Question about Specialized and Mike Sinyard

[Fatguyonabike]

I've seen threads discussing the litigious nature of Specialized (especially regarding 'their' version of the color red). But, from what I have read, Mike Sinyard "borrowed" Tom Ritchey's frame design to establish the Specialized foundation by bringing it to Japan for mass production. Has anybody ever seen/heard him try to explain away the dissonance of the establishment of Specialized vs their crazy lawsuits levied against smaller companies trying to make it?

 

[Russell]

Crikey, watch yourself people, the big S’s lawyers will be watching this thread!

 

[Woz]

Pulling up a chair.

 

[Fatguyonabike]

Don't worry...I'm wearing my balaclava...and it's not red.

This Short About Making Baklava Is The Funniest Thing You'll See Today | Digg

We don't want to give too much away so, please, just watch it.

digg.com

 

[CassidyAce]

Tim Neenan, the designer, maintained that he designed the first StumpJumper on the model of his Chaparral, which was a bike he'd designed himself in the late 1970s for Lighthouse Cycles. Mike Sinyard had a Ritchey bike but that was not the model for the Stumpy, according to Neenan.

As for the history of litigation, my take is that there were bad decisions by the execs and legal team, and that a talented team of designers and technicians were probably rolling their eyes at much of it. It wouldn't be the first corporation that has had unsavoury decisions made at the top but, elsewhere, great staff getting on with doing a good job and wishing the execs would stop being dicks.

 

[Woz]

Not really related I think, but I heard (fairly sure I read it here somewhere) that the first batches produced had wrong geometry, but still went on sale. Of course I could have dementia and all of that is just my imagination or factually wrong.

 

[Fatguyonabike]

That is some great insight. Please do not think I'm trying to throw daggers, but I'm just trying to have a discussion to gain a better understanding of the bike world. I work in an industry in which product engineers would give props to competitive designers for superior products, but the legal team would scrutinize the competitive patent submission for slight developmental overlap.

 

[Fatguyonabike]

Not really related I think, but I heard (fairly sure I read it here somewhere) that the first batches produced had wrong geometry, but still went on sale. Of course I could have dementia and all of that is just my imagination or factually wrong.

I think I may also have dementia with a bad imagination based on wrong facts!

 

[Russell]

Specialized has a problem (to me) because they’re not chasing after other large companies for patent infringement, they’re harassing small (irrelevant?) companies for the use of words such as ‘epic’ or ‘roubaix’. Not great optics.

Specialized's disastrous trademark case is unnecessary to defend the brand

Legal experts weigh in on Specialized's controversial trademark action against a small Canadian bike shop

www.velonews.com

 

[Fatguyonabike]

Russell, that's my exact concern. Back in the day, they were the "irrelevant" company. A small company could never overtake them, so one would think the best marketing would be to help the smaller companies in order to strengthen the name of their multinational name. A small company could never bump off Specialized (unless I'm wrong).