Reebok Sues Nike

That's because they're completely different shoes. The zoom marathoner is a better running shoe than the Free and it's much closer to the sock (which was just a light trainer or racer midsole with a lycra upper) shoes than the Free is.

Actually ,by "pretty f!@cking sad," I was referring to me, not the Nike Free. I couldn't train in the Zoom Marathon's any more than I could train in the Free's.

Think the Nike Huarache from 20 yrs ago was pretty much collapseable.

Nope, they weren't that flexible.

For anyone who cares, the patent number is 7,168,190 which was filed 7/18/2002, but was not granted until 1/30/2007. You can read it yourself by putting the # in here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

I know nothing about the case-law surrounding the shoe industry, but I doubt this will get laughed out of court. In many industries this would end with a licensing agreement, but it'll depend on the fuzzy logic applied by corporations. Does Nike care about the $100 million (Susquehanna Financial Group estimate) they make on this line? Does Nike think they can invalidate pertinent patent claims? Would Reebok rather create a revenue stream from licensing or get a large windfall (maybe years later) and a public victory versus Nike? Both sides are sure to be looking at the PR angle as well.

I actually remember seeing the Reebok Travel Trainer and I thought it was a rip-off of the Free. If it came out before the Free then Reebok have a good case. It is pretty much exactly like the Free except that Nike actually put marketing dollars behind theirs. Reebok missed the boat on this one, big time.

Not the first time this has happened.

Ran into a guy who told me a fishy story about Nike and the Pre series. Seems like they steal ideas all the time without giving credit where its due.

People actually run in Nike's?

Wow

The Free's a great shoe. I've been running in the same pair of 4.0s for nearly a year, averaging 30 to 50 mpw. The Frees are just one of the shoes in my rotation, but I've run for 7 days straight in them, for up to an hour a day, without problems. And they just don't wear out.

They're especially good on grass, dirt, and other uneven terrain because they allow the foot to flex laterally. Conventional shoes don't. With the foot held rigid laterally, the next link up the chain is the ankle. Voila! -- ankle sprain.

And anyone who ever trained in the Adidas SL72 or Tiger Cortez knows that the Free provides ample cushioning. Nike deserves praise for having the balls to produce the Free. It's a highly innovative shoe and a big step in the right direction.

irunnike87 wrote:

Actually ,by "pretty f!@cking sad," I was referring to me, not the Nike Free. I couldn't train in the Zoom Marathon's any more than I could train in the Free's.

Have you actually tried the Marathoners? They're basically just lightweight trainers with a flat, drainable sole. Some people find them uncomfortable (high ankle, bad transition depending on your gait), but most don't. If you can't do Marathoners or Frees (and presumably most flats and racing shoes as well) then what sort of trainers do you need? I'm not challenging you, just curious.

Are the contesting which company makes crappier running shoes?

or

which company has hurt the image of running - Rebok w/ thier run easy puhscee campaing or Nike with their Pre Jackoff fest?