Originally Posted by pbd (Post 13685353)

Yep, standard operating procedure, such contracts are required everywhere: You sign away your rights, such that any invention conceived while employed belongs to the employers. That's not just in the bike industry, that's ANY industry. I've signed several of these in the semiconductor industry, for instance.

Originally Posted by pbd (Post 13685353)

Yep, standard operating procedure, such contracts are required everywhere: You sign away your rights, such that any invention conceived while employed belongs to the employers. That's not just in the bike industry, that's ANY industry. I've signed several of these in the semiconductor industry, for instance.

Originally Posted by Velo Vol (Post 13685148)

Bully? A corporation is not a person, despite what the Supreme Court says.

Originally Posted by radshark (Post 13685709)

I think Specialized should articulate and prove exactly what intellectual assets were *stolen* as per their IP agreement. In the interim - I hope Trek or Giant approaches Volagi and purchase the IP rights to Volagi's inventions and defends them. IP suits can be very expensive - probably much more expensive than Volagi can afford.

Originally Posted by rangerdavid (Post 13685710)

best thing Specialized has done in a while is step in to sponsor the former HTC Highroad women's team, now Specialized Lululemon, which is actually the most fun name to say in professional cycling.

Originally Posted by sbxx1985 (Post 13685728)

These threads always bring out the BF Legal Department.

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 13685744)

Not if we keep it clean and on point.

No?

Originally Posted by sbxx1985 (Post 13685728)

These threads always bring out the BF Legal Department.

Originally Posted by Commodus (Post 13685331)

You're making a ton of assumptions here. These guys did not work in product development.

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo (Post 13685214)

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.

Originally Posted by wkg (Post 13685060)

That's a very good question. To paraphrase bikesnobnyc: Volagi has infringed on Specialized's patented use of the colorway red, black and white.

Specialized doesn't just bully other small companies, they also bully their own dealers.

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo (Post 13685809)

In every manufacturer of which I am aware, EVERY employee signs this deal. In our company, it doesn't matter who you are -- welder, accountant, janitor, engineer, salesman, painter -- everybody. That's just normal operating procedure for companies. The only assumption I'm making is that Specialized uses an arrangement that 90%+ of manufacturing companies use.

Originally Posted by wjclint (Post 13685534)

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.

Originally Posted by Commodus (Post 13685690)

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.

Originally Posted by pallen (Post 13685155)

I agree, but a corporation can still act like a person, as in this case.

Originally Posted by LemondFanForeve (Post 13685837)

So, am I to understand that if another bike company uses: red, white, &black on their bikes, Specialized will "sue" them? Patent or not, those are pretty universal colors, ANYONE can use, or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by wkg (Post 13685350)

Trek duh

Originally Posted by pbd (Post 13685849)

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.




"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 has a really good case and isn't just being a bully for the sake of being a bully.