But that is a broad accusation and is not that simple.

Pretty much and almost ALL Americans (public and private)can get sued by their former employers if this is how you put it. We get knowledge and experience from on-the-job training. Employers provide that at their own expense as an investment. You gained by it and you help the company grow. When you leave in good terms, you are not expected to repay back the investments they made on you. But you can use this experience and expertise (all of us do) working for the competing firm and benefit from raising wages or better working conditions. This is the norm. Some companies are nice enough to ask for permission to hire these former employees just as a courtesy. Most don't. In return, companies provide benefits to ensure employees stay loyal.

Dahon benefited from the sales of the Mu and IOS. And we know who holds the patents. A company all of us work for also benefited from your expertise. And we know who holds that expertise. What Dahon implied is that, they provided the venues to develop these expertise and they want to be properly compensated.

This is simply saying that, you work for a company, they provide on the job training which is required to perform your job, then provide more upgraded job training to keep pace with the required job. You then left to either work for a competing firm or form your own company, because you developed better ways to do things, but only you know. That's unique knowledge. Your former boss doesn't like this and then comes after you for ALL THE EXPENSES he or she spent on you to be repaid in full, because that unique knowledge that you developed on the job or during your off-time wasn't meant only for your only benefit. If that's the case, I'm not surprised if the American legal system isn't more clogged with more frivolous lawsuits on this, since millions of Americans switch jobs on a regular basis. I simply don't know.

So you see how complex this lawsuit can become?