I'd have to agree with halfspeed. Specialized will always hire the best talent that will work for them. If the best/most talented up and coming builders in the world avoid working to go work for a company that treat's their employees and distributors better, than I would have to say they can't possibly continue hiring the best bike builders available, because they simply won't work for them.

Is the frame design novel? No one has made a bike frame similar to the "LONGBOW FLEX™ STAY SUSPENSION" out of any material in the past several decades?

And that kind of wording is unenforceable in most jurisdictions. A company can't own an idea or project of an employee if it's not developed on company time or using company resources. It can't own an employee's personal toolkit or the expertise developed while it employs him or her. It can't own an employee's daydreams or pipe dreams. And even if it trains an employee, it can't prevent him or her from applying that training somewhere else (but it might be able to claim for reimbursement).

Here are the intangibles a company can own--customer lists and other documentation or code it generates, trade secrets, internal processes, patents, and copyrights. It can also fire employees, without cause in many states. Just because lawyers write forms using standard wording for insurance policies, employment contracts, leases, releases, non-waivers, hold harmless, etc., every clause on these pieces of paper is not always legal and enforceable. Many of these papers are just designed to provide varying levels of closure or discourage you from standing up for your rights.

Just the same, if you think you might be be having trouble with your employer, consult a lawyer, don't take my word.

Regarding legal costs, there are two kinds of expenses, actual court costs (bureaucracy) and the cost of making your case (the big one). In civil actions the parties bear their own costs in making their cases, but the court does have some discretion. Court costs are usually paid by the loser, but discretion is often left to the court. I believe Specialized's claims are so jury-rigged, based on unenforceable contract language, conversions of resources that caused little or no provable damage, and trade secrets that either weren't secret or were never accessible to the defendants, that Volagi will lose a lot less than what Specialized is demanding. Now if this case were being heard in a more employer-friendly jurisdiction like, say, Texas, some more of this junk would stick. But not in California.

Yes, Choi and Forsman were ******bags, but you can't make a claim against that without provable damages and enforceable agreements. And yes, Specialized might be a bigger ******bag, but the court doesn't care about that.

I've heard some comparisons of the design to GT's signature "dual triangle" design of the '90s, but GT's stays were tacked to the seat tube before terminating at the top tube. That made the frame stiffer, not more compliant.

I think it's a cool design, but not my cuppa tea.

oldbobcat, I'm that lawyer you're telling them to consult. I.P. assignment provisions of employment agreements ARE enforceable in every jurisdiction of which I'm aware -- certainly in the majority of jurisdictions, even outside the U.S. This is especially true if the invention/innovation was made within the same industry category. They are very rarely a problem, though. People who are smart enough to invent something are generally smart enough to have either (1) hired a lawyer who asks the right questions, or (2) read and understood their employment agreement. Companies can't afford not to enforce them and they will pursue the perp until they gain public satisfaction. I.P. is their life blood and they can't allow the appearance of letting employees walk off with it.

Non-competes, on the other hand, are hard to enforce. Won't often happen. But Specialized isn't going after them under a non-compete clause. I think you're confusing this with a non-compete case.

If Choi and Forsman wanted to do their own thing, they should have been smart enough to create a time gap and DOCUMENT that their back-of-napkin sketches were made after they left. It's a simple I.Q. test. Between the documentary evidence and the perps' public pronouncements, they are done. (Nightmare clients.)

Side issue . . . do you really want to buy a bike frame from guys so inattentive to basic details? I'm no Specialized fan (much the contrary after my Tarmac experience), but these guys would have been better served to wave a white flag and give Specialized their royalty. It would have been cheaper than legal fees.

As a non-lawyer, I was thinking pretty much the same thing. They're going to court, and they're shooting their mouths off? What the?


I was thinking they would've been better off getting an investment from Specialized. Starting a high-end bike company can't be cheap.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily connect a lack of legal acumen with skills in designing and assembling bicycles.

I have signed a number of these with IP provisions and they don't really bother me, not as much as non-competes anyway. But this action against former employees would make me reluctant to work for Specialized if I had any other alternative.

