Jake wrote: "1) technology. Alinghi had inserted some new rules that would keep BMWO from using a laser/flux capacitor wind detection device that can map the wind field in a particular area up to 1 KM ahead of the boat. The IJ ruled that BMWO is free to use the device. Alinghi had unfairly disadvantaged BMWO with the rule change."
OK, I'm not sure that I get the point here. How exactly would outlawing this device disadvantage BMWO? Unless Alinghi has one, the use of this device would give BMWO an unfair advantage over Alinghi. Disallowing it, or giving one to each tean, would be the only thing that would make it a level playing field (on this issue).
Was BMWO's case that it was unfair that they had spent the money on this device, and then Alinghi changed the rule so they couldn't use it? That seems like a stretch to me.
Mike
I read a summary transcript from the IJ hearing and the BMWO argument was that it was allowed in the previous NOR. They dedicated money and valuable personnel resources to develop the technology and to make it usable on their boat. These resources could have been applied to other projects to enhance reliability or functionality of the boat's control systems. They were disadvantaged because they spent effort, that could have been spent elsewhere, had Alinghi not changed the rule.
It's not a huge deal in this case, but they could well have structured Spithill's headsup display around the device. Even if it's not that dramatic of an issue, I can see the argument - particularly if you scale it up slightly to a larger system (say, like if Alinghi had suddenly put in a rule to disallow rigid wings). Same deal - different scale....it's a valid complaint.
Rich nailed it to. The other part of this argument is that it was ruled to be as much a design/technology contest by the courts based on the arguments set forth by Alinghi when they tossed rules 51 through 54. Alinghi has since tried repeatedly to limit technology (in several areas) when BMWO had it and they didn't.
