Is Specialized a Bully?
01-06-12 | 02:02 PM
#26
Descends like a rock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,034
Likes: 16
From: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: Scott Foil, Surly Pacer
I think this had to do with having the right to make campaign contributions. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "Corporations are not citizens and voters".
01-06-12 | 02:03 PM
#27
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,247
Likes: 7
From: Northern VA
Bikes: Moots Vamoots, Colnago C60, Santa Cruz Stigmata CC, and too many other bikes I don't ride
01-06-12 | 02:04 PM
#28
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,247
Likes: 7
From: Northern VA
Bikes: Moots Vamoots, Colnago C60, Santa Cruz Stigmata CC, and too many other bikes I don't ride
Of all the big brands (Trek, Specialized, Giant, et al), who's the nicest?
01-06-12 | 02:07 PM
#30
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 358
Likes: 7
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.
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.
01-06-12 | 02:13 PM
#31
Descends like a rock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,034
Likes: 16
From: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: Scott Foil, Surly Pacer
Is their bike in any way a rip from a specific Specialized product? I mean, putting disc brakes on a road type frame isnt exactly stealing trade secrets unless they copied exactly how it was done from something Specialized owned.
01-06-12 | 02:13 PM
#32
Still spinnin'.....
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 2
From: Whitestown, IN
Bikes: Fisher Opie freeride/urban assault MTB, Redline Monocog 29er MTB, Serrota T-Max Commuter, Klein Rascal SS, Salsa Campion Road bike, Pake Rum Runner FG/SS Road bike, Cannondale Synapse Road bike, Santana Arriva Road Tandem, and others....
I am going to reserve my opinion so that I don't get sued.....
01-06-12 | 02:16 PM
#33
Flying Under the Radar
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
From: Northeast PA
Bikes: 10' SuperiorLite SL Club | 06' Giant FCR3 | 2010 GT Avalanche 3.0 Disc
Whoever is left from Michaux et Cie should sue Specialized for selling bikes with pedals.
01-06-12 | 02:41 PM
#34
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
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.
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.
01-06-12 | 03:08 PM
#35
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,714
Likes: 4,104
From: Berkeley, CA
Bikes: 72 Cilo Pacer, 72 Gitane GT, 72 Peugeot PX10, 73 Speedwell Ti,l, 75 Peugeot PR-10L, 80 Colnago Super, 81 Zinn, 85 ALAN Cross, 85 De Rosa Pro, 86 Look 753, 86 Look KG86, 89 Parkpre Team, 90 Parkpre Team MTB, 90 Merlin
And because Specialized is claiming theft of trade secrets, those proceedings are likely to remain closed.
I, for one, will boycott Specialized. I am ashamed to admit that I own a pair of Specialized shoes.
I, for one, will boycott Specialized. I am ashamed to admit that I own a pair of Specialized shoes.
__________________
-Randy
'72 Cilo Pacer (x2) • '72 Peugeot PX10 • ‘72 Gitane Gran Tourisme • '73 Speedwell Ti • '74 Motobecane Grand Jubile • '74 Peugeot UE-8 • ‘80 Colnago Super • ‘81 Univega Super Special • ‘82 Zinn • ‘84ish Mystery Custom • '85 A.L.A.N Cyclocross • '85 De Rosa Pro • '86 Look Equipe 753 • '86 Look KG86 • '89 Parkpre Team Road • '90 Parkpre Team MTB • '90 Merlin Ti
Avatar photo courtesy of jeffveloart.com, contact: contact: jeffnil8 (at) gmail.com.
-Randy
'72 Cilo Pacer (x2) • '72 Peugeot PX10 • ‘72 Gitane Gran Tourisme • '73 Speedwell Ti • '74 Motobecane Grand Jubile • '74 Peugeot UE-8 • ‘80 Colnago Super • ‘81 Univega Super Special • ‘82 Zinn • ‘84ish Mystery Custom • '85 A.L.A.N Cyclocross • '85 De Rosa Pro • '86 Look Equipe 753 • '86 Look KG86 • '89 Parkpre Team Road • '90 Parkpre Team MTB • '90 Merlin Ti
Avatar photo courtesy of jeffveloart.com, contact: contact: jeffnil8 (at) gmail.com.
01-06-12 | 03:14 PM
#36
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 3
From: Burnaby, BC
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.
01-06-12 | 03:17 PM
#37
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,095
Likes: 5
From: Boone, North Carolina
Bikes: 2009 Cannondale CAAD9-6 2014 Trek Domaine 5.9
01-06-12 | 03:19 PM
#38
Psycholist
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Bikes: Devinci Amsterdam, Litespeed Teramo
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.
01-06-12 | 03:19 PM
#39
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,095
Likes: 5
From: Boone, North Carolina
Bikes: 2009 Cannondale CAAD9-6 2014 Trek Domaine 5.9
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.
01-06-12 | 03:22 PM
#40
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 6
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.
01-06-12 | 03:23 PM
#41
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 3
From: Burnaby, BC
I'm so conflicted.
01-06-12 | 03:24 PM
#42
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 282
From: Colorado
These threads always bring out the BF Legal Department.
01-06-12 | 03:26 PM
#43
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 6
And Specialized has always acted as a bully. A bully goes after someone/entity that is much less powerful than the bully is. I seem to remember Sinyard mouthing some crap about Cannondale a while back, but he did not sue. Why? I think b/cos Cannondale's parent, Dorel industries can afford to match Specialized gun to gun legally.
01-06-12 | 03:30 PM
#45
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, CA
Bikes: Trek 4300 Disc
I wonder if my Jury Summon this week has to do something with this? I got the final word that I don't need to come in for jury selection. If it was for this, it was too bad for me not getting into the selection process. I would love to find out what really is going on in Specialized HQ that triggered them to slap Volagi a lawsuit. Anyway, if y'all haven't seen this yet... https://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19662131
And straight from Volagi's blogsite... https://volagi.wordpress.com/
And straight from Volagi's blogsite... https://volagi.wordpress.com/
Last edited by gundom66; 01-06-12 at 04:22 PM.
01-06-12 | 03:38 PM
#46
Descends like a rock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,034
Likes: 16
From: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: Scott Foil, Surly Pacer
01-06-12 | 03:45 PM
#48
Chases Dogs for Sport
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,289
Likes: 147
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.
01-06-12 | 03:48 PM
#49
Reasonably Slow...
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 628
Likes: 1
From: Middle of Oklahoma
It's pretty standard in most industries. The employer has you sign something that says you stop working there, you won't start a business to compete against them within X years.
01-06-12 | 03:50 PM
#50
Administrator
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,651
Likes: 2,694
From: Delaware shore
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
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.
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.
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.
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.
The quote makes it sound like Specialized is just going after them because the copany is angry a new competitor is around.