John Dyke

[me]

I had a tentative deal to sell a set of drawings for a Dyke
Delta to anther gentleman.

These drawings were purchased by my father from John Dyke
shortly before my father suddenly died. My father got no
further than the purchase of the drawings, he never had time
to even clean out a space in his shop to begin work.

I now have the drawings and considered them to be something
that I could honestly sell because they had never been used.
They were only taken out of the mailing tube one time.

The prospective buyer was informed by Mr. Dyke that there
would be no builder support because the airplane had not
been started. If there was an unfinished project being
sold, Mr Dyke would help the new buyer finish it. But he
has washed his hands of this set of drawings because when my
father died before he could start, he rendering the drawings
and the rights to build from them void.

From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.

Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?

[Smitty Two]

In article <Bslaf.1443$5R2.868@trnddc08>, (me) wrote:

> I had a tentative deal to sell a set of drawings for a Dyke
> Delta to anther gentleman.
>
> These drawings were purchased by my father from John Dyke
> shortly before my father suddenly died. My father got no
> further than the purchase of the drawings, he never had time
> to even clean out a space in his shop to begin work.
>
> I now have the drawings and considered them to be something
> that I could honestly sell because they had never been used.
> They were only taken out of the mailing tube one time.
>
> The prospective buyer was informed by Mr. Dyke that there
> would be no builder support because the airplane had not
> been started. If there was an unfinished project being
> sold, Mr Dyke would help the new buyer finish it. But he
> has washed his hands of this set of drawings because when my
> father died before he could start, he rendering the drawings
> and the rights to build from them void.
>
> From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
> part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.
>
> Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
> notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?

If this narrative constitutes the totality of the relevant facts of the
situation, this disinterested third party would conclude that Mr. Dyke
is behaving in an entirely legal but reprehensibly small way.

When does human life begin? When does an airplane begin? If your father
took the plans out of the tube, perused them, and spent five minutes
beginning to clear out his shop, I say you have an "unfinished project."

[keepitrunning]

"me" > wrote in message news:Bslaf.1443$5R2.868@trnddc08...
>I had a tentative deal to sell a set of drawings for a Dyke
> Delta to anther gentleman.

> The prospective buyer was informed by Mr. Dyke that there
> would be no builder support because the airplane had not
> been started.

I think if I were you I would contact Dyke myself and see what he had to
say.
Sometimes things get mixed up going through a middle man.

[Morgans]

"me" > wrote

> From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
> part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.
>
> Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
> notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?

Mr. Dyke has always had questionable business practices, IMHO. Too bad. It
is a neat plane.

I would advise the prospective buyer to go ahead with the project. There
are others out there that have built the plans that would help, I am sure.
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

> From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
> part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.
>
> Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
> notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?

Who is being greedy here?
What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the
possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale?
Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of
plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from
Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from
Mr Dyke.

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> > From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
> > part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.
> >
> > Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
> > notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?
>
> Who is being greedy here?
> What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the
> possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale?
> Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of
> plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from
> Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from
> Mr Dyke.

What is it, in your mind, that differentiates a set of airplane plans
from anything else in the world that might be sold second-hand? What
should the inheritor of a set of plans he has no intention of using do
with them? Throw them away? Return them to Mr. Dyke so that he can sell
them twice?

Warranties on new merchandise often come with the "original purchaser"
limitation. If Mr. Dyke wants to offer technical support only to the
original purchaser, he is within his legal rights to do so. I still
maintain that he is being small by doing so. Who cares whether the plans
change hands 100 times? He sells one set of plans, he eventually offers
one real builder technical support.

[Roger]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:38:13 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>> From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
>> part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.
>>
>> Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
>> notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?
>
>Who is being greedy here?

I guess I see this differently than most others. I don't see any one
being greedy...yet.

>What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the
>possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale?

The plans should be good for one airplane. If one is built of started
they go with the plane. If none has been started they should be good
for one. That seems simple to me.

>Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of
>plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from
>Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from

The thing missed by everyone so far is" "What does the contract say"?

There should be a set of terms with the plans.The terms should come
with the plans, not published some where else. If they say to the
original purchaser only that's quite plain, it also means they
wouldn't transfer, unless specific language is there to allow it.

HOWEVER If there is no language that says they are for the original
purchaser only then as long as no airplane has been built of they are
not part of a partial, under construction they should still be good.

However if they go with a project, all you need is to have gotten
things ready to start building for them to be part of a project. But
it'd have to be something that would go with the planes, not just my
planning. Construction materials, tools, any thing associated with
building the plane.

I started my G-III by purposely building a shop in which to build the
plane. Were it not for the G-III I'd not have the shop which is a
great place to work on all kinds of projects. Of course the G-III is
not plans built.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Mr Dyke.

[ric]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> > From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
> > part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.
> >
> > Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
> > notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?
>
> Who is being greedy here?
> What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the
> possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale?
> Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of
> plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from
> Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from
> Mr Dyke.