Spoken like a true lawyer my friend. Lawyers are paid to keep this BS going as long as possible. That being said, I agree with you, but that isn't the issue. The real issue is control AFTER departure from the company. Which unless there is direct contract which keeps their employees IP even property created after the departure of the company, the real issue is how long can you control the fate of another human being. Selling a company and entering non-compete contract is one thing and should easily be enforced. Utilizing a Non-compete clause for a product that they don't compete against is simply legal trickery and it is the exact reason people get confused.
Here is the deal, despite the fact that even though laws are supposed to be easily understood and not having to be translated into layman's terms, most contracts and laws are purposely built to be so confusing that nobody can figure them out. The problem is Specialized doesn't even know what they are sueing for. They only know WHY, and that is to disarm a possible upstart company. They had to utilize a TEAM of lawyers and resubmit the lawsuit in order for it to even be considered. (If you want to talk about lacking details, Specialized doesn't even know what is in their own contracts - that s why they NEED their precious lawyers.)

Specialized has no product AVAILABLE right now that competes with the Volagi. On top of that the Patent was awarded to Volagi, not Specialized. If specialized was indeed sitting on this technology with no patent behind it in their name and somebody else came along and released it first with a patent. It doesn't matter what is in their Non compete clause, because they aren't competing. They simply beat Specialized to it.

Why is it that ONLY the companies that make their employees sign these contracts are ever in the right? For some reason just because you signed a non-compete clause during your employment and most likely a short time afterwards that there is not leg for the severed employee to stand on? Where does Specialized have it documented that they invented this IP and that it happened long before Volagi earned a credible patent? Why is it that only Volagi has to prove their innocence. Criminal/Business/Traffic laws dictates that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. They set it up that the only people that have to do any real proof showing are the defendants.

Essentially what i am getting at is, the only reason they are doing this is to BULLY their way out of competitors. You can break out all of the legal BS available (which is A LOT) but it doesn't make it correct. Not even on the smallest of scales. Specialized has not invented anything useful but a large legal team and zerts inserts. The rest is all stolen from other, real engineers who will never be heard of because of shady business practices. It took an entire team to be the Chicago Bulls, but Jordan still got his recognition. Specialized gives NOBODY any recognition, so when people leave the company, they get scared. This is a pretty blatant act of fear on Specialized' part.

They're called 'hellenic stays'. I don't think they're common but I've come across them...somewhere. I can't remember.

Google says a frame builder named Hetchins was perhaps the first. But again, like GT, they were intended to increase rigidity in those days of lightweight steel tubing.

The moonlighters I'm familiar with were IT guys working on projects that were not directly related to their employers' business--public domain programs, charity, or getting started on commercial ventures for other markets where there was is little invention, just re-application of existing technology. I lost track of that patent for the longbow flex stay. Which explains why I'm not detail-oriented enough to have my own bike company.

My thinking was that Specialized would never have been interested in implementing a frame design idea by two guys in accessories clouded the fact that the idea for it came while they were at Specialized. And now I'm recalling all those patents IBM developed over the decades that were never brought to market, and I'm chastened.

And I agree strongly that these guys should have been more circumspect, and they should have been getting legal advice much earlier in the game. Would the stage of development of their idea while they were still employed have an impact on Specialized's ownership of it?

Specialized has more money to spend on lawyers. Doesn't really matter who is right or what the details are. Specialized has more money and they can drag this out and grind them into the ground, or at least make them scream uncle.

But a jury is a strange thing and you never know what decision they will render.

It is a cool bike and I love the disc brakes and extra flex in the design. Would be super sweet for long long long rides....

I really think it's that people are throwing around the term non-compete that's causing the problems. Sounds like the Volagi two don't really know IP law either and think they're being sued under the non-compete when the description sounds nothing like a non-compete and exactly like the IP assignment contract you have to sign. Then they stupidly go around telling everyone that they had the idea (and drew it up on a napkin - documentation of that is really bad for them) while still employed by Specialized and thereby under that IP agreement. Unless Specialized wanted them so bad that they let them modify (or not sign) that boilerplate IP agreement when they were recruited, they are well and truly ****ed. Ah well, such is life. A shame, but it is how it is.

Can anything on a bicycle be novel after 130 years of manufacturing?

Why do these Volagi guys keep shooting off their mouths in the media? (shakes head)

Don't they have competent attorneys who should have reined them in?

Just baffled. I am not an attorney, but I know enough to zip my mouth when an issue is sub judice.

I don't know about that move man. 180? Sheesh.

I often wonder this as well. For example ....

COSTAS: Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?
SANDUSKY: Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?... Sexually attracted? You know, [no], I enjoy young people...

