So normally around lunch time, I give Jonathan Gault a call to see what he's up to. He said he'd just gotten off the phone (or maybe it was a text exchange) with a shoe exec. The exec said that the reason why no one is getting close to the Vaporflys is because the key to them is the curved fiber plate. You can't really make it work without that - unless you use multiple plates and then he thought you might be able to get close - and Nike has a patent on a curved plate.
This is very disturbing and sort of backs up what Geoff Burns told me on the phone last week. Geoff said that other companies haven't just copied the Vaporflys because of patents . Those patents mean that whatever they come up with will only be "almost as good." And since this is a niche market to begin with - with not all that much volume - there is no financial incentive for a company to spend a bunch of money trying to come up with an "almost as good shoe" that won't sell and won't be competitive.
If we want to be technical, it's more accurate to say that Nike's patent is on a "constant radius" plate for footwear. The shoe exec said that the position specifically of that radius is a key point. It's in the forefoot, which basically allows their patent to protect the perfect curved angle of a plate on the most effective area.
And as Alex Hutchinson noted last August in Outside, Nike has actually published a scientific paper showing how it's the extreme curve plate that is the key to their new shoes.
If this is all true, why wouldn't Nike dominate the racing flat market for 20 years?
And if that's the case, then I think World Athletics has two options a) Ban the shoes or b) Make Nike license the patent to others like they do in telecommunications. Apple, Samsung, etc all are forced to license technology to each other.
Wow: Did World Athletics new shoe rules combined with a Nikes patent just give Nike a 20-year unbeatable advantage?
Report Thread
-
-
Here is the Nike patent. Actually I think it's still pending so is it possible it could be blocked?
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3355737A1/en?inventor=Geng+LUO&page=1
Here is the Alex Hutchinson piece where he shares the results of the Nike scientific study where Nike tested 4 versions of the Vaporflys and found that that super curved plate was critical.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2400514/nike-vaporfly-carbon-plate-presentation
And here is the thread from 2019 where I found those links on page 5:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9650361&page=5 -
Strike the notion about blocking the patent. Jonathan Gault just emailed to say a similar patent has been granted:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170095034A1 -
Just said this in another thread:
“The issue is shoes are becoming “technology”. Shoes should be shoes not technology.
I’ve got no problem with shoes becoming better, but they have to remain as shoes. It is widely acknowledged the adios is a much better flat than anything available 10 years before its release, but it is still a shoe.
The problem with the vapourfly etc shoes is that they are pushing themselves outside of being shoes and instead is becoming equipment.”
It seems a bright line could be drawn between shoes and technology by wether or not the shoes contain any patented technology outside of patents for chemical makeup of various materials.
Ie patent for a type of foam is fine.
A patent for the using the foam in an unique manner is not okay. -
Perhaps the rules should state that patented technology can't be used unless the patent is licensed to other companies at a reasonable fee.
-
Welp, Audi patented its Quattro system guys. I guess there’s no other way to make fast AWD cars any more. Better shutter the company, we’re done. We only hired complete idiots who have no idea how to come up with new ideas.
-
Free_the_thigh wrote:
Just said this in another thread:
Shoes should be shoes not technology.
I’ve got no problem with shoes becoming better, but they have to remain as shoes. It is widely acknowledged the adios is a much better flat than anything available 10 years before its release, but it is still a shoe.
The problem with the vapourfly etc shoes is that they are pushing themselves outside of being shoes and instead is becoming equipment.”.
Maybe I'll have Geoff Burns on the podcast next week. That's what he said. He basicall said the new shoes are effectively extending the length of the leg by a significant degree. 1968 Boston Marathon champ Amby Burfoot has said the same thing.
From my article from last week.
Rojo wrote:
As 1968 Boston Marathon champ Amby Burfoot wrote, the shoe “increases stride length without requiring additional muscular effort” as the bounce comes in part “from the shoes, not the leg and foot muscles.” Or, as biomechanist and ultramarathoner Geoff Burns told me, the shoes “store and return energy for free — and that comes at a cost when our body does it.”
more than one way to skin a Vaporfly wrote:
Welp, Audi patented its Quattro system guys. I guess there’s no other way to make fast AWD cars any more. Better shutter the company, we’re done. We only hired complete idiots who have no idea how to come up with new ideas.
