Reebok Sues Nike

I saw this shoe at a store a few months ago and wondered how Reebok was able to make a Nike Free. I guess these must be old because they obviously had the patent before Nike made the Free, or the article above would make you think that.

Here are two styles of the shoe I found on a Google search:

http://www.sneakercollection.pe.kr/index/sneaker/reebok/tt/tt_2_73217_01.jpg

and

http://www.zappos.com/n/p/dp/22441871/c/6018.html

Nike's been sued many times for patent infringement. They'll just pay Reebok off and keep reaping their millions.

Both companies should be sued for calling those running shoes.

i agree with mandingo. crappy brands making crappy shoes. they are NOT running shoes.

The Zappos site says the Reebok shoe is a lifestyle shoe, which I would assume means for fashion not function. Even Reebok knows people shouldn't be running this kind of shoe!

sdrfa wrote:

i agree with mandingo. crappy brands making crappy shoes. they are NOT running shoes.

Tell that to Benji Durden.

I actually love Nike running shoes like the Zoom elites and pegasus but the frees are for walking unless you have feet of stone! I guess deep down I wish I had good enough feet so I could run in frees. I'm surprised this is happening now given frees have been out for two years I think.

That's very gay. Men Without Hats gay. So very gay.

Mandingo, you realise that there are many, many people running full time in the Frees (Benji Durden included; he put 1500 miles on his first pair).

Let your feet get used to it and go. Some people don't like them, others love them. Your feet can get by without a whole lot of structure -- they're not that poorly built.

I actually have two pairs for walking around the house; my plantars are so shot I can't walk in socks on hardwood floors. I'll try a grass run in frees when it dries up here. I know one guy who does his sunday runs in frees, 12-15 miles. I thought he was the only one!

Benji Durden? Wow, I've just never seen any elite guys running in them.

I guess when you consider that there are people who run barefoot anything is possible. But seriously, my feet are for watching TV! From the ankles up I'm pure runner!

i work in the running shoe market, as a tester, retailer, supplier, etc. i have many roles as an independent contractor. the reeboks in question are not considered running shoes. it is, like the other poster said, "a lifestyle" shoe. the idea is that it's a travel shoe, that you can collapse it and take it anywhere. i think they developed the patent about 8 years ago (between '99 and '01).

I agree, they seem to be for totally different purposes. Now, I'm not saying that Nike has never done anything shady or strictly for $$ purposes, but this lawsuit seems to make little sense. But in today's sue-happy society, maybe I shouldn't be suprised. Soon one company will sue another for taking their idea of "a shoe designed for basketball"...

Insecure, eh?

Theyre just mad they got bought by Adidas.

It pertains to Don Quixote by the way, but i wouldn't expect you to understand literature.

WindmillChasr wrote:

It pertains to Don Quixote by the way, but i wouldn't expect you to understand literature.

Don Quixote was gay? No wonder I didn't get that book. I may try it again now that I know what is going on.

Nike had the Sock Trainer and Sock Racer at least 10 yrs. before Reebok patented its collapsable travel shoe.

Reebok is just pissed because they can't market and sell worth a shit.

coachkritter wrote:

Nike had the Sock Trainer and Sock Racer at least 10 yrs. before Reebok patented its collapsable travel shoe.

So?