Originally Posted by
wjclint
Yes, but whether they signed one, whether whatever they did sign is enforceable under California law, whether they breached the actual terms of whatever they signed, or whether they violated some statute in California is what we don't know and don't know even half of the facts necessary to form an even partially educated opinion about.
Just from glancing at the court's docket they started a 2 week jury trial on 1/3/2012, Specialized filed close to 200 pleadings, motions, responses, etc since the case was filed in October 2010, and Volagi filed over 150 motions and pleadings. Specialized has spent over a $1,000,000 just in attorney fees and Volagi has spent over $300,000 in attorney fees (I assume that includes the fees for representing the individual defendants as well since they are all represented by the same firm).
Unless someone is watching the trial (Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz) and/or has access to the all the pleadings and discovery in the case, any conclusions about the actual merits of the case are not likely to have much merit.
Of course it's not reasonable to jump to the conclusion that Specialized will or should win. But it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Specialized *could* require such contracts though (since most companies do), and therefore perfectly reasonable to guess that this lawsuit *could* have a legal basis. But it is also perfectly reasonable to guess that Specialized *could* be playing the bully here.
To assume Specialized is just being a bully to a little competitor is just as erroneous as assuming they are perfectly justified in bringing suit. Either is an assumption, so jumping to "Boycott Specialized because they're big bullies!!" is completely unjustified. Many seem to be jumping straight to "Boycott Specialized", when Specialized really could be in the right. We shall see.
Originally Posted by
Commodus
I've signed several as well, however there are limitations. You don't just sign away your rights to develop anything in the future, until you die.
"According to Choi, the genesis of the Liscio concept came while both were working for Specialized but the two didn’t use any of the company’s trade secrets in its development."
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...ad-bike_201808
It's a bike invention and they worked for a bike company. If Specialized followed the nearly-global standard of requiring employees to assign invention rights to Specialized, then Specialized is more than justified in requesting a royalty from every bike sold. Maybe such contracts were not required, but if they were, then Specialized could have a really good case and isn't just being a bully for the sake of being a bully.