Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 198 Posts

·
Who are the brain police?
Joined
·
10,112 Posts
..but what happened??
 

·
The Notorious S.L.O
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
interesting.......
but without the removed story, we have no idea what has transpired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
857 Posts
If they had a case wouldn't they be ok with getting sued and going to court?
 

·
Five is right out
Joined
·
3,174 Posts
MillerSHO said:
If they had a case wouldn't they be ok with getting sued and going to court?
How refreshingly naive. Going to court is expensive, and not many smaller business can afford it.

However, as there is no information available, it's not fair to make any sort of judgment on the complete lack of evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,110 Posts
I've heard from my local retailer that Specialized has very many conditions if you want to carry their line: That your floor space must be devoted to X percentage of their brand, that you may not also carry Brand X, that your accessories lineup must have so many Specialized items...

Hey, if you sign the deal...
 

·
Nature Rider, Not MTBer
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
btadlock said:
interesting.......
but without the removed story, we have no idea what has transpired.
Google has it cached.

Specialized pisses me off. They make some nice bikes. Their business practices are the primary reason I don't own any of 'em.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
I love the all of the Specialized haters out there that try and find any reason to bash the company, with my personal favorite being the desire to sue.
The reality is that if as an individual or company had a patent on a particular product and saw someone else using your design or the design you acquired the rights to (i.e. Horst link) you would sue as well; and don’t say you wouldn’t.
I remember when I was first getting into mountain biking and Specialized was one of the smaller powerhouse companies, I credit there innovation and marketing for where they are at today. Good for them for being successful they make a damn good bike; so do a lot of other companies, so if you don’t like them buy a different brand and stop *****in’.

Stop the hate,
Nate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Playing with fire.

Everything I have heard suggests that Specialized is not a company to rely on to protect anyones intersts other than their own. I would never go out on a limb to build a business around their line, as these people did. On the plus side, it sounds like they will be able to bouce, back and nurse their singed fingers.

As far as their dealer policies go, when you walk into a store do you want the products on the shelves to be those that the store wants to sell because they believe in them, or products that their major bike supplier forces them to carry?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,294 Posts
Nate Dogg said:
I love the all of the Specialized haters out there that try and find any reason to bash the company, with my personal favorite being the desire to sue.
The reality is that if as an individual or company had a patent on a particular product and saw someone else using your design or the design you acquired the rights to (i.e. Horst link) you would sue as well; and don't say you wouldn't.
I remember when I was first getting into mountain biking and Specialized was one of the smaller powerhouse companies, I credit there innovation and marketing for where they are at today. Good for them for being successful they make a damn good bike; so do a lot of other companies, so if you don't like them buy a different brand and stop *****in'.

Stop the hate,
Nate
This has absolutly nothing to do with patent infingement. It's just Specialized taking a hard line and following their business contract in a rather harsh manner. Yes, it sucks for the owners, but I'm not really that outraged. No, it's not "nice" of Specialized to do that, but the shop did sign that contract.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
551 Posts
This isn't about their horst dink patent. Read the blog. Big S is trying to put another competitor outa business through litigation, which is BS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Nate Dogg said:
I love the all of the Specialized haters out there that try and find any reason to bash the company, with my personal favorite being the desire to sue.
The reality is that if as an individual or company had a patent on a particular product and saw someone else using your design or the design you acquired the rights to (i.e. Horst link) you would sue as well; and don't say you wouldn't.
I remember when I was first getting into mountain biking and Specialized was one of the smaller powerhouse companies, I credit there innovation and marketing for where they are at today. Good for them for being successful they make a damn good bike; so do a lot of other companies, so if you don't like them buy a different brand and stop *****in'.

Stop the hate,
Nate
I don't think the quality of the product or patent law has any real bearing on the business practices described in the link.