False analogy. In a car, all I care about is getting from point A to point B safely and in a reasonable time rame. If it can get me to work safely in all weather conditions, I don't care if it's 1% slower than someone else. -
rojo wrote:
So normally around lunch time, I give Jonathan Gault a call to see what he's up to. He said he'd just gotten off the phone (or maybe it was a text exchange) with a shoe exec. The exec said that the reason why no one is getting close to the Vaporflys is because the key to them is the curved fiber plate. You can't really make it work without that - unless you use multiple plates and then he thought you might be able to get close - and Nike has a patent on a curved plate.
This is very disturbing and sort of backs up what Geoff Burns told me on the phone last week. Geoff said that other companies haven't just copied the Vaporflys because of patents . Those patents mean that whatever they come up with will only be "almost as good." And since this is a niche market to begin with - with not all that much volume - there is no financial incentive for a company to spend a bunch of money trying to come up with an "almost as good shoe" that won't sell and won't be competitive.
If we want to be technical, it's more accurate to say that Nike's patent is on a "constant radius" plate for footwear. The shoe exec said that the position specifically of that radius is a key point. It's in the forefoot, which basically allows their patent to protect the perfect curved angle of a plate on the most effective area.
And as Alex Hutchinson noted last August in Outside, Nike has actually published a scientific paper showing how it's the extreme curve plate that is the key to their new shoes.
If this is all true, why wouldn't Nike dominate the racing flat market for 20 years?
And if that's the case, then I think World Athletics has two options a) Ban the shoes or b) Make Nike license the patent to others like they do in telecommunications. Apple, Samsung, etc all are forced to license technology to each other.
So the key to something really good - Vaporfly - is something really new that hasn’t been done before - a curved plate. What’s to stop another company coming up with something new that hasn’t been done before that could be better again? I don’t understand the premise that no one else can invent something new? -
CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT THE SPORT IS RUINED BY IOC IAAF USTAF NIKE ADIDAS REEBOCK?
CAN WE ALL AGREE TO MOVE ON AND FOCUS ON OUR OWN RUNNING AND LEAVE THIS MESS BEHIND?
IGNORE THEM ALL AND GIVE THEM NO MONEY.
GO OFF THE GRID -
rojo wrote:
Those patents mean that whatever they come up with will only be "almost as good." And since this is a niche market to begin with - with not all that much volume - there is no financial incentive for a company to spend a bunch of money trying to come up with an "almost as good shoe" that won't sell and won't be competitive.
This sort of answers it then. If there is no financial incentive for a company to make something better, then we don't really need to worry that Nike owns the market right now. If/When Nike starts charging an even larger fortune for the shoes then another company will be incentivized to invest in making something better. I think it will happen quite quickly.
I don't buy that they'll only come up with an "almost as good shoe." Tech is going to keep progressing. The new rules may make it take a little longer, but it won't take too long. -
"Those patents mean that whatever they come up with will only be "almost as good."
...you mean unless they come up with something "better," right? Do you really think Nike has developed the best possible running shoe? No one can do better no matter what? Nonsense. -
REGARDING SHOES
I WANT A SHOE THAT IS GOOD FOR MY BODY, LEGS AND GO INJURY FREE
THIS IS THE ONLY DATA I WANT. WHERE IS THAT DATA.
NO CARE ABOUT YOUR STUPID RECORDS.
HOW ABOUT CARING ABOUT YOUR OWN RUNNING AND HEALTH???? -
It's my job to help companies assert patents against alleged infringers, and even more frequently, to defend companies from assertions of patent infringement. After reading Nike's patent on constant radius curvature of the plate, I have to say, this does not appear to be a tough design around problem. Even in keeping with the Outside article, which says that the highly curved plate is the most efficient at reducing energy loss in toes while avoiding ankle torque, there likely are plenty of ways to produce what is in effect a highly curved plate, without infringing the patent.