CUT TO NYT INTERVIEW:
SANDUSKY: I was sitting there saying, "What in the world is this question?" You know, if I say, no, I'm not attracted to boys, that's not the truth, because I'm attracted to young people, boys, girls..."
LAWYER [JUMPING IN FROM OFF CAMERA]: Yes, but not sexually. You're attracted because you enjoy spending time...

No one forced these guys to sign a contract. If an employment contract is too complicated to read without hiring a lawyer, than either a) hire a lawyer or b) don't sign the contract.


Of course they know. The difference is that unlike Volagi, they know to keep their damned mouths shut before you go to trial. Every word those guys say to the press reduces their chances of success in court.


You know that we know you're making this up, right?


The Roubaix does. That doesn't really matter anyway. If they can in fact prove those guys broke their contracts and/or stole trade secrets, they've got a case.


Why are you assuming that Volagi is in the right?


It's in their filings.

Choi admitted already that he sent his wife 30 of Specialized's sales force reports, and emailed himself a copy of Specialized's 2012 Product Plan; his defense is "we didn't use them." Specialized also protests Choi hiring away Forsman, him working on Volagi while still working at Specialized....


Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It is only in criminal cases that the defendant is presumed innocent. Civil cases like this operate under a different set of standards.

In addition, the court has not issued an injunction that stops Volgai from making or selling their bikes. There is no presumption they are guilty.


You're kidding, right?

There are so many little high-end bike manufacturers that Specialized can't do anything about, so they're going to drop $1m on legal fees rather than spend it on R&D for a Roubaix variant with disc brakes? For a company that's sold 180 bikes in 6 months? Seriously?

I don't know who is correct or incorrect in this case; I'll leave it to the jury. Until then, it seems screamingly obvious that Choi and Forsman are digging their own graves.

I'm curious. It looks like Spec can drag this out to the point that right or wrong, Volagi may not survive it. So, should Spec win in court and get the patents (I'm not a lawyer, is that even an option?), would Spec release the Volagi design as their own?

I would say that if you want a Volagi bike, get it quick. There won't be many.

Lots of different flavors of stupid in this one. Using the Company Computers? Sheesh...

Specialized? You mean Special ed?

Yeah, unbelievable, isn't it?

I cannot believe this Choi guy did the things I keep reading about. Mailing sales force reports (Specialized's proprietary property) to your wife? fricking unbelievable. And working on your product (a competing product to your employer) while drawing salary from Specialized.

And he can't frigging shut up about the case to boot. May be, just may be, I don't want a bike designed and peddled by somebody this stupid.

Shaking my head over and over.

You're assuming that it makes a lick of difference.

There's really no knowing how this will go without knowing the language of the agreement they signed while with Specialized, what specifically Specialized is considering "stolen technical aspects", and how long Volagi can hold out financially. Depending on how you look at it (fortunately or unfortunately), I think that last point is the most relevant. Considering that the preliminary injunction was dismissed, I'd guess that Specialized is indeed, to answer the question, playing the big business courtroom bully card in the hopes that they kill this thing as cheaply and absolutely as possible.

I remember the first time I saw a Volagi it reminded me more of a GT frame than anything else, but it seemed like the first "breath of fresh air" that I'd experienced in the road bike world in quite a while. From a legal standpoint, that means nothing, but I do hope, however, that Volagi gets tons of press over this, Specialized gets negative press, and ends up cutting a hefty check for attorney's fees, even though I do like (and own) Specialized products.

Nevertheless, I seem to remember seeing the phrase "innovate or die" on Specialized frames. This suit comes off as a really repugnant move, and I might remember it next time I buy a bike.

The worst part of this, beyond the abject stupidity of the Volagi guys, is that most probably Specialized is right and will win. But in the court of public (or cyclist) opinion, they lose.

Had the Volagi guys been a bit more astute, there might be another fine bike builder out there competing with Specialized. But - from the wealth of information here on BF - it appears the Volagi guys made all the wrong moves.

I think most of us agree that the suit is a kinda pre-emptive shot accross the bow of current Specialized employees who are talented and might be tempted to get fresh with ideas they might have about bikes and cycling products. If that is indeed the case, then cutting a hefty check to attorneys (to fight this case and establish their line in the sand) might not be the most expensive proposition.

The negative publicity? Well, I'll take money (profits) over negative publicity anyday. Especially, if my products are already well established and popular in the marketplace. You can always spend a little bit more to hire talented PR/marketing people to lead a publicity makeover.

That first phrase is surefire evidence that Volagi will win this case.