something vaguely in keeping with the truth, they simply ignore it, knowing it will fade into the background and be forgotten with time, allowing life to continue without nasty consequences.

Didn't anybody find it interesting that the NOC received letters from TWO legal firms representing AN? Heavy handed at best.

I would suggest that AN have already spent more money on this than they will ever make out of Dommi barrels. So one maybe should ask "What's wrong with AN"?

 

[74ok]

seems clear here a copy was requested & "Though I did enquire again and again nothing came off it."
https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/news/

As an NOC member for forty years I knew about a stack of drawings the NOC had. We also happened to have a list of about a third of these drawings and, from this list, knew the drawings we needed to do the barrels were amongst them.
I therefore approached Tim Harrison, chairman of the NOC, at our Open Day in July 2016(!) about a copy of the relevant drawings. He claimed this needed to be decided by the NOC committee. Though I did enquire again and again nothing came off it. So on 23rd March, 2017, our lawyers wrote formally to the NOC. Following this I was approached by committee members who talked me into speaking eye-to-eye instead of through lawyers. I, foolishly I must now say, agreed.

then

The offering of the drawings we needed that Tim Harrison cites in his “Important Announcement” came on 9th September 2018, only after our lawyers had challenged the NOC. That is over two years after asking him and the NOC for help to make a non-available part from our own IP.

this part jumps out

It became crystal clear the copyright was the property of Andover Norton,

 

[swooshdave]

An early post mentioned that the required drawings were offered to AN and AN DECLINED the offer. Nobody from AN has refuted this claim, which leads me to believe that the whole idea of this episode is not the selfless supply of barrels to poor Norton owners worldwide, but the absolute control of all things Norton by AN. If,as Joe suggests, this was about getting barrels made and supplied, then he would have accepted the offer graciously from the NOC.

While I cannot claim to be unbiased regarding AN from previous treatment by them, I just wish that people would follow what is written and make a sound assessment based on what is said, instead of following, pedantically, what somebody says. In my experience, once you tell AN a home truth, if they cannot give an answer based on something vaguely in keeping with the truth, they simply ignore it, knowing it will fade into the background and be forgotten with time, allowing life to continue without nasty consequences.

Didn't anybody find it interesting that the NOC received letters from TWO legal firms representing AN? Heavy handed at best.

I would suggest that AN have already spent more money on this than they will ever make out of Dommi barrels. So one maybe should ask "What's wrong with AN"?

In 1991, the NOC purchased a significant number of blueprints of Norton factory drawings from Joe Francis, a motorcycle dealer in South London. We have, since that time, kept the drawings safely and made one electronic copy because the condition of the paper drawings was deteriorating with age.

It's not just about the barrels.

And Joe stated that the legal actions were just to get the old farts in the NOC off their asses. It doesn't cost much at all to have the lawyers whip up some letters.

The drawings requested were not handed over to ANIL, although they were subsequently offered and declined.

That's an interesting comment from the NOC. Almost a throwaway. With no details whatsoever.

I'll make an assumption that the barrel drawings were offered but refused because the rest of the drawings are more valuable.

Maybe ask the NOC what they actually offered to ANIL.

 

[Madnorton]

Didn't anybody find it interesting that the NOC received letters from TWO legal firms representing AN? Heavy handed at best.

Nothing unusual, talks failed, the solicitors letter failed, and thus it was passed to a second company that has the qualified personnel to prepare, present to court and and represent in court, that the first legal firm did not have.

 

[B+Bogus]

I just hope that the NOC can find a way of agreeing with itself.
The Norvil fiasco demonstrated a breath-taking lack of understanding by the NOC Committee of the legal obligations required to run a company.
Joe Siefert states that the advice to engage with the lawyers came from within the NOC itself.
The fact that they hold factory drawings is no proof of ownership. It seems clear that ANIL hold the IPR.
Having to get lawyers to point this out to the NOC is a shite state of affairs

 

[74ok]

doesn't seem to be any doubt about this part, as far as an offer goes..

https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/news/

The offering of the drawings we needed that Tim Harrison cites in his “Important Announcement” came on 9th September 2018, only after our lawyers had challenged the NOC. That is over two years after asking him and the NOC for help to make a non-available part from our own IP.

then a claim of ..'declined' ?? and then the question why..

sounds like the question of *ownership" being or becoming paramount first, to resolve..

in accordance with..

"This seems to be (some of) what the other lot say:

Submitted by Peter White on Sat, 22/12/2018
This article has been reprinted from Roadholder 373 January 2019 - From Tim Harrison
------------
We hope to be able to reach agreement with Andover Norton but this will require give and take and their recognition that we are, and wish to remain, a Club serving our members, not a commercial competitor.

