Beaker

I believe that the point is, they didn't steal pre-existing Specialized trade secrets, rather the Volagi bike was designed while Choi and Forsman were under contract with Specialized, and according to the terms of that contract, everything they designed (be it water bottles, gloves or bikes) was automatically owned by Specialized. So by producing and selling the Volagi bikes, they're making money from intellectual property that is owned by Specialized.

Not that I think that's a good thing, but that seems to be the way that the case is being played out. To my mind, the fact that Specialized is throwing money at this before they've really made much from the bike is showing that Specialized either hopes to drive them out of business or at the very least make sure that they get royalties and punitive damages. I think I read that they've sold 180 bikes, at say, $3K a pop - that makes a shade under $600K in sales. No idea how much profit that would translate to, but I read that Specialized has spent over a million* in getting the case moving already.

On the other hand, I feel as though Choi and Forsman may have acted with a fair degree of naivety in the timing of their actions too.

edit: apparently $1.5M according to this

gpelpel

According to some interviews Choi and Forsman have already spent a lot of dough to defend themselves, even selling their homes. I doubt they now have much resources to survive very long. The trial might actually be their last hope, if they win they can later sue the Big 'S' to recover their expenses in addition to punitive damages. Unfortunately Specialized might have already accomplished what they intended to do, such the marrow (cash) out of Volagi.

Specialized is bullying the industry on all fronts. It's not a first, Trek did it in its hey days when Lance was winning. Same strategy of limiting their dealers in the brands they can sell, in how space competing makers can occupy in the store... Both companies are strong enough to outspend all others bike companies in terms of sponsorship contracts. On one hand it pours a lot of cash into the sport, on the other hand it dilutes competition by making the super teams unbeatable.

I have nothing against Specialized per se, I actually think their products are excellent with innovative and quality designs. Their saddle line is impressive. On the other hand I despise the big corporation attitude. We are not talking Apple against Microsoft, or Samsung, or HTC here, it's really a case of David against Goliath. And David never intended to steal Goliath's fortune, from the start Volagi marketed their product to an infinitely minuscule market, the double centuries and brevet riders.

johnny99

This would hold if they designed their bikes during work hours or using company facilities. If they designed the bikes on their own time and using their own equipment, they have a good case (under California law) that they did nothing wrong. Specialized is likely trying to crush them with legal fees, whether or not they are in the right.

The two guys really have nothing to win from this case (besides a small amount of publicity) and they have everything to lose, including their life savings and years of their lives in which I expect they would prefer to be doing something else.

Specialized really has nothing to win either, except to teach a lesson to other potentially entrepreneurial employees. The bikes are really not that revolutionary. Lots of people have been talking about road bike disk brakes in recent years.

This whole case is a big game to Sinyard, but he is playing with other peoples' lives.

Beaker

I wouldn't assume that - it would also be hard to prove I would think. For me, the problem is between the Facebook posting and the bike rumor interview, it seems as though they have incriminated themselves somewhat. They acknowledge coming up with the idea (design?) for the bike while they were employees or at least, during their notice period (legally still employees I think). Truth in lending - I work in biotech/pharma and the clauses of employment contracts surrounding the assignment of inventions to my employer seem very similar. Of course, people do leave and start small companies after working for larger ones all the time, but in general you'd try to agree all this stuff up front to avoid *exactly* this kind of problem.

bigbenaugust 

Oh, I'll probably be ridiculed. The trend is always toward more complex components (electronic shifting, disk brakes). I'm not a big fan of brifters, either.

gpelpel

I would agree that most new components are not necessary yet they enhanced the experience by adding convenience. On the other hand I would consider disk brakes as a welcomed added security. They work really nicely on a mountain bike and could add better, smoother, and more controlled braking on the road.

ricebowl

is this going drift into a fixed gears rule thread?

himespau 

But what if we put a Yoohoo logo on them?

cccorlew

From Volagi's Facebook post:

Unfortunately, Specialized has requested for Judge Woodhouse to place us under a gag order (again) so the ability for Robert or Barley to speak with the press will be prevented until the gag order is lifted. However, it is a public case so if you happen to be in San Jose, you can catch the trial at the Santa Clara County Superior Court. 190 N. 1st Street, San Jose, Court Room #4.

bigbenaugust 

Adjusting indexing for brifters is still a waste of time when full-friction bar-ends just work all the time.

bikingshearer 

I don't know if Volagi filed a counterclaim against Specialized - I'm not sure what it would be for. If Volagi wins in court, they get to recover their "costs of suit," which is a carefully defined term of art that does not include their attorney fees unless either (1) Specialized's claim is based on a statute that allows for recovery of attorney fees or (2) Specialized's claim is based on a contract that provides for them. I have no idea if the employment contracts provided for attonrey fees, but I doubt there is an applicable statute.

