Financially, I doubt Volagi has pulled in what Speciallized has spent thus far. This isn't about getting back financial losses. This is about crushing them before they get off the ground and sending a message to their employees about what happens if you leave Specialized and try to stay in the industry. They don't even really think that a firm that has only sold <200 bikes thus far can compete with them. If Volagi survives this, great press/exposure for them though.

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?

I don't think assumption means what you think it means.

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."

https://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 could have a really good case and isn't just being a bully for the sake of being a bully.

My main point is that "bully" is a term mostly used to describe human (or animal) conduct, not business practices.

You must not read bikesnobnyc

Greg Lemond would beg to differ

I wonder at what stage it becomes a design that Specialized would own. Is that what this is really about? If the one guy said, "hmm, I wonder if having longer seatstays not attached to the seatpost would give a better ride" to the other guy, but they didn't actually get around to planning it out and designing it until they were gone, does Spesh still own it, or is it just that they only would have owned it if they'd designed the whole thing while still working at Specialized? I'm all for innovation, but if all this Mr. Volagi stuff was going on and the bike was designed while still at Spesh, they're going to get hammered. If their facebook posting is true instead, it's still a bit iffy because there's a lot there about how they only designed it after putting in their notice. No word that they designed it after leaving the company.

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.

Unbelievable, 3 pages in 3 hours.

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.

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

Tell that to Special'zd's LAWYERS.

In a perfect world I agree with you... which of course never existed.

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.

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...

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




Do you know how many bikes I could buy with a client like that!!!! Crap, I'd only need one client, and several S-Works in different colors in addition with my fees.

No, he lacks white.

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.

Further, since I am under one for my work, it doesn't mean that I can't sell bikes, it means that I can't sell bikes to retailers who are already selling Specialized products. Anybody who Specialized doesn't have an existing agreement with is fair game.

Broad based assumption, nowhere is it specified that the two signed any agreements whatsoever with Specialized. Further the basis for the lawsuit is that they stole Specialized trade secrets, not that they violated any agreement.

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

Or when Obama bows to one.

Oh wait.

Judging from the side by side found in this link, the only difference is the seat stay and fork. If Specialized is referring to their "Cobra" Top Tube (I know it's cobra "something"), it does look similar from that picture. However, looking at the Liscio up close, it doesn't have that Cobra-shaped Top Tube. Maybe Specialized is really referring to the "base" design which is the Roubaix, and Volagi went back to the drawing board and came up with a better looking Seat Stay because that Zertz crap is freakin' ugly. Sorry Roubaix owners, but this is just my personal opinion. Maybe Specialized is a bit jealous that a better design without the use of them inserts can perform just as well as their Roubaix which may have triggered the lawsuit.

Anyway, there is a posting in Volagi's Facebook page about one evil-doing they did... and according to them, it has been reversed.

Now you know why the Venge is so expensive