Wishful thinking. Specialized's bottom line won't be impacted 1% by this. And they know it. It will, however cripple Valagi

I read this entire thread. All I can say is if going to work for a bike company means you can't later quit and build a bike that is nothing like theirs, then no matter what they signed it is ethically wrong. I am someone who believes the market place can right some wrongs. To summarize F*** Specialized. They won't see a dime of my money ever again.

Yes they do. In both categories. And Sinyard has a Cannondale fetish to the point of emailing employees (engineers specifically) about quitting Cannondale and coming to work for Specialized. Cannondale ran a great ad in the trades with a copy of the email. It really blew up in Specialized's face.

What cracks me is the Sworks line. Essentially it's their pro frame. Like an EVO, or a Madone 6, or a Giant TCR Advanced SL. Ever compare pricing between SWorks and the rest that I mentioned. And people pay it.

Oh well.

I will say this...in am my past employment, the one real constant was that anything you did while "on the clock" or "under the employ" of the comapny paying you meant that material was owned by said company. I am getting the impression that Specialized is saying that these guys were working on this bike while working at Specialized (nights, weekends, etc.) and given the turnaround time for production and knowing a little bit about the life of a bike design, I'd tend to agree. I did not read every single post on this, but I spotted some comments alluding to the fact that the designers virtually admitted such. If that's the case, there's little recourse for them. If they were designing a bike while employed at Specialized, even if it was at the kitchen table at midnight, it's a Specialized bike, given what I have been told over the years.

Given all this, I'd still never have them in a shop I owned. And a couple of people have told me that if you work there and quit, don't expect a "goodbye lunch" or anyone wishing you the best. But from the reading I've done and the people I've talked to, that's Sinyard's style.

Like the Corleone Family....

Correct.

It also looks like a BMC (around the seat tube/ top tube), a Madone, and a Giant. Wait. Giant did compact first. Then came Specialized. Wow.

That's what I tell people who have looked a Specialized. Why buy a copy? Buy a Giant and buy the original.

Or at least buy the Giant and save like 20% over Spesh or Trek,,

But Giant equips most of their stuff with Sram now... But just dealing with these companies first hand, Giant and Fuji are EASILY much better companies to deal with than Trek and Spesh. Not even in the same discussion really.

That's not what it means at all. It doesn't mean you can't leave and make other bikes later down the road. It just means you can't make other bikes while still employed by the original bike company. That is what seems to be the crux of the issue, but is still a bit of conjecture as well.

And again, that may or may not be true yet at this point, we don't know. The Volagi guys have admitted to having an idea for a bike while at Specialized, but we'll see which argument comes through from a legal point of view. It could be that Volagi didn't do much while at Specialized, or that things changed significantly AFTER they left Specialized, either of which could leave Volagi in the clear.

Or it could be that they had most of the design done before they left Specialized, in which case Specialized has every right to claim ownership of that design. We don't know yet.

Either way, there's not nearly enough evidence in this thread to warrant drawing conclusions and jumping straight to a boycott. There's only hearsay, conjecture, and media statements by only one of the parties in the lawsuit (because the other side isn't talking, probably the smart thing to do).

I read most of this and looked at the article and I have to agree with specialized on this one i think...I'm all for the little guy but that bike looks almost identicle to Specialized's cyclocross bike frame..and the color scheme makes it look even more like it...without a caption on the picture, i would have thought that it was a Specialized bike.

I know someone who was a partner in a company that held several radiology clinics. He sold his share out and had to sign a non-competition agreement- couldn't open up another radiology clinic for 18 months. So he opened a tavern instead.

Must read here: http://cyclingiq.com/2012/01/06/spec...-shut-lawsuit/

I think the Volagi guys are in the bit of trouble from what I can deduce. The simple fact that they keep saying they don't even know what they are being sued for is not a good sign, nor is it a good way to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I am not drawing any conclusion yet and will be watching this closely. I really hope the Volagi guys, or more importantly the lawyers they hired, are good and lucky enough to get a sympathetic jury that has some common sense. This speaks a lot about our general litigious environment where any IP is involved.

I feel bad for those guys. Volagi has a nice product but as business men they should have known that you don't double-dip or use employer resources for personal gain. It looks like they crossed the boundaries more than once and now Specialized has a legal position to go after them even if those appear to be minor infractions of their non-compete/CDA.

Wow, yeah, this is definitely not a point in their favor here. A sketch, which led directly to a patent and an integral piece of technology on their product, was done >2 months before they gave notice to Specialized. And he even admits to using his Specialized company email account and Specialized-produced sales reports for Volagi's gain.


The first sketch that led to the final Volagi concept – when was that completed?
That sketch was done on January 31st 2010. It was done at home – a kind of back-of-the-napkin concept piece. It didn’t have any paint or geometry, it was just taking a picture of a bike on side-view and mocking it up to create something visual and we ended up patenting the LongBow Flex stay. At the time we didn’t even know if something like that could be patented. It was a novel idea, but I honestly didn’t think it could be patented. A separated top tube and stuff like that had been done many times, but we came through with a very innovative idea where the top tube is connected to the seat tube only.

