"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. "
Exactly. No one races cars, and if they did, there would probably be no money at stake.
Rojo, I don't know how much Nike has paid you, but can you stop the promotion of their shoes for once? Geez, it's the athletes who do the running, not the shoes! Please respect their hard work.
Agree with the patent attorney. This is kind of like when Nike Air Max first came out. It did not take long before every other shoe company was able to accomplish the same thing (lighter shoe, better cushioning) by slightly different means (gel, holes with plastic support, etc.). A running shoe is a very simple thing. There will be lots of shoe companies that will come up with a slightly different design that achieves the same result without infringing on the patent.
Patent Attorney / Runner wrote:
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.
This is great insight -- thank you
more than one way to skin a Vaporfly wrote:
rojo wrote:
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.
Seriously, did Rojo really go to an Ivy leauge school?
rojo wrote:
If this is all true, why wouldn't Nike dominate the racing flat market for 20 years?
Who knows. Patents are complex and often found not to prohibit similar products that have slight variations with the same functional benefit. Also Nike may license the patent to other companies. That said, I hope Nike aggressively enforces the patent. They deserve an award for the Vaporfly, not constant condemnation.
I spat my breakfast out when I read Rojo's comments on Audi.
One of the dumbest things I have ever read. Rojo, you should hang your head in shame.
UK pathetics wrote:
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 post, UK pathetics, and also great post by "free the thigh".
The refinements and innovations in racing shoes pre-vaporfly were about improvement in WEIGHT, MATERIALS, and COMFORT. The vaporfly is the first shoe that has crossed the line into a DEVICE, or EQUIPMENT as you say, and the RACE RESULTS make that obvious---this is unprecedented in our sport.
Anyone who can't tell the difference is being disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
You are spot on that every racing shoe pre-vaporfly was simply an improved cousin of the flats worn in the 1980s. Take one LOOK at a vaporfly (or the even worse alphafly) and any thinking person knows that this stinks to high heaven. We have crossed from SHOES to DEVICES.
Racing SHOES should be a mesh/nylon or similar upper, a thin foam midsole to protect the feet, and an outsole for traction. Marginal improvements in these components (i.e. better mesh, better foam, etc) are fine. Trying to engineer a DEVICE that radically distorts competition is not fine.
Those without the DEVICES are screwed. PERIOD.
That is not what running is about. The audi AWD argument demonstrates exactly what we DON'T want: a technological arms race whereby the competition is periodically distorted every few years by new tech until competitors can "catch up."
The only "catching up" that should be happening in running is using one's legs and lungs to catch up to an opponent in a race!
To counter arguments I've seen:
1. " If you don't like vaporflys, we should all just run barefoot." FALSE, it is possible to recognize that modern man wears shoes, and that a sport can reach a consensus about what an acceptable shoe for that sport entails--such as EVERYTHING before vaporflys. Such as in the High Jump, you are not allowed to wear spring stilts.
2. "How dare you stifle innovation." Again, every sport must decide what equipment is allowable. Swimming outlawed super suits. MLB strictly regulates wooden bats. As I wrote above, there can be continued innovation in shoe materials without harming the spirit of the sport. Think this argument through: if you place no limits on "innovation" in racing footwear, there is nothing stopping Nike or someone else from attaching a Pistorious-style blade to the bottom of a normal spike--you can already see them moving in this direction with the new 100m viperfly BS.
Does running want an "innovative" future of extreme stride lengths created by shoe tech, where the same stride rate results in 25 second 400m races, etc??
TIME TO DECIDE!!!
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.
Nike wins again
coolnuthin wrote:
I spat my breakfast out when I read Rojo's comments on Audi.
One of the dumbest things I have ever read. Rojo, you should hang your head in shame.
I didn’t realize he was talking about a race car. I thought it was an all-wheel drive system for a regular joe. Regardless, who cares what happens in car racing? Car racing is often about who has the best car. Running has never been about that or we’d never have had very strict rules for what is allowed for the javelin or a ban of certain pole vaults in 1972.
Goi read up on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia wrote:
Controversy arose when the new Cata-Pole, used by defending champion Bob Seagren and Sweden's Kjell Isaksson, was declared to be illegal, by the IAAF, on 25 July. The pole was banned based on the fact that the pole contained carbon fibers; after an East German-led protest revealed that it contained no carbon fibers, the ban was lifted on 27 August. Three days later the IAAF reversed itself again, reinstating the ban. The poles were then confiscated from the athletes. Seagren and Isaksson believed this gave other athletes, like the eventual gold medalist, Wolfgang Nordwig, an unfair advantage, since he did not use or train on the pole. Seagren and Isaksson were given substitute poles which they had never used before to jump with. Isaksson, who had lost the world record to Seagren only 2 months earlier, didn't clear a height in the qualifying round and was eliminated. After Seagren’s last vault he was so incensed by the way IAAF officials handled the event, he took the pole he had been forced to vault with and handed it back to IAAF President Adriaan Paulen.[1]
Camille Herron also admitted today that she could not run world records without Nike's help on twitter.
If it's often about who has the best car, then why aren't you a professional race car driver? If you really wanted to make an interesting argument, you would be pushing for a running series that mimicked spec car series - where everyone were racing in the same (or very similar, highly regulated) shoe).
