Originally Posted by noise boy (Post 13685894)

Unless they acted on their idea before the left Specialized's employment, then they are fine, non-competes and non-disclosures do not mean that the company owns you and your ideas.

Originally Posted by noise boy (Post 13685894)

Unless they acted on their idea before the left Specialized's employment, then they are fine, non-competes and non-disclosures do not mean that the company owns you and your ideas.

Originally Posted by noise boy (Post 13685894)

Unless they acted on their idea before the left Specialized's employment, then they are fine, non-competes and non-disclosures do not mean that the company owns you and your ideas.

Originally Posted by rangerdavid (Post 13685919)

with the black and red, I guess they'll be sueing Michael Jordan next....

Originally Posted by laserfj (Post 13685965)

Non-compete means you can't compete. If they signed one and they are trying to sell bikes within the term of their non-compete, they are in violation of it...

Originally Posted by rangerdavid (Post 13685984)

not necessairly. the non-compete clause has to be "reasonable as to time and geographical location", meaning the restriction on length of time, and it must specify a geographical area that they cannot compete in. That too must be reasonable. Lots more technical aspects of the enforcement of non-competes, but those are some basics.

in other words, it can't say "you cant ever sell bikes in the USA". But it may say "you can't sell bikes in Texas for 2 years", or something like that.

Originally Posted by himespau (Post 13685916)

except most of us have signed IP rights documents (in addition to or instead of noncompetes) that say any idea we have while in their employ no matter the time of day or where we are when we have this idea belongs to them. BS, but I've had to sign 3 of them at my last 3 jobs to get the job. A lot of people get them confused with a noncompete, but they're a different beast altogether. In my job it didn't even say "related to my work" that a lot of people's IP agreements say.

Originally Posted by gregf83 (Post 13685956)

Their new bike looks an awful lot like a specialized bike. If they didn't take anything from Specialized why design a bike that looks incredibly similar to your previous employer's bikes? Looks like they were asking for trouble.

Originally Posted by rangerdavid (Post 13685697)

Mitt Romney said corporations are people. I'll believe it when Rick Perry executes one in Texas.

Originally Posted by gregf83 (Post 13685956)

Their new bike looks an awful lot like a specialized bike. If they didn't take anything from Specialized why design a bike that looks incredibly similar to your previous employer's bikes? Looks like they were asking for trouble.

Originally Posted by rangerdavid (Post 13685973)

..... and they said Specialized has spend a Million and a Half Dollars on legal fees "so far" ....... WTF!!!

Originally Posted by NathanC (Post 13686069)

Similar? These are about as similar as the Roubaix is to any other road bike.

Originally Posted by Velo Vol (Post 13685148)

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

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo (Post 13685214)

If Specialized requires its employees to sign the same standard agreement that most manufacturing companies do, they will win this suit.

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo (Post 13685214)

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 rangerdavid (Post 13685919)

with the black and red, I guess they'll be sueing Michael Jordan next....

Originally Posted by gregf83 (Post 13686134)

How many bikes have a curved top tube like Specialized? They look similar to me.

Originally Posted by jdon (Post 13685977)

No, he lacks white.

Originally Posted by Jed19 (Post 13685717)

That is Specialized's intention. Strangle the baby in the crib.

Originally Posted by danvuquoc (Post 13686162)

You're assuming as fact that they came up with any substantive design and or research for the bicycle while at Specialized --Volagi claims this is not the case, they are in court to determine this now. Specialized will need to prove this. You don't know the details of this case, you shouldn't assume the details until the gag order put in place yesterday requested by Specialized is lifted. Unless you happen to be getting information from the public court room from another source or if you went from Tennessee to DT San Jose yourself?

Originally Posted by SlimRider (Post 13686173)

This is most likely a lawsuit intended to set precedent more so than to bully. Let all engineers and company innovators know with certainty, the outcome of any trade trepasses, long before the treacherous thought takes root.

- Slim :)

Originally Posted by laserfj (Post 13685965)

Non-compete means you can't compete. If they signed one and they are trying to sell bikes within the term of their non-compete, they are in violation of it...

Originally Posted by pbd (Post 13686199)

They have admitted they had the idea while at Specialized. It's the reason they left in the first place, and they've said as much. I'm not saying Specialized is correct, but there's a good chance they are. We'll see what happens.


"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

"Added Choi, 50: 'We thought we had a better idea. And in order for us to pursue it, we were going to have to quit Specialized. For them to pursue this is an incredible surprise.' "

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19662131

Originally Posted by dalava (Post 13686259)

I know for sure non-competes don't really hold much sway in Cali courts; on the other hand, if they signed an employment contract that assigns all IP right to Sp while working there, they they may have some issues.