It looks like there's an interesting(ish) case brewing between Spesh and a company started by a couple of former employees.
[img][/img]
Specialized Bicycle Components is suing Volagi Cycles‘ founders, alleging they stole the Liscio’s design while still employed at Specialized.
Volagi Cycle’s founders, Robert Choi and Barley Forsman, both used to work at Specialized Bicycles. While they worked in different departments, they became friends and eventually quit Specialized to pursue the American Dream of starting their own company.
In a Mercury News story, Choi and Forsman are quoted as saying their bike has no resemblance to the Roubaix and that Specialized is simply trying to use their high paid lawyers to reduce competition.
Specialized filed the lawsuit last year depicting Choi and Forsman as using their time at Specialized to steal designs and trade secrets, scheming to design a bike that would sell against their Roubaix model, which is described as one of the company’s “most significant sources of revenue.”
The case is set to go to trial by jury within a couple of weeks. Specialized’s requests to have sales of Volagi’s bike halted have not been approved, and now they are seeking monetary damages and ownership of Volagi’s patents.
So is this a case of a corporate trying to kill off a small competitor or a legitimate case? IIRC Spesh were pretty heavy handed in the past too. Scott springs to mind.
I guess it tells us about what direction Spesh are going with the Roubaix next year...
They do seem to abuse the law in a way that's probably only possible in America, the worst case was when the forced the guy who makes bikepacking bags to change his name from "Epic" to "Revelation", claiming they had the right to the word "epic" in the biking industry.
I think specialized make good stuff, but this kind of behaviour erodes their image in my eyes and makes it far less likely that I will buy their kit.
Ditto on that. Typically I think their products are decent enough and I do like the effort that they go into for R&D but this certainly puts me off buying their products unless I really need to (eg shoes that don't make my feet hurt).
Unless it can be shown that they've nicked some "secret" internal manufacturing process or design, or they're not actually suing on grounds of similarity between those 2 bikes shown up there, I don't see much validity in the claim.
(tho' presumably spesh will win, since they always seem to)
I guess it's just protecting their interests and warning off any other potential deserters
MSP - Member
They do seem to abuse the law in a way that's probably only possible in America, the worst case was when the forced the guy who makes bikepacking bags to change his name from "Epic" to "Revelation", claiming they had the right to the word "epic" in the biking industry.
Their next case involves forcing bike shops to rename their demo bikes to "try before you buy" bikes.
i would have thought it would have to be some pretty specific details in common to demonstrate IP theft from Spesh, as all bikes are by default extremely similar.
From the second link, I'd be interested to hear the detail of the three remaining points that Spesh are saying are copied.
They do seem more aggresive than UK companies but I've only known of their defence of the horst link patent which is perfectly actionable.
Yank corporations are generally way more aggressive with this stuff than UK ones, especially for using lawyers to bully smaller companies when there is a less-arguable infringement of any right.
In Spesh's defence, if they were working for them when they designed the bike, it's hard to imagine that things like layup weren't borrowed however inadvertently.
I think raleigh should sue specialized for the double diamond safety bicycle frame design if spesh win though.
After the Epic / Revelate issue of a few years ago I decided to refrain from buying Spesh kit. I did weaken over some cheap tyres and may over shoes but generally will now avoid. Have not sold my Spesh Epic though which I already had.
Volagi are probably not really a competitor to Spesh as such small volumes but I guess the ones they do sell at ~$5,000 may impact on Spesh.
TINAS - there's a fine dividing line between IP and knowledge. You can take what you learn with you (so long as it's not patented) in your head legitimately.
More legal shenanigans - this sounds like they have the legal right to do it but it's not really very fair http://www.thebusypixel.com/2007/07/27/why-bicycle-warehouse-dropped-specialized-then-got-sued/
If it goes to court I cant see Spech winning if they get a Judge who does't ride. As my wife always says "They look the same, they are bikes."
I_Ache - tell that to apple/samsung et al
Clubber an info on the result of that case?.. as that was first posted in 2007 (a quick google only links back to that article), just interested..
SOrry, no, can't seem to find it - suspect that it got settled as Bicycle Warehouse is still going http://www.bicyclewarehouse.com/
just a shame that they are trying to protect an aesthetically challenged (from the visual point of view) frame design..
Volagi Cycles design is much nicer visually.
I think raleigh should sue specialized for the double diamond safety bicycle frame design if spesh win though.
I think that the double diamond design is probably outside it's protected period now.
Big grey area there. wouldn't like to comment without the full story.
Its specialized that hold the horst link patent isn't it? which is totally unenforcable in Europe as the design is a common one and done many times before. Only in the US does the patent hold,
dreadfully unethical and predatory behaviour from teh company
Yep - that was the Scott case which resulted in them not selling some FS frames in the US. They also tried it with Giant but IIRC that never progressed - probably because Giant were making the bikes for Spesh 🙂
TJ; Nope it hadn't been done [i]lots[/i] before; It had been done once before by a chap called Emile LeBlanc who published in 1st August 1951.
I've only known of their defence of the horst link patent which is perfectly actionable.
Except it's not. The only reason they have a patent at all is because the US patents system is broken (regarding prior art searches - they prefer to grant patents and leave the work the patent office should be doing to the courts). The only reason they've managed to defend it legally is because the US legal system is broken (in that you need to have very deep pockets to take on a corporation who is prepared to spend lots of money on lawyers).
I should be surprised if this legal case isn't more of the same with Specialized attempting to bully the little guy by threatening a ruinously expensive legal battle.
Sadly I'm a hypocrite as I find Speccy BG shoes so much better for me than the alternative that I put aside my dislike of the corporation.
Ha!
[url= http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/best-dollar-we-ever-spent-says-volagi/012467 ]Volagi won[/url]
Isn't Spesh's ownership of the US patents for the Horst link about to expire?
ir_bandito - MemberHa!
Volagi won
Good. Now hopefully someone will stick it to Apple and I'll be a happy chappy. 🙂
The three patents listed on the Spesh FSR sticker were filed on 9 September 1994, 16 April 1996 and 23 June 1997. I think US utility patents last 20 years, so the oldest of those has a couple more years to run.
That stuff with Epic Designs (Revelate) was pure nonsense.
This one seems a bit more like something any largish company would pursue.
The only weird bit is that the case specialized won was about the overlap of the guy working at the two companies. But it was Specialized who requested the overlap. If that was done deliberately in order to create a legal case, then that's pretty underhand.
If, on the other hand they could have reasonably expected the guy to not start work on his new business while he finished at Specialized, then that's a different matter.