VOLVO OUT AT END OF 2016 (NOW CONFIRMED)

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The chassis are built under license, which is why they carried a dual chassis number.

One from the constructor, and one for Supercars.

Which would, based on past events, not prohibit the sale and / or ownership of the chassis.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by chavez

Which would, based on past events, not prohibit the sale and / or ownership of the chassis.

It might prevent the transfer of the logbook to the new owner..
Isnt there a rule in there somewhere as having to have a Supercar entrant's licence to hold ownership of a Supercar Logbook?

[Umai Naa]

I believe all chassis movements need to be approved of, before taking place. Particularly the CotF ones.

The Entrant's licence, which is not quite a REC, may be impacted if a chassis was to end up overseas, outside of the catagory's reach.

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by chavez

What a load of ********.

If that was the case then very few people or companies would any claim over any property.

The missus wants the Samsung in the divorce settlement. "I'm sorry love, Samsung own the IP and therefore I can't hand it over".

Obviously, judging by that comment, you've never dealt in the real world of IP then?

Oh and

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

Obviously, judging by that comment, you've never dealt in the real world of IP then?

Oh and

Actually prior to my current job I was R&D manager for one of Australia's largest packaging manufacturers and responsible for managing the IP portfolio.

PM for details and the reasoning I believe IP doesn't effect ownership. Although it appears that the licence to build a COTF might restrict who you can sell it too.

[chavez]

To put it simply.

The COTF features many design ideas apparently owned by Supercars, but this does not give them ownership of the chassis.

Unless there is an agreement in place between Supercars and GRM to the contrary Superscar can't claim ownership of the asset (ie the chassis) just because it contains their IP.

If that was the case then Apple could claim ownership of the iPhone I am writing this message on.

Or as per my previous line of work the company could claim ownership of 70% of the paint cans or half the ice cream containers in Australia - all of which contained company owed IP.

[chavez]

I mainly dealt with registered designs, which anyone who has worked in packaging know is next to useless.

And it probably surprises most people that there is any IP in a paint can or ice cream container. :-)

[Axeman444]

So you don't consider licensing to be part of IP Protection?

[GTRMagic]

The only real issue here might be if the Volvoites wanted to run that chassis as a Supercar again. Presumably Supercar could refuse it a logbook...

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

So you don't consider licensing to be part of IP Protection?

Yes of course.

Granting a license can be useful for protecting your IP.

[peckstar]

Was today mediation day?

[Umai Naa]

No decision yet.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

No decision yet.

Story Here

[D.R.T.]

Still see a court struggling to get past the below.

Volvo and Polestar have made it clear they wants to exercise a clause in the contract to buy back the cars and the B8444S engines developed specifically for the Supercars program.

GRM agrees the engine, developed by Volvo’s global racing motorsport partner, Cyan Racing, is Volvo’s to reclaim, but argues the Chinese-owned Swedish car manufacturer has no right to the cars themselves, which are based on a proprietary Supercars chassis.

[one five five]

Interesting reading the link that GRM are now requesting to keep running the cars for a further two years....

[eduardo1]

Kinda wondering what's the point of the chassis' if no engines to run them?

Or are they trying to get a payout on the chassis' to offset costs?

Or to do a lease deal with Volvo to keep the engines for one more year?

Volvo can stretch this out, GRM can't.

[Jack65]

Not surprising, mediation rarely gets a result. Presumably an interim ruling will need to be given by the court as to whether GRM can continue with the S60s, given that the case may not be held in full until after the season kicks off.

[TWRv12]

If they use Chevy engines, who builds them and are they any good?

[one five five]

Could Volvo end up letting them use the bodies, but not let them call them Volvo's??

[Umai Naa]

Walkinshaw look after their Chev units in DVS.

[JABWOA]

Originally Posted by one five five

Could Volvo end up letting them use the bodies, but not let them call them Volvo's??

That would be the logical outcome that is fair for both but that assumes Volvo want some exposure (ala the Merc) otherwise they want full withdrawal which means no likeness or quasi cars.

[davester]

Didn't Warburton say on Foxtel Business 602 (early last week) that GRM will still run Volvo (without factory backing)? Was on Switzer show.

[Alan52]

All this depends on whether Volvo would let the, use any of their IP which includes body shape if they explicitly don't want them to.

[Umai Naa]

VCA could allow it, but that could be at the ire of Sweden though.

I assume Mr Rogers already has a tentative agreement with VCA on allwowing the bodyshape to be used.

[Jam3s]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

If they use Chevy engines, who builds them and are they any good?

They currently use very old spec WR engines, pre 2013, so they would need to lease current spec to be on the pace, similar to the Erebus deal.