Originally Posted by
FlashBazbo
This really isn't as strange as you guys are making it out to be. If Specialized requires its employees to sign the same standard agreement that most manufacturing companies do, they will win this suit.
Probably all equipment manufacturers with enough money for legal counsel have, as a part of the employment arrangement, a clause that assigns all industry-related inventions created by the employee during their term of employment to the company. This is true whether the invention was created at work, at home, or at a competitor's shop. The same deal is signed by every employee. It would be extremely unusual for a company like Specialized NOT to have such a provision. And it would be extremely unusual for a new hire not to sign it. (If they didn't sign it, they would not be hired. The company would assume that the person came to the relationship with less than pure motives.)
Volagi's principals made a number of mistakes. First, of course, they very likely violated their employment agreements in a big way. (Something that Specialized CANNOT let slide, lest their I.P. all be subject to appropriation.) Were they insane or just stupid? Probably just stupid. (Hire a lawyer before you do something this big!!) Second, they didn't wait long enough to have a plausible argument that they invented their technology after they left Specialized. The time line for this deal (their departure from Specialized practically on top of a competitive product introduction) makes this a very easy, and relatively inexpensive, case for Specialized to win. Because the bike was invented during their time at Specialized, Specialized OWNS their design! Asking for a royalty is going easy on these guys. Most former employers would not be so charitable as to let the new entity continue to exist. They could very well press charges for theft.
The velonews article talks about a non-compete clause rather than a right to maintain anything invented by the ex-employees.
Choi and Forsman believe they were completely honest upon their departure, and perhaps that is now acting to their detriment. “We went in open-kimono, gave them all the info they wanted when we left. But they used that and turned it around on us.”
Specialized is now demanding a royalty payment on every Liscio sold, according to Choi.
“At first, they claimed we stole everything. But the preliminary injunction was rejected,” Choi explained. Now, Specialized is claiming that the two men breached their contract, and their confidentiality agreement. “They’re saying we didn’t have rights to design something that would be seen as competitive to Specialized because we had a non-compete clause,” said Choi.
If the issue is around a non-compete clause, courts are reluctant to enforce them because it goes against their rights to work. They are bicycle designers and the agreement wouldn't allow them to go to work designing bicycles when they left.
The quote makes it sound like Specialized is just going after them because the copany is angry a new competitor is around.