|
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....
|
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 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.
As George Carlin once said: "Everybody knows by now all business men: completely full of s**t. Just the worst kind of low life, criminal, c**k suckers you could ever want to run into. A f**kin piece of s**t businessman. And the proof of it is, the proof of it is: they don't even trust each other. They don't trust one another. When a businessman sits down to negotiate a deal, the first thing he does is to automatically assume that the other guy is a complete lying pr**k, who's trying to f**k him out of his money. So he's got to do everything he can to f**k the other guy a little bit faster and a little bit harder; and he's got to do it with a big smile on his face. You know that big bull-s**t businessman smile?" I'm sorry to hear this, though, since I've always been a fan of Specialized products. Especially their accessories and consumables, much better quality than the Bontrager stuff. |
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?
"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 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 :) This company is a blowhard, that is what I think. |
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...
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. B178246 (Cal.App. 2 Dist./Div. 3) |
Ok, the best I can gather, the facts are:
- These guys had an employment contract with Specialized, and the contract probably stipulates all kind of non-compete, IP ownership, non-solicitation, etc., etc. - They had the idea while working at Sp. - For them to pursue this as their own opportunity, they quit Sp so they can get out of the employment contract - (this part I am not sure is true or not) Before they quit, they talked to Sp and was somewhat assured it's all cool - Now they have a product prototype, and Sp felt it was way too close to comfort - So Sp is using the employment contract to sue them. The exact clause Sp said they violated is not exactly clear to me (my guess is that it's probably a combination of non-compete and IP ownership) 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. |
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 |
Just like any unoin or large corporation... They can only control your life while you're part of it. Afterwards they can only make fools of themselves trying... And just when they were about to eclipse Trek. AT&T and MicroSoft were less aggressive to its competitors than Specialized is. They are just not Lance enough for anybody to care quite yet.
|
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.
This is probably key to the entire lawsuit, as well as if Specialized can prove when anything was developed. |
Originally Posted by danvuquoc
(Post 13686279)
This is probably key to the entire lawsuit, as well as if Specialized can prove when anything was developed.
|
Originally Posted by dalava
(Post 13686259)
- (this part I am not sure is true or not) Before they quit, they talked to Sp and was somewhat assured it's all cool
|
Originally Posted by dalava
(Post 13686289)
I don't think they even need to prove it's developed. It could just be a napkin drawing of the thing, or email between the two exchanging ideas.
|
Originally Posted by danvuquoc
(Post 13686303)
Isn't that a form of proof?
|
Originally Posted by NathanC
(Post 13686179)
You mean a curved top-tube that branches of to be the seat-stays?
|
Originally Posted by X-LinkedRider
(Post 13686270)
Just like any unoin or large corporation... They can only control your life while you're part of it. Afterwards they can only make fools of themselves trying... And just when they were about to eclipse Trek. AT&T and MicroSoft were less aggressive to its competitors than Specialized is. They are just not Lance enough for anybody to care quite yet.
|
This would be a more interesting thread in the MTB or hipster forums.
|
i dunno, but that bike looks nothing like a specialized and I kinda dig it
|
Most of us are rooting for the little guy, but with what seem to be few exceptions we are laypersons with respect to the legal issues, even those of us who have signed various types of employment agreements. I'm rooting for the little guy despite the faint possibility that my Volagi would become a priceless heirloom if they were to cease production.
I'll offer my HI Express opinion, however: how could the two former employees working in the capacity indicated be exposed to "trade secrets". See wiki for what probably is a reasonable definition. The trade secret can't be in the design of the Roubaix, for example, because there is no prohibition against reverse engineering a trade secret. And so what if the Volagi looks like something else unless a) there are patented features inherent in a Specialized design that Volagi has copied, or b) the Volagi design was aided by proprietary information to which the former employees were exposed. It's just as likely that Specialized is concerned not by the direct competitive threat, but by the interest in higher performance, light weight, disc brake-equipped road bikes. Volagi has received some very good press and while Specialized is more than capable of offering such a bike, doing so will cannibalize their current product line in which they have a sizable investment (tooling, R&D, advertising, etc.). It may be that one or more of Specialized competitors is closer to release of a disc brake road bike and Specialized desires to slow down market interest. Should be interesting to see what the court decides. It is a great bike. |
i haven't read all the posts, so maybe this has been said before, but it never looks good for a large company to sue former employees attempting to make a success of a start-up. it always looks like sour grapes. if i were in the jury pool, specialized would do well to use one of their preemptive objections to my serving on the jury.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:46 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.