Tim Harrison

Chairman"

 

[oldmikew]

Joe Francis Motors ,the original source of the documents were an AMC dealer in South East London a few miles away from the factory. They were very reputable ,decent honest helpful and well known. They also sponsored among others Paul Smart .
Any number of scenarios could be imagined as to how they came to be in possession of the drawings, bear in mind AMC assets were disposed of in an unseemly haste by the new owners. It would seem entirely consistent with their ethos to offer them to the NOC when the business was finally disposed of in the early '90s . They themselves retired in the 1970s when the future of enterprises involving stuff and matters Norton was uncertain and one would imagine their hope was that in passing them onto the NOC they would facilitate the possible future manufacture of spares . If AN have been denied access then that is deplorable and contrary to the ethos by which Joe Francis Motor s saved them in the first place. But I cannot see why Joe did not accept the offer of a copy of the drawings.

 

[oldmikew]

So it was not a simple request..

 

[74ok]

so this
https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/news/

It became crystal clear the copyright was the property of Andover Norton,

vs

This seems to be (some of) what the other lot say:

Submitted by Peter White on Sat, 22/12/2018
This article has been reprinted from Roadholder 373 January 2019 - From Tim Harrison
-----
"ANIL made claims to all of the drawings, the copyright and intellectual property rights, thereby challenging our right to own, copy or make parts from the drawings. The Club believes that our ownership of the drawings is clear. We are not in a position to know who owns the copyright and the intellectual property rights. We are advised that UK and European law entitles us to make parts but we do not, and have never stated, that the parts we commission are original or sold under the 'Norton' name.

Tim Harrison

Chairman"

 

[kommando]

Norvil also claim to have some undefined rights (is it IP, drawings, patents or just the re-manufacture of complete bikes), 2001 would be under Kenny Dreer's ownership ?

From the Norvil homepage

NORTON is not our registered trade mark but we have a licence from the trademark owner to manufacture and sell Genuine Norton motorcycles & parts
Anyone claiming to be "The Only Genuine Source" are legally wrong due to our own 2001 licence pre-dating subsequent company licences

 

[ZFD]

Just to make Andover Norton's position clearer:

Andover Norton bought the "traditional", i.e. pre-rotary Norton spares business off Norton Motors Ltd/Shenstone in 1991. In 2003, in a new license contract with Norton America, by then the holders of the Norton TMs, we were explicitly granted IP on all pre-2003 Norton twins.
I see Andover Norton as the "historical" side of Norton, with a responsability to keep old Nortons on the road. We are, as opposed to all dealers in the field, not dealers or distributors, we are the Norton factory as far as all pre-2002 Nortons are concerned, and as proud of that as we are aware of our duty to Norton owners.

Two things brought up in this discussion:

a) Faults creeping in through copying from an existing part: our technical buyer and fully qualified engineer Ashley can detail the mistakes made on the Fullauto heads which were copied from an existing head. It starts with the alloy used and ends with dimensions that aren't quite to drawing. Though probably an exact copy of the sample head used for the 3D sizing up which was machined in the 1970s with typical British industry tolerances of the time. Which, eventually, add up to a result that isn't quite right.
Ashley has a Fullauto head on his private ride-to-work 850Mk3 and praises it in many respects, but has checked it and knows where it could be substantially improved. But only with access to the original drawings which, in this case, we have. If supplies for heads do not recommence under the new owner of the Fullauto equipment we are prepared to manufacture heads. However, given the limited market for these we do not want to diminish the market for the existing supplier.

b) The whole NOC case is not solely about those Dommi barrels.
During the endless fruitless discussions we decided to make Dommi primary sprockets, having heard of positively dangerous ones in the market with a nasty accident caused by one. Again, guess where the drawing is? We had an original NOS sample we bought off Rabers years ago and I had an original Dommi crank we could check the sprockets on but we'd have very much preferred an original drawing, even on a simple part like this.

We did not take the NOC offer up for the drawings because I did not want to weaken our legal position. The barrels are not a commercially exciting project. We may never see our money back on the tooling and effort going into them. I see them as a service for our customers; the aren't vital for the survival of the company, and probably not even profitable.
What is vital is to access the information on the (reputedly) 5000 drawings the NOC has been sitting on for 27 years. I am sure there is a lot of parts there that we could either re-manufacture, or check dimensions on for parts we have since, in desperation, made new drawings for.

Joe Seifert

 

[ZFD]

Norvil also claim to have some undefined rights (is it IP, drawings, patents or just the re-manufacture of complete bikes), 2001 would be under Kenny Dreer's ownership ?

From the Norvil homepage

NORTON is not our registered trade mark but we have a licence from the trademark owner to manufacture and sell Genuine Norton motorcycles & parts
Anyone claiming to be "The Only Genuine Source" are legally wrong due to our own 2001 licence pre-dating subsequent company licences

2001 was pre-Dreer, i.e. Aquilini era. Very shady things went on in this time and the Aquilinis were consequently disowned of the trademarks by court to the benefit of Kenny Dreer's Group.

 

[swooshdave]

Has Norvil ever produced the "license" they claim to have and especially who granted this "license"?

 

[ZFD]

Never. We have asked them at least three times in writing by now to do just that- last one was our lawyer about a month ago- but there seems to exist some insurmountable difficulty to do this..... Why did that not surprise me?

