Mismatched brands

itboffin

I know I know it's a horrible thought but shamefully I must admit I seem to do it a lot, for example I favour 3T for looks but Deda for function, specialized features highly in both bike parts and clothing but deep down inside I know this shameless flirting with mismatched brands is wrong and should be punished but my combos work.

Anyway am I taking this too serious? does anyone else cringe when teaming a carbon Zipp stem with Easton bars :?

Of course these rule do not apply when wearing Rapha i'm not that sick

meanredspider

Almost as wrong as it gets is my Volagi and the company that sued Volagi's founders: Specialized and my Toupe saddle - feels very wrong

First.Aspect

ITB, does your man bag match your shoes?

Do you use the same brand of moisturizer and parfam pour hommes?

If not, why worry?



admittedly, I've just replaced a perfectly good carbon seatpost with a ti one, purely for aesthetics.

itboffin

First Aspect wrote:

ITB, does your man bag match your shoes?

Do you use the same brand of moisturizer and parfam pour hommes?

If not, why worry?



admittedly, I've just replaced a perfectly good carbon seatpost with a ti one, purely for aesthetics.

Well now you ask my man bag is Rapha and yes my cosmetics do match almost always, at the moment its vera Wang for lotion and scent and Rapha for soap, shaving and undercarriage.

Theres no hope for me

itboffin

Oops Wang shower gel too

SimonAH

itboffin wrote:

Oops Wang shower gel too

You have shower gel specifically for your Wang? Now that is specialised.

itboffin

I'm glad I'm not the only one who uses Wang in that meaning ;-)

First.Aspect

meanredspider wrote:

Almost as wrong as it gets is my Volagi and the company that sued Volagi's founders: Specialized and my Toupe saddle - feels very wrong

I think they were sailing a bit close to the wind though. I understood that technically, Volgai lost and had to pay costs, but Specialized chose for public relations reasons not to press the issue of damages or who owns what IP. A lot of "big companies" would have gone for the jugular, so I think you can wear your Specialized kit with pride.

I know everyone likes the little guy, but is there a reason that employees should be entitled to leave their company and set up in direct competition using their employers' technology?

itboffin

Yes so we can all benefit from the good stuff for a fraction of the cost.

What would Linux be if it wasnt for all the hatdwork that went into unix , and boy have the various owners of Unix patents over the years tried to kill the little guy.

Its never the actually product that matters its the delivery.

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Almost as wrong as it gets is my Volagi and the company that sued Volagi's founders: Specialized and my Toupe saddle - feels very wrong

I think they were sailing a bit close to the wind though. I understood that technically, Volgai lost and had to pay costs, but Specialized chose for public relations reasons not to press the issue of damages or who owns what IP. A lot of "big companies" would have gone for the jugular, so I think you can wear your Specialized kit with pride.

I know everyone likes the little guy, but is there a reason that employees should be entitled to leave their company and set up in direct competition using their employers' technology?

Specialized were awarded $1 by the judge when only one of the two defendants was found guilty. The judge clearly thought the issue was a nonsense

A couple of bike insiders have told me Specialized's business practices are a bit "sharp"

JamesB5446

Mismatching brands is ok. As long as they are all Italian brands.

tgotb

You're all totally wrong. Every component should be carefully chosen on its own merits (whether weight, stiffness or other criteria). This is the only way.

Worry about brands, and every minute you're on the bike you'll be thinking about how your bars are that much bendier, or your seatpost that much heavier, than the ones you should have bought if only they weren't the wrong brand...

bigmat

The only no-no is matching Campag and Shimano. That's like putting your Pearl Jam CDs on the shelf next to your Nirvana ones...

spasypaddy

stuff HAS to match.

Simple as that.

Kieran_Burns

Is this the "Yes. I DO shave my legs" thread?

t4tomo

SimonAH wrote:

itboffin wrote:

Oops Wang shower gel too

You have shower gel specifically for your Wang? Now that is specialised.

If you like a tingle, I can recommend tea tree & mint shower gel for your Wang and all other body parts.

The only no-no is matching Campag and Shimano. That's like putting your Pearl Jam CDs on the shelf next to your Nirvana ones...

What is Pearl Jam you speak of - would that not be a bit crunchy spread on your toast? Personally i'm a marmalade man.

walkingbootweather

BigMat wrote:

The only no-no is matching Campag and Shimano. That's like putting your Pearl Jam CDs on the shelf next to your Nirvana ones...