From what little I know of this case (which is what has been presented and linked to in BF), I don't see how Volagi would have any kind of a "malicious prosecution" claim against Specialized. All Spedcialized needs is a good-faith basis for bringing their suit, and from what the Volagi guys said on Facebook and elsewhere, it sure sounds to me like Specialized can meet that standard easily. (It is actually very hard to mount a successful malicious prosecution against anyone who is represented by even a marginally competent counsel - the plaintiff does not have to be right, they just have to have a good-faith basis for thinking they have a case.)

That is exactly what Specialized has to win and is exactly what they are after. This is less about Volagi itself, and more about drawing a line in the sand for anyone coming behind them. It's called defending the brand. (My guess is also that neither side expected this suit to go so far - over 90% settle before trial - oh, and if the litigants thought it was expensive before, they are going to soil themselves when they see the bills for the trial.)

As for the bikes not being revolutionary, probably not in terms of the technology. What is closer to revolutionary is devoting top-drawer CF technology and design exclusively to the randonneur/distance market. That is the real loss to the industry if Volagi is driven out of business

Keep in mind that, in a trial, "Proof" consists of whatever convinces the jury or, if it is a bench trial, the judge. That includes believing one witness and not another with nothing to go on beyond hearing and seeing the two witnesses testify. Juries have to resolve "he said/she said" conflicts all the time. Throw out any and all scientific, mathematical or technical notions of "proof" you ever had - they do not apply here.

And in a civil trial, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." Whazzat mean? It means "more likely than not." Imagine balancing a pencil on your finger. A "preponderance of the evidence" is enough to tip the pencil, even a little, one way or the other. Because Specialized is the plaintiff, they have the burden of proof, meaning they have the burden of making the pencil move their way. If the pencil remained perfectly evenly balanced, Specialized loses. But as you can see, the burden on Specialized is far, far less than the crinmnal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. (The difference isn the standards of proof between a criminal case and a civl one is why OJ Simpson could be acquitted of murder but held civilly liable for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown.)

x136 

Disc brakes really aren't much more complex, if you think about it. Caliper brakes are like really big disc brakes, where the wheel itself is the disc.

So long as you're not talking hydraulic disc brakes or any of that silliness.

Who needs the extra complexity of sprockets and a chain? Just throw a big ol' wheel 'twixt your nethers and call it a day.



Wait, actually, to hell with the back wheel, too. Unicycles, man!

rdtompki

I have a Volagi and have no regrets. Who knows, it may someday be worthy of putting in my will. I'm just an aged, can't-take-it-with-you geek, but the ride is excellent. While not up to the cushy standards of our steel tandem, it's light years ahead of my steel OCR1. And if your 200 lbs. like I am the disc brakes take most of the terror out of a steep, winding, ranch-road descent (ranch road = really , really bad road). I can brake with two fingers and there is absolutely no fade. I'm even wishing I had a disc on the front our of tandem (we have one on the rear).

I hope Volagi prevails in the sense of survival. Volagi has put together what may be the first lightweight CF, disc brake bike and I would hate to see them fall by the wayside only to have the general concept mainstreamed by the big boys.

Some of their actions, either by timing or nature, may have been ill-advised or constituted some form of contract violation, but it's a bit distressing to contemplate an employment contract that essentially owns an employee 24/7. What if Joe and Charlie leave a company making widgets and start a better widget company. Assuming no IP was stolen, the work was not performed on company time or use company assets (or trade secrets) does the first company assert some right because Joe and Charlie got smarter in their employ? (ignoring executive-level no-compete clauses, etc.). Ain't servitude grand?