Specialized behaving badly: sues Volagi
Disclaimer: after much research, I upgraded my roadie to a Specialized Roubaix SL2 with SRAM Rival late last year. I love it.
So I found the above Velonews link disturbing and disappointing. I really like the design features of Volagi bikes - designed for the riding (not racing) that I like to do. If they were available in Australia, I would have definitely test ridden one and may well have chosen one instead.
I find it hard to see too many infringements in the design of the Volagi. No Zertzs. Discs. Different seat stay layout.
I have no clue on IP/employment law, and the Velonews article is one-sided, but from a casual observer's point of view it seems that Specialized isn't doing itself any favours in the popularity stakes with this move.
5 months ago
slowK
15 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I agree that it is both a disturbing and one-sided story at this point.
I am trying to give a benefit of doubt here that there is some legitimacy to the lawsuit, but I just can’t understand how a small shop like this would represent real competition against Specialized – one bike model against all that Specialized offers. Hard not to think this is just a big company suing a small one out of business. yuck.
tough to take sides on this one
given how little we know. a free bike would go a long way to making me choose a side though. just sayin’.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
by ant1 on Jan 4, 2012 11:11 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
They should both be sued for making such ugly bikes.
… (and I say this as one could counter with: "Is there a more powerful brand in the pro peloton today?)
seriously, Specialized provides how many teams with bikes? Astana, Saxo, SpecialLemon, OmegaStep, …
It's an interesting question.
CA apparently does not enforce noncompete agreements. And the bikes are unusual enough that people might not think of them as direct competition. However, as your own analysis points out, there people now “settling for” a specialized who might prefer a different bike. In that sense, I guess you can claim that anything with 2 wheels and a frame is, somehow, in direct competition with Specialized…but is that defensible? Any lawyers able and willing to weigh in?
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
yep
The Volagi and Roubaix are in the same category of bike.
So why not sue Giant (Defy), Cannondale (Synapse) or every other company with a comfort/endurance road bike too?
Because those companies were not formed by people who had been in Specialized R&D...
until just before they were ready to bring their own bikes to market?
(I’m still sympathetic to Volagi and to more small bike builders, but there is a bona fide “we paid your salary to do bike development for us, not for you” argument to be made here (sadly). And, yeah, companies do have the right to ignore the good stuff that their employees come up with (sadly).
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
But they were not paying either person for bike development.
They were both working on accessories and had zero to do with the any performance related bicycle frames.
The underlying issue is in fact very important.
Which is basically – ‘How much does the company you work for have ownership in your life beyond your specific duties, or the time in which you are officially working daily?’
In the US, this is starting to become a greater debate as companies are trying to claim they in effect ‘own’ every thought you have during your employment for them.
Which is quite concerning and is significant change of the rights of an employee/citizen.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
fair enough, and a good point.
But they probably shared a table at the cafeteria, or a wall cluttered with design ideas, with the guys who were on frame development. If there’s a large-minded, positive reason for broad non-compete clauses, it might have something to do with fostering openness among different people within the company.
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
Noncompete agreements are basically unenforceable, though they provide pretext for legal harassment...
…at least this is my understanding of it.
Next, Carrera will sue them
Or maybe not even Carrera was first with that ugly design.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
Big bad Wolfie.
Specialized probably employs a couple of lawyers to protect their IP and now they have want to sue. The courts will decided if they have a case or not. Looks like normal corp behavior in an environment where R&D plays a big role.
Intellectual property rights
fly in the face of free markets. Copyrights get extended into the third generation. Companies can patent your own, personal gene configuration. Patterns of sound can be copyrighted, even though no one can prove that they were the originators of the specific noise.
Apparently, Volagi lost
Ordered to pay one dollar to Specialized.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
“On Thursday, the judge dismissed Specialized’s intellectual property claims against Volagi, a company founded by two former Specialized employees in 2010. Now the jury is considering just one charge of breach of contract against the two co-founders, Robert Choi and Barley Forsman.”
Legally, under California Law, anyone has the right to make plans for future employment while working for an existing employer.
Where Choi screwed up is when he took a copy of the ‘S’ Dealer List; which was the property of ‘S’ for use in his future plans.
That is specifically where he breached his contract.
I assume the value of this action was actually about a dollar as you can get this info via the internet very quickly.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)