What if you only have 4 CDs

Pearl Jam
Nirvana
Abba
ZZ Top

What order should these be in?

Is it OK to match Lidl and Aldi bikewear?

nicklouse

I have mixed Campy and Shimano on my Road bike.

bigmat

walkingbootweather wrote:

BigMat wrote:

The only no-no is matching Campag and Shimano. That's like putting your Pearl Jam CDs on the shelf next to your Nirvana ones...

What if you only have 4 CDs

Pearl Jam
Nirvana
Abba
ZZ Top

What order should these be in?

Is it OK to match Lidl and Aldi bikewear?

Keep your A to Z in the middle. Have the ones you might actually listen to either side.

sketchley

walkingbootweather wrote:

BigMat wrote:

The only no-no is matching Campag and Shimano. That's like putting your Pearl Jam CDs on the shelf next to your Nirvana ones...

What if you only have 4 CDs

Pearl Jam
Nirvana
Abba
ZZ Top

What order should these be in?

Is it OK to match Lidl and Aldi bikewear?

Rip them and put them on a media server with custom menus so you can sort them anyway you like....

JamesB5446

nicklouse wrote:

I have mixed Campy and Shimano on my Road bike.

Scum.

itboffin

I have srampagnolo and Sramano

jejv

Shimergo, Tektro brakes, Shimano MTB chainset, and sometimes 47mm knobblies.

First.Aspect

meanredspider wrote:

Specialized were awarded $1 by the judge when only one of the two defendants was found guilty. The judge clearly thought the issue was a nonsense

A couple of bike insiders have told me Specialized's business practices are a bit "sharp"

Define "sharp".

There seems to be a popular misconception that enforcing IP makes you a bad person. What ITB fails to note with Unix, for example, is that either it wouldn't have existed (for want of a commercial benefit) or you wouldn't known about it until later, if it were not for the patents protecting it.

The Volgai case was about a design patent I think - not quite the same as a patent. So it was about appearance not technology, and breach of contract. My understanding is that the judge did not rule on the design case and that the award of "damages" essentially says there were no damages. Volgai had sold 175 bikes at the time so that's not unreasonable.

So why did Specialized do it? There is deterrent value in IP, as there are in contractual terms. The best type of contract is one you put in the drawer and never have to refer to, but that doesn't mean its pointless, any more than a patent which is never infringed. However these things are less true if an organisation isn't seen to enforce their rights. For example, there's a reason you don't see lots of bike with elastomer seat stay inserts, or why there isn't anyone other than Shimano who make pivoting brake/shift levers. But hey, the patent have forced design arounds, like Onda forks or double-tap shifters. So everyone's a winner in the end.

I'd say "sharp" describes the practice of designing a bike whilst working for a bike manufacturer and then leaving to set yourself up in competition. In many parts of the world (e.g. here) restrictive covenants are more effective and IP automatically vests with the employer under such circumstances. So its not so clear cut.

JamesB5446

Exactly. Everyone knows Specialized invented using red, white and black on bikes. No one did it before them.

They should also take legal action against the town of Roubaix for pinching the name.

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Specialized were awarded $1 by the judge when only one of the two defendants was found guilty. The judge clearly thought the issue was a nonsense

A couple of bike insiders have told me Specialized's business practices are a bit "sharp"

Define "sharp".

There seems to be a popular misconception that enforcing IP makes you a bad person. ............................. So its not so clear cut.

You went down entirely the wrong rat hole. I've had two people in the bike world tell me that Specialized hold incredibly heavy sway over their stockists. The threat they hang over them, allegedly, is that, should the stockist not meet Specialized's requirements, Specialized will open a competing store nearby. As I say, that's from people in the bike retail business. I'd call that "sharp" practice. They don't seem "well-loved" amongst that part of the trade.

As for IP - someone having an idea whilst in the employ of someone else is not at all uncommon - it happens all the time and is incredibly difficult to legislate for. It's not as if they stole someone else's idea but developed their own. Personally, I think it's an incredibly dangerous route for a company to go down to chase individuals in cases like these as it will tend to dampen creativity rather than encourage it. I wonder how many talented designers will be beating a path to Specialized's door now?

First.Aspect

Not the wrong rat hole, as delicately put, simply a question. I can't say I approve of Harbucks vs. Tweeks Coffee practices so I am with you there.

As for IP belonging to employers. Well, you disagree with what, in one form or another, are the laws in most industrialised economies, including this one.