As for the other half - you are bringing up very strict rules for fields events to support what running has never been about?
Harambe wrote:
Patent Attorney / Runner wrote:
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.
This is great insight -- thank you
+++ Many thanks!
Even though it does not change the basic argument concerning patent coverage, I think Rojo should at least be accurate. The US patent term is not 20 years from now - it is 20 years from the date of filing of the utility patent application. Most other countries are substantially the same. As shown in the US patent doc Rojo linked, the US patent is expected to expire in about 16 1/2 years, not 20 years.
Patent Attorney / Runner wrote:
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.
I'm also a patent attorney and agree with the above. A few additional points:
1. The document that Rojo linked was actually a published patent APPLICATION, not a granted patent. Nevertheless, that application was granted as US Pat. No. 10, 448,704 on Oct. 22, 2019.
2. Pat. No. 10,448,704 claims: "1. A sole structure for an article of footwear having an upper, the sole structure comprising: an outsole; a plate disposed between the outsole and the upper, the plate comprising: an anterior-most point disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure; an aft point disposed closer to a heel region of the sole structure than the anterior-most point; a concave portion including a constant radius of curvature from the anterior-most point to a transition point disposed between a metatarsophalangeal (MTP) point of the sole structure and the aft point, the MTP point being tangent with a reference plane and located twenty-five percent to thirty-five percent of a total length of the plate from the anterior-most point; a convex portion extending from the transition point to the aft point in a direction away from the reference plane, the aft point located twenty-five percent to thirty-five percent of the total length of the plate from the MTP point; and a substantially flat portion extending from the aft point to a heel region of the sole structure parallel to the reference plane; and a first cushioning layer disposed between the concave portion and the upper."
3. For a shoe to infringe, it must have EACH and EVERY feature (or "element" in patentese) of the above claim. I have no idea what things like "metatarsophalangeal (MTP) point(s)" are, but like the OP, it seems at least possible that a rival shoe company could come up with something that does not include all of these claimed features.
4. OP is right that Nike has other patents still pending, and probably others granted as well. For example, there are currently two pending patent applications that "claim priority to" Pat. No. 10,448,704, which means that they have the same effective filing date and probably the same disclosure. Likely Nike is trying to expand its claim coverage with these other applications.
5. Rival shoe companies are doubtless aware of all this, and are making business decisions based on their patent attorneys' advice as to how hard or easy they believe they can avoid running afoul of Nike's patent portfolio.
6. None of my comments are actual legal advice either.
Shoe technology has been patented for years. The earliest known US patent for Athletic shoes was granted 99 years ago.
Without guaranteed patent protection companies have no incentive to make to spend money engineering improvements to shoes. That includes a substantial amount of research applied to orthotics as well as artificial limbs.
“Technology” is a buzzword that scares timid old geezers.
Co-Flounder wrote:
Without guaranteed patent protection companies have no incentive to make to spend money engineering improvements to shoes.
Not true. They might have somewhat less incentive, but it's certainly false to say that they would have no incentive. Even in a world with no patents, Nike would be first to market, and it would take time before their competitors could copy their shoes. Not only would they be making money hand over fist during the time it takes their competitors to copy the shoes, but they would gain considerable brand recognition as being the best.
Maybe Nike would ultimately make less profit without patent protection and would therefore adjust their R&D budget accordingly (they would adjust it, not eliminate it), but if you believe the typical poster on this board, Nike's entire running department is just a money-losing hobby project already. So if that's true then Nike is already innovating with no financial incentive. Everyone already is in agreement that Nike doesn't make any money from running, so I don't see how losing patent protection would change their incentives.
If another company can reverse engineer your product and then reproduce it without paying you royalties then you aren’t going to waste money on new product development.
I have patents and have worked in advanced technology development for my entire career. Patent protection is key. Without it, touchscreen technology on smart phones would be very very different. That’s all I can say about that.
Restrictive patents that Nike holds will spur their competitors to innovate or exit the business. For example. Why does the plate have to be made of carbon? Other materials could be discovered that are superior.
I honestly find Rojo’s thinking here deeply offensive.
Let’s take the mention of Nike out of this as it seems to bring ONLY emotion and not logic.
So company A develops a technology that substantially progresses a given product. It makes that product significantly ahead of in market competitors.
Therefore company A should be punished for their research and product innovation by being forced to license their tech to their competitors... because their competitors either can’t do the same research or are inept in the area?
That’s fair? My god. It’s one of the most morally corrupt ideas you could ever put out there.
Who is John Galt? wrote:
I honestly find Rojo’s thinking here deeply offensive.
Let’s take the mention of Nike out of this as it seems to bring ONLY emotion and not logic.
So company A develops a technology that substantially progresses a given product. It makes that product significantly ahead of in market competitors.
Therefore company A should be punished for their research and product innovation by being forced to license their tech to their competitors... because their competitors either can’t do the same research or are inept in the area?
That’s fair? My god. It’s one of the most morally corrupt ideas you could ever put out there.
Why your emphasis on what's fair for the companies? It should be more about fairness between athletes.