For example, the word "constant" was likely inserted by Nike to overcome prior art (other patents covering plates in shoes), meaning Nike was forced to use the word "constant" in order to get their patent issued, as other older patents already covered curved plates. If that's the case, it may be possible for Adidas/Brooks/Saucony to use a plate with non-constant curvature. It can still be very curved, it just can't have a constant radius to the curve.
Of course, none of this is actual legal advice, and which would require a full analysis of Nike's patent portfolio (Nike may have other patents that cover a multitude of variations in the plate shape). But I remain skeptical that the patents are the real issue here. -
rojo, I agree with you, but:
It's clear that it's the sum of the parts of Nike shoes that is the key. Foam, plate, angle of the plate, stack height.
I'm no engineer, but something tells me that if someone has a foam that's either more or less dense than Nike foam, they'd be able to use a plate that is angled slightly differently to take advantage of the foam, then they'd had a 40 height, modern-foamed, plate shoe. And if they had 'pods' like On shoes have, they could just about clone the Alphafly, only have enough differentiation that it's not a dupe.
I'm as upset at Nike as anyone, but really, the fact that we've known something was up with Nike for nearly four years, and no other company can come even close, says more about the other companies than Nike. Right now, the only option I can see is Skechers, because they don't care who they copy. -
Slow Bro wrote:
"Those patents mean that whatever they come up with will only be "almost as good."
...you mean unless they come up with something "better," right? Do you really think Nike has developed the best possible running shoe? No one can do better no matter what? Nonsense.
Okay let's see your design for a better shoe without a curved carbon fiber plate then. -
longjack wrote:
REGARDING SHOES
I WANT A SHOE THAT IS GOOD FOR MY BODY, LEGS AND GO INJURY FREE
THIS IS THE ONLY DATA I WANT. WHERE IS THAT DATA.
NO CARE ABOUT YOUR STUPID RECORDS.
HOW ABOUT CARING ABOUT YOUR OWN RUNNING AND HEALTH????
Okay hobbyjogger. -
rojo wrote:
more than one way to skin a Vaporfly wrote:
Welp, Audi patented its Quattro system guys. I guess there’s no other way to make fast AWD cars any more. Better shutter the company, we’re done. We only hired complete idiots who have no idea how to come up with new ideas.
False analogy. In a car, all I care about is getting from point A to point B safely and in a reasonable time rame. If it can get me to work safely in all weather conditions, I don't care if it's 1% slower than someone else.
False analogy?!?
You were talking about racing shoes. I gave you an example with racing cars, yet you made it about commuting? Incredible. Your self-righteous attitude completely negates any ability to even comprehend arguments that you yourself are not making.
But let me (perhaps foolishly) try again:
The world of Rally Car racing is a thing. Different car brands have their cars race other brand’s cars. At one point, Audi introduced its Quattro all wheel drive system. For a period of time it absolutely destroyed the competition. Then, other brands started to figure out their own all whee drive systems that didn’t infringe upon Audi’s patent and parity was restored.
Is car racing a 1:1 with running? Of course not. But you’re complaining that one brand having a specific patent makes it Impossible for other to compete l. That’s asinine and just shows your determination to ignore how the rest of the world works with technology and brands and patents. You don’t have to like it, but you gotta stop making yourself look like such an idiot. -
If nike's shoes are legal, why not blades that Pistorious used? (f they are not made of carbon fibre.)
So what is the ruling on HS athletes using these shoes? not all hs students can afford them. -
People are saying 'its fine others will catch up' but if you look at innovation in race shoes, take Carlos Lopez shoe, the Spiridon in 84. Now take Sami Wanjirus shoe in Beijing or Kiprotichs shoe in London, that's almost 30 years. Nylon upper, check, Eva midsole, check, air bag, check. Almost nothing changed. Shoes for racing have always been designed for lightness and comfort. Take a look at the Reebok Runfast Pro, that's a race shoe, it uses the same foam as the Vaporfly, but it's not trying to be anything but a shoe. It's not a spring, it's not 'equipment'....technology aside, in a sport of simplicity of it doesn't even look like a shoe it's not a shoe. This doesn't stifle innovation, the best innovation comes within strict perameters and IAAF killed that.
-
Great story on one of the inventors listed on the patent, Geng Luo:
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/12/how-sneaker-geek-landed-his-dream-job-one-step-time