It can seem counter intuitive at first, but I feel that most people who disagree with their employer having rights to relevant IP haven't really thought through the alternative. What I've never understood, even before IP was my day job, is why it is considered unreasonable for the organisation paying you for your time and traning and providing you with facilities and experience then benefit from that? Without spending 40 hours a week doing something, the odds of the invention coming about are drastically reduced. We aren't talking about a bank clerk inventing a novel planary gear system here (the bank wouldn't own that invention), we are talking about someone inventing something they are paid to do and then buggering off and starting a company to do it. I think that's a bit rum and people stop being friends about that sort of thing.

The flip side of your questions regarding talented designers is, should Volgai not turn out to be a long term success, who else would trust their designers enough to employ them? Its a bit like marrying someone who just had a divorce because of an affair. Would you risk it?

meanredspider

The "rat hole" thing is just a turn of phrase. And I didn't disagree with the law but don't believe that it's a sensible thing for a large company to go chasing after the little guy over. The Longbow seat stay isn't so groundbreaking that it was going to put Specialized's business under threat. Nor do I think that it was likely to be much of an idea for them to make bucket loads of money over. From what I remember of the case, the judge tended to agree with me. As it happens, the Volagi Liscio is far more famous for its use of disc brakes. Now, if you're of the school of thought that says the big company should always go after the little guy as a point of principle (as I think you argued earlier), maybe this is reason enough. All of the big companies I've worked for don't think it's worth the publicity. I'd be interested to know if Specialized really felt they were the winners in the case (against the one employee - the other was found innocent) - I'm guessing not. I'm sure they'd have been awarded the IP had it been at all a significant finding.

I also don't believe that it will have taken much of Specialized resources to come up with the idea of the Longbow seat stay (maybe the back of one of their napkins in the canteen). I also believe that the Liscio's key designer was the one found innocent in the case. All-in-all I have to question Specialized's management's judgement in going after the Volagi guys

First.Aspect

meanredspider wrote:

The "rat hole" thing is just a turn of phrase. And I didn't disagree with the law but don't believe that it's a sensible thing for a large company to go chasing after the little guy over. The Longbow seat stay isn't so groundbreaking that it was going to put Specialized's business under threat. Nor do I think that it was likely to be much of an idea for them to make bucket loads of money over. From what I remember of the case, the judge tended to agree with me. As it happens, the Volagi Liscio is far more famous for its use of disc brakes. Now, if you're of the school of thought that says the big company should always go after the little guy as a point of principle (as I think you argued earlier), maybe this is reason enough. All of the big companies I've worked for don't think it's worth the publicity. I'd be interested to know if Specialized really felt they were the winners in the case (against the one employee - the other was found innocent) - I'm guessing not. I'm sure they'd have been awarded the IP had it been at all a significant finding.

I also don't believe that it will have taken much of Specialized resources to come up with the idea of the Longbow seat stay (maybe the back of one of their napkins in the canteen). I also believe that the Liscio's key designer was the one found innocent in the case. All-in-all I have to question Specialized's management's judgement in going after the Volagi guys

The case was about the appearance of the seat say, not the way it works. I thought you were critical of big guy vs. little guy merely based on their relative sizes.

The argument runs that if Specialized aren't seen to discourage designers running off with their wares, it will happen more often, sometimes to larger competitors. I have no idea whether this happens in this particular industry, but it sure does in others. Similar arguments apply to other acts of IP infringement (perceived or otherwise).

But you are correct that its only worth the big guy doing this if they happen to be right. I seem to recall Easyjet taking a few pr bad calls a while ago chasing shopkeepers in East Bumhole (Luton, probly) who happened to have orange coloured signs, that sort of thing. And the IOC don't make any friends trying to rip designer trainers off small children because they aren't manufactured by an official partner.

I think the Specialized case is less clear cut. It just smacks of using one's previous employer as a springboard. Just not cricket. At the very least one can see why Specialized were irked.

vermin

meanredspider wrote:

The threat they hang over them, allegedly, is that, should the stockist not meet Specialized's requirements, Specialized will open a competing store nearby.

Exhibit No. 1 https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll ... ,9.04&z=19

veronese68

vermin wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The threat they hang over them, allegedly, is that, should the stockist not meet Specialized's requirements, Specialized will open a competing store nearby.

Exhibit No. 1 https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll ... ,9.04&z=19

I was thinking of Evans in Kingston and the Specialized shop. Although there are a couple of shops and a pub between them. After my recent Evans experience I don't have any sympathy.