What are Specialized’s exact allegations against Volagi?
They initially claimed that I had in my possession some “sales call reports”, which I passed on to my wife, as she was joining our company (Volagi). I admit, I don’t think that was the right thing to do looking back, but Specialized generated thousands of these call reports all the time; it was just a matter of trying to learn about the issues we might have when starting a new company. I realized “oh, I shouldn’t be doing this” and I stopped it. But, they filed with the Court then went back to decide on what they could actually sue us for. Later on, they discovered I used the internal email systems to send a few notes to (Volagi) vendors, so they said I was using company resources. I also had a copy of a project plan that I was working on, which they said were trade secrets; I had nothing on carbon layup, specification or materials. They just say, “your bike looks strikingly similar to our bike”. Yeah, to a non-technical observer they all look the same.


Let me put it this way: if I did exactly the same thing with a piece of semiconductor technology today, my employer would sue me too, and would probably win, because that design would belong to my employer. But we still don't know all the details of this case yet, we'll see how it turns out in a couple of weeks.

I have S works shoe and really like them but after reading this I think I will try and avoid the company.

Litigation is the American way. Where else in the world can a woman get 3 million $ for spilling hot coffee on herself?

Holy cow, this just gets worse. The new piece of info for me here is using Specialized corporate email to contact Volagi vendors - that's such an amateur/rookie move that it's beyond belief. Dumb, dumb, dumb. It also confirms that they were trying to sell their own bike while employees of Specialized.

My "big bad company squishing small innovative bike producer" vibe is starting to recede a little.

Yeah. These guys were stupid. If they weren't fired by Specialized, they should have been.

And they have admitted using Specialized trade secrets in the above quote. This is one of those textbook cases. What were they thinking?

Worse than the Volagi guys are their lawyers. When your client has no case, it's unconscionable to let them run up legal fees.

I dunno about the trade secrets bit, but it's starting to look like Spesh has a case. Too bad, innovation is a good thing.

"Sales call reports" are pretty universally acknowledged to be trade secrets.

Add to that, the fact they acknowledge that they did the initial designs while employed at Specialized. Specialized owns them. If Specialized really offered to accept a royalty in exchange for letting them keep operating, Volagi should have taken it. Specialized was being kind. (Probably because they hoped to avoid negative publicity.)

Precisely.

Looks more like a Tarmac than a Roubaix

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v626/Falchoon/006.jpg

Or a Malvern Star Opphy

http://www.kidsonscycles.com.au/imag...oppy_c6_01.jpg

Patent infringement and trade secrets never crossed my mind when I first learned of the suit, since these guys worked in accessories and there is nothing singularly unique in the Roubaix (except Zertz) and the Liscio seat cluster is nothing like Specialized ever did. I suspected a non-compete agreement.

The rules for non-compete agreements in California are very restrictive, as Choi mentioned, and they go back to 1872. Simply working on the bike while employed by Specialized would not constitute a contract violation because that part of the contract would be invalid in California.

Using company resources, however, such as PCs, email servers, and the sales call reports, for non-company purposes is theft. Most companies allow some personal use of their resources, but Choi crossed the line using them to start a competing company. My first impression of the case was that it would be about the non-compete agreement because I never thought Choi and Forsman would be so foolish as to conduct Volagi business using Specialized resources, especially since Choi had firsthand experience with the kind of hardball Sinyard plays.

The court will not grant Specialized ownership of the longbow flex stay, but the damages could compel Choi to try to make them an offer.

Someone should email this link to the folks @ Spesh, would be interesting to get their take on folks opinions here.

But do their frames look like bacon?

Yeah...I am not at all a fan of Specialized, not for this particular incident, but for many the have preceeded this.

Bottom line, I don't think I want to ride a frame designed by people that are so stupid to think that they could pull that off. If you work for someone and you wake up at 3am with a brilliant idea and try to turn that into profit for you personally and your employer finds out you are in serious trouble. 100% of the time.

Mixed feelings from me (even though legalities aren't about "feelings")...

On one hand, I don't like finding out about what Specialized does to its retailers (which I've only tangentially heard about via this thread). It's a shame, too, because I like their bikes, and I have, or have had, their helmets, saddles, shoes, and some other stuff, too.

On the other hand, even though I've had a keen interest in Volagi's bike, I can see that they're likely screwed in this case. Really sucks for them, too, since the thing looks like it'll be different enough to stand out in this market.

Now, maybe I just haven't noticed it -- but will Specialized lay claim to their bike and make it themselves?

You can't be serious........... how many of them even have a conscious<<<<<<<. For that matter.. who does in corporate America today?

Eat or be eaten.

I am 100% in favor of Specialized on this one. Companies have the right and obligation to protect intellectual properties. If you develop a product on company time, using company resources, the company owns the design. I expect they will settle and the product will remain in place with significant royalties paid to Specialized. Either that or a cease and desist order on that frame.