 

[Fullauto]

Just to make Andover Norton's position clearer:

Andover Norton bought the "traditional", i.e. pre-rotary Norton spares business off Norton Motors Ltd/Shenstone in 1991. In 2003, in a new license contract with Norton America, by then the holders of the Norton TMs, we were explicitly granted IP on all pre-2003 Norton twins.
I see Andover Norton as the "historical" side of Norton, with a responsability to keep old Nortons on the road. We are, as opposed to all dealers in the field, not dealers or distributors, we are the Norton factory as far as all pre-2002 Nortons are concerned, and as proud of that as we are aware of our duty to Norton owners.

Two things brought up in this discussion:

a) Faults creeping in through copying from an existing part: our technical buyer and fully qualified engineer Ashley can detail the mistakes made on the Fullauto heads which were copied from an existing head. It starts with the alloy used and ends with dimensions that aren't quite to drawing. Though probably an exact copy of the sample head used for the 3D sizing up which was machined in the 1970s with typical British industry tolerances of the time. Which, eventually, add up to a result that isn't quite right.
Ashley has a Fullauto head on his private ride-to-work 850Mk3 and praises it in many respects, but has checked it and knows where it could be substantially improved. But only with access to the original drawings which, in this case, we have. If supplies for heads do not recommence under the new owner of the Fullauto equipment we are prepared to manufacture heads. However, given the limited market for these we do not want to diminish the market for the existing supplier.

b) The whole NOC case is not solely about those Dommi barrels.
During the endless fruitless discussions we decided to make Dommi primary sprockets, having heard of positively dangerous ones in the market with a nasty accident caused by one. Again, guess where the drawing is? We had an original NOS sample we bought off Rabers years ago and I had an original Dommi crank we could check the sprockets on but we'd have very much preferred an original drawing, even on a simple part like this.

We did not take the NOC offer up for the drawings because I did not want to weaken our legal position. The barrels are not a commercially exciting project. We may never see our money back on the tooling and effort going into them. I see them as a service for our customers; the aren't vital for the survival of the company, and probably not even profitable.
What is vital is to access the information on the (reputedly) 5000 drawings the NOC has been sitting on for 27 years. I am sure there is a lot of parts there that we could either re-manufacture, or check dimensions on for parts we have since, in desperation, made new drawings for.

Joe Seifert

Well, Joe, you certainly entertain with your shenanigans. Yes, my heads were reverse engineered from a 750 sample and an 850 sample head. Yes, it can be done successfully if approached in the right way. The proof is in my 250 Fullauto Technologies heads sold worldwide with only one warranty replacement. Based on your history, I don't think your company could even claim a minute fraction of that success.

I also have it on very good authourity, that if you or anybody else manufactured a cylinder head faithfully from the drawings, there wouldn't be a Commando engine in the world that it would fit, due to mistakes in the dimensions!

As for the fact that my heads aren't "original", I'm quite proud of the fact that they aren't! They are a far better head than the originals in every way.

As for your "fully qualified engineer", think again. No degree, no qualification, certainly not in my part of the world. Keep up the bullshit, say it often enough and people will believe it.

As for the mistakes in my design, put up or shut up. First time I've heard about this, so come on, I need a bit of entertainment.

 

[swooshdave]

@ZFD and @Fullauto Don't get my thread locked from a fight about the heads. This is about the NOC and the drawings and that they are potentially harming Norton owners instead of helping.

If you guys want to debate the heads take it somewhere else or I'm calling my mom.

 

[Fullauto]

@ZFD and @Fullauto Don't get my thread locked from a fight about the heads. This is about the NOC and the drawings and that they are potentially harming Norton owners instead of helping.

If you guys want to debate the heads take it somewhere else or I'm calling my mom.

All relevant stuff to the debate. What I'm saying is that AN don't need the drawings to make the parts. Joe just wants to own and control everything he can. The fact that he mentioned that my heads weren't kosher is his problem. I just responded.

Joe just can't be honest about what this is all about.

 

[olympus]

Nothing unusual, talks failed, the solicitors letter failed, and thus it was passed to a second company that has the qualified personnel to prepare, present to court and and represent in court, that the first legal firm did not have.

As usual in these sorts of debacles, its only the solicitors that win

 

[Danno]

Business is a ruthless mistress in the modern world. See my earlier post re:lawyers. Everything is written down somewhere and everything that isn't can be implied from that. The business, in this case, has a success-oriented mission to supply parts and components to machines that are no longer manufactured and the mission of the club is intrinsically the same on a different level. More than preservation of the machines, the business has to consider profitability for the sake of it's owners, employees, suppliers and the shops and individual enthusiast racer/builders. I would posit the business is more important as there are people depending on it's viability to feed and shelter themselves and their families. But the club is also important in that it is the pointy end of the enthusiast spear and the enthusiasts are at the bottom of it all, supporting both the businesses and the clubs with their love for the machines.

Mistakes were obviously made on the part of both parties, but as everything filters down from the disaster that was the British Motorcycle Industry's demise, there were always issues as things bounced around like pinballs from good results to further minor disasters, many depending upon the stewardship and motives of the recipients. It doesn't look like there's possibility to agree to disagree and negotiate to move on, so it'll likely end up decided in court.

 

[Frankie17]

Fullauto well said sir drawings not required

AN are using bully boy tactics on the owners club for commercial gain