Originally Posted by
X-LinkedRider
Here is the deal, despite the fact that even though laws are supposed to be easily understood and not having to be translated into layman's terms, most contracts and laws are purposely built to be so confusing that nobody can figure them out....
No one forced these guys to sign a contract. If an employment contract is too complicated to read without hiring a lawyer, than either a) hire a lawyer or b) don't sign the contract.
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
The problem is Specialized doesn't even know what they are sueing for.
Of course they know. The difference is that unlike Volagi, they know to keep their damned mouths shut before you go to trial. Every word those guys say to the press reduces their chances of success in court.
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
If you want to talk about lacking details, Specialized doesn't even know what is in their own contracts - that s why they NEED their precious lawyers.
You know that we know you're making this up, right?
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
Specialized has no product AVAILABLE right now that competes with the Volagi.
The Roubaix does. That doesn't really matter anyway. If they can in fact prove those guys broke their contracts and/or stole trade secrets, they've got a case.
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
Why is it that ONLY the companies that make their employees sign these contracts are ever in the right?
Why are you assuming that Volagi is in the right?
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
Where does Specialized have it documented that they invented this IP and that it happened long before Volagi earned a credible patent?
It's in their filings.
Choi admitted already that he sent his wife 30 of Specialized's sales force reports, and emailed himself a copy of Specialized's 2012 Product Plan; his defense is "we didn't use them." Specialized also protests Choi hiring away Forsman, him working on Volagi while still working at Specialized....
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
Why is it that only Volagi has to prove their innocence. Criminal/Business/Traffic laws dictates that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. They set it up that the only people that have to do any real proof showing are the defendants.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is only in criminal cases that the defendant is presumed innocent. Civil cases like this operate under a different set of standards.
In addition, the court has not issued an injunction that stops Volgai from making or selling their bikes. There is no presumption they are guilty.
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
Essentially what i am getting at is, the only reason they are doing this is to BULLY their way out of competitors.
You're kidding, right?
There are so many little high-end bike manufacturers that Specialized can't do anything about, so they're going to drop $1m on legal fees rather than spend it on R&D for a Roubaix variant with disc brakes? For a company that's sold 180 bikes in 6 months? Seriously?
I don't know who is correct or incorrect in this case; I'll leave it to the jury. Until then, it seems screamingly obvious that Choi and Forsman are digging their own graves.