ricebowl

Must pay damages of $1, lol.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/...tail/6366.html
So was all the publicity worth $350,001 for volagi?

DiabloScott

Specialized founder and president Mike Sinyard said he was satisfied with the outcome.


HA! My @$$ he is!


The legal sparring may not be finished. Both sides can seek reimbursement for legal fees because they can claim to have prevailed.

Each legal team amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs since last year, according to court papers and people involved in the case.

Both sides prevailed? Seems more like both sides lost.

garciawork

Wow. 1.5 mil on principle for a $1 return and a TON of positive publicity for Volagi, and a TON of negative publicity for Specialized? Run home with your tail between your legs Sinyard.

No more Specialized for me. I'd TOTALLY buy a Volagi though.

Jed19

Mike Sinyard just got screwed

Henry III

Yet another reason I hate Specialized. If I were Tom Ritchey I'd take Sinyard to court over the Stumpjumper.

gpelpel

I guess that means no stolen intellectual property and Volagi is free to continue business and sell their bikes.

I don't see how Specialized can gloat of anything positive for them. Total flop in my books.

Beaker

Agreed - despite lots of rookie moves by choi, this has probably gone about as well as he could have hoped, given that he was on the hook for legal fees. Stupendous PR and subsequent sales opportunity for these guys now.

johnny99

I don't think they had any choice about the $350,001, but sure they are glad for the publicity.

spingineer

So who's Specialized going to sue next?

bigbenaugust 

As in most suits, only the lawyers win.

FrenchFit 

I can see it as both sides won. Specialized made its point that its not going to ignore a breach of contract and alleged theft of property, and Volagi gets to keep going if it can...with a huge bump in sales. And the law firms made fees, assuming Volagi's firm was getting paid.

The better argument is the concept/protection of intellectual property has suffered a loss, and we have to trust the judge and jury concluded Specialized didn't suffer any material breach or loss. Sounds to me like Volagi got a good judge and jury, and Smith did a damn good job. And, it doesn't sound like Choi realizes that Smith saved his a$$.

bikingshearer 

This was a civil case. There is no "guilty" and "not guilty" in a civil case - those tersm apply only to criminal cases. As the linked article correctly states, there were findings ogf "liable" and "not liable."

As for who won and who lost, there is no doubt that Specialized lost this particular case: they got nothing in damages, they got some bad publicity and managed to look vindictive and petty. The only thing they "won" was sending the message, loudly and clearly, to anyone and everyone not to cross swords with Specialized unless you can afford a very expensive lawsuit.

It is too early to say if the Volagi guys won or lost. If they can survive the big financial drain of the suit and their company goes on to be successful, they won. Otherwise, they lost, too. As to the financial loss, it's not just the money paid out of pocket for their lawyers. There is alos the hard to calculate, but very real, loss from having to spend time on the suit that could have been used on tasks that actually generate income, now or in the future, things such as R&D, figuring out how toi increase production, marketing, stuff like that. It is was called "opportunity costs" when I took Econ 100 ("Econ for People Who will Never Take Another Econ Course Even Under Penalty of Death").

Because of the way the verdicts came down, don't be surprised if the next step is for both sides to agree to waive seeking costs from each other for an agreement that neither side will appeal. Sinyard seems like a loose cannon, so trying to predict what he will agree to is pretty risky, but such a deal is quite common.

FrenchFit 

there is no doubt that Specialized lost this particular case

No, I have been there and done that. What was spent on this lawsuit from Specialized's side is immaterial, virtually nothing in the scope of its operations. I have no doubt Sinyard and his Board would do it all over again, without hesitation - (though they might pick different counsel). And, that's the message they are sending to everyone, internally and externally..which, in their corporate mind, is a priceless message that cost them petty cash. They will protect the brand and enforce their contracts, and given their size, R&D, number of Ees and vendors - they want that bad mofo rep. If I recall the article correctly, they won on their breach of contract claim but failed to show related damages, which makes me think Volagi is operating in the red with meager sales and Specialized is doing just fine.

As far as Volagi's opportunity or alternative costs, who knows..it's pure supposition. They might have hit the wall anyway. IF they have fully paid their lawyers, I doubt the total bill will be much more than a national marketing campaign, and as the posts on this BF tend to suggest..they have gained an afterglow like some sort of David & Goliath heros. Not so shabby. Watch, now they'll go after investor money!

I'd love to know the true story of what happened, but I suspect it didn't get told..not in court...and never will be told. Personally, I would not be looking to do business with any of them based on what I've read.

blt

Among many reasons why the idea of "guilt" is not associated with breach of contract is that, from the standpoint of economic efficiency, a party SHOULD breach a contract if the benefit to the breaching party is greater than the damages caused by the breach. Then, when damages are paid, the damaged party is whole, and the breaching party is still better off.

If the aggrieved party ends up made whole and the other party is better off, then the world as a whole is a better place, right? Economic efficiency! Oh boy! Of course, this ignores the legal costs of fighting over what the amount of damages were (not to mention the frequent costs of fighting over whether there was a breach in the first place). In THEORY, contract law should not provide disincentive to breach a contract if the overall effect is more money, and thus there should be no such thing as "guilty," even if the theory doesn't always work in practice.