Soo..on your logic, if I purchase say...a new car, and I sell it, there
should be no support from the car manufacturer for the new owner?
Ric

[[email protected]]

Was there any licensing agreement?

--

FF

[me]

In article . com>, wrote:
>
>Was there any licensing agreement?
>

There is no contract of any kind included with or
mentioned in the drawings.

Whether or not my father signed any forms when ordering the
drawings I can not tell you. I wouldn't expect anybody
to sell a bit of intellectual property without some kind of
written agreement though.

I should mention that I have no argument with limiting the
rights to one single aircraft per set of drawings.

But John Dyke has plainly stated to the gentleman in
question that he will support a single project all the way
to completion as it is passed from owner to owner, as long
as it is the only project associated with the set of
drawings.

He then told the gentleman that there would be no support at
all because the project had never been started when my
father died.

The e-mail exchange between the gentleman in question and
Mr. Dyke was forwarded to me for clarification, so I am not
confused about Mr. Dykes position.

I should mention at this point that the gentleman in
question spoke with another builder in his area and was told
that the "support" from Mr. Dyke is essentially worthless.
He has since re-opened the discussion with me about the
drawings.

My question was not about Mr. Dyke. I already know what I
think of him.

What I wanted to know is: Has anybody seen another seller
deny that a set of drawings/instructions/information was
transferable due to the simple fact that work on the project
had not begun before the resale? Is there some kind of
precedent here? Or is Dyke making it up as he goes?

[john smith]

> (NB- John is a bit of a curmudgeon, but I both like him and respect
> him a lot.)

Richard, that is indeed the best word to describe John. It fits him
perfectly.

[BobR]

Smitty Two wrote:
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
> > > From my vantage point this looks like simple greed on the
> > > part of Mr. Dyke for the sale of another set of drawings.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something? Has anybody actually seen this
> > > notion applied as a legal precedent in the past?
> >
> > Who is being greedy here?
> > What prevents the plans from being resold indefinitely each time the
> > possessor dies and the estate tries to make money off from the sale?
> > Mr Dyke owns the rights to the plans. If someone wants to buy a set of
> > plans and build the aircraft, they should be purchasing the plans from
> > Mr Dyke, not an estate of someone who had purchased a set of plans from
> > Mr Dyke.
>
> What is it, in your mind, that differentiates a set of airplane plans
> from anything else in the world that might be sold second-hand? What
> should the inheritor of a set of plans he has no intention of using do
> with them? Throw them away? Return them to Mr. Dyke so that he can sell
> them twice?
>
> Warranties on new merchandise often come with the "original purchaser"
> limitation. If Mr. Dyke wants to offer technical support only to the
> original purchaser, he is within his legal rights to do so. I still
> maintain that he is being small by doing so. Who cares whether the plans
> change hands 100 times? He sells one set of plans, he eventually offers
> one real builder technical support.

Sorry, but I would have to disagree with you on this. If, as the
purchaser of the plans you want the technical support of the designer,
you should purchase those plans from the designer and pay the price for
that support. The only reason for purchasing them otherwise is to try
and essentially get something for nothing. Mr. Dyke doesn't owe you,
the second, third, or whatever down the line anything and potientially
would have to answer the same questions over and over again not to
mention having to try and keep up with who now rightfully owns the
plans.

As the inheritor of a set of plans, you can keep them, throw them away
or sell them but you have not right to expect that whatever action you
take should imply any liability on a third party, in this case Mr.
Dyke.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"BobR" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> As the inheritor of a set of plans, you can keep them, throw them away
> or sell them but you have not right to expect that whatever action you
> take should imply any liability on a third party, in this case Mr.
> Dyke.
>

I'm not saying anybody involved is right or wrong and I've never seen Mr.
Dyke's purchase agreement BUT...

The original purchaser bought the plans and the right to build one aircraft.
Without the transfer of that right the plans are just artwork and would
require no technical support. It is the right to build the aircraft that
requires the support.

Since the aircraft was never built that right hasn't been used and has been
inherited by the OP. So if part of what was paid for when the license was
granted was tech support that tech support really should transfer to the new
owner. (A fair transfer fee could be charged.)

Of course, none of this matters if the sales agreement says different. And
since any cost of litigating the matter would cost more than a fresh set of
plans it is all just a matter of us babbling on.

[Smitty Two]

In article . com>,
"BobR" > wrote:


>
> Mr. Dyke ... potentially
> would have to answer the same questions over and over again not to
> mention having to try and keep up with who now rightfully owns the
> plans.
>


Actually, the OP specifically stated that Mr. Dyke specifically stated
that *had the airplane construction been started,* he would offer tech
support to the new owner, but since construction had *not* been started,
he wouldn't. This policy seems exactly contrary to your logic here,
FMPOV. The plans and the technical support that ostensibly accompanies
them have both been paid for, and neither have been used. Ann Landers
might have a different view, as you obviously do too, but my morality
still says they ought to be transferable to another party.