The business processes are bad, but the shop owners should never have signed the dealer agreement. I think the point of the post was to warn others about specialized contracts, not to bash the quality of their products (generally high) or their right/obligation to defend their patents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
Nate Dogg said:
I love the all of the Specialized haters out there that try and find any reason to bash the company, with my personal favorite being the desire to sue.
The reality is that if as an individual or company had a patent on a particular product and saw someone else using your design or the design you acquired the rights to (i.e. Horst link) you would sue as well; and don't say you wouldn't.
Eh, I that doesn't seem to be the issue in this particular case. This sounds like they're really screwing over an LBS. Going after the owners HOME? That's pretty damn cold. Of course there's only one side of the story presented here, who knows what set it all off...
 

·
In dog years, I'm dead.
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Reposado Man said:
I've heard from my local retailer that Specialized has very many conditions if you want to carry their line: That your floor space must be devoted to X percentage of their brand, that you may not also carry Brand X, that your accessories lineup must have so many Specialized items...

Hey, if you sign the deal...
That's not an unusual practice in the world of bikes, motorcycles, guitars, cameras (maybe others). Bottom line is that the mountain bike market is flat at best & shrinking at worst. The only way for a brand to grow is to take market share away from competitors. I don't blame Spcecialized for being aggressive, but I think treating their dealers this way will come back to bite them.

On the other hand, I hope their heavy-handed patent strategy bites them sooner rather than later. Forcing the small innovators out of business is bad for the whole industry, bike-makers, dealers, & riders.
 

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
204 Posts
Thank god I didn't by that Stumpy !!!


I just bought a Fuel EX8 and after reading that story, probably would have taken the Stumpy back for a refund,,,

Specialized can go choke on their own greed.......
 

·
Ouch, I am hot!
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
wreckedrex said:
Eh, I that doesn't seem to be the issue in this particular case. This sounds like they're really screwing over an LBS. Going after the owners HOME? That's pretty damn cold. Of course there's only one side of the story presented here, who knows what set it all off...
In most cases, "going after your home" is only a scare tactic as the creditor cannot, or will not, actually go after the home.

I bet there is another side to this story. Specialized may have done more good for mountain biking overall than any other company.
 

·
Nature Rider, Not MTBer
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
Nate Dogg said:
I love the all of the Specialized haters out there that try and find any reason to bash the company, with my personal favorite being the desire to sue.
The reality is that if as an individual or company had a patent on a particular product and saw someone else using your design or the design you acquired the rights to (i.e. Horst link) you would sue as well; and don't say you wouldn't.
I remember when I was first getting into mountain biking and Specialized was one of the smaller powerhouse companies, I credit there innovation and marketing for where they are at today. Good for them for being successful they make a damn good bike; so do a lot of other companies, so if you don't like them buy a different brand and stop *****in'.

Stop the hate,
Nate
I thank you for your contribution to the discussion, but I fear your instructions bely a misapprehension on your part. My public disapproval of Specialized is not mere *****in'. It is rather self-serving action, of which you apparently heartily approve.

As a consumer, I believe I am best served by an open market with vigorous competition on both price and product offerings. Specialized's business practices (both with regards to patents and their treatment of bike shops) are attempts to close the market. I do not deny them the right to do what is legal to grow their business.

I do, however, reserve the right to take actions of my own. I have already followed your advice and bought another brand of bicycle. My "*****in'" as you put it is not mere complaining, but is actually propaganda, a call to arms, if you will. If others read what what I write and do what I've done, they will similarly eschew Specialized products. This would hopefully deprive Specialized of revenue and force them to reverse some of their policies to regain the patronage of individuals like myself. This would open the market further, to my benefit.

I encourage others to follow my lead. If a company acts counter to your interests, boycott them and ask others to do the same. It just might work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,898 Posts
this tastes like deja vu. there have always been rumors about specialized's corp practices... prior to blogging, you had the ad revenue operated magazines to report such stories, which of course, they wouldn't. squelching the owners in such a manner seems illegal. and this administration wouldn't do squat for pursuing an anti trust suit...

they should rewrite the blog in as neutral a manner as possible. remove all conjecture, state facts, give a timeline, etc. or have an independant write and post it...
 
1 - 20 of 198 Posts
Top