Curved plate could be used but the others would then pay Nike for it. We could compare the situation to other tech companies. Mobile phone companies each own a bunch of patents and are paying each other for the right to use that technology. For example Nokia is not making mobile phones anymore but they still have 26000 patents and earn billions because others have to pay licensing fees. WA could regulate this issue so that the curved plate needs to be available for every shoe manufacturer and that happens by licensing.
Wow: Did World Athletics new shoe rules combined with a Nikes patent just give Nike a 20-year unbeatable advantage?
Running Shoes/Running Gear
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
zzzz wrote:
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.
Accidentally hit post before I finished my thought. You are showing that you are caring about business more than sport. Most here are focused on the sport, not the business. The business is kind of a necessity, and plays a supporting role. Who wins in business shouldn't be affecting the sport. -
No - they are shoes - that’s kinda obvious.
Before “nylon and mesh” (BTW who decided that’s what shoes should be made of?) there was canvas and other materials - so when mesh was first used (35 years ago? ) imagine if we had the internet and message boards! Imagine the uproar! Now you are saying that’s what “racing shoes SHOULD BE”. Honestly? -
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.
More thoughts from me. At the Olympics, you want it to be Nike vs. adidas vs. Asics, etc? Rather the intended athlete vs. athlete or country vs. country? The biggest factor would be the shoes with your attitude, so you are elevating business to be the most important thing over athlete vs. athlete and country vs. country. I found your attitude deeply offensive. -
zzzz wrote:
I find your thinking deeply offensive.
corrected -
Think About It wrote:
No - they are shoes - that’s kinda obvious.
Before “nylon and mesh” (BTW who decided that’s what shoes should be made of?) there was canvas and other materials - so when mesh was first used (35 years ago? ) imagine if we had the internet and message boards! Imagine the uproar! Now you are saying that’s what “racing shoes SHOULD BE”. Honestly?
Imagine if the development of the shoes wasn't allowed in the past century!
Picture showing spikes that Paavo Nurmi was wearing around 1925.
https://www.ts.fi/static/content/pic_5_2689260_k902627_1200.jpg -
Baltsu wrote:
Think About It wrote:
No - they are shoes - that’s kinda obvious.
Before “nylon and mesh” (BTW who decided that’s what shoes should be made of?) there was canvas and other materials - so when mesh was first used (35 years ago? ) imagine if we had the internet and message boards! Imagine the uproar! Now you are saying that’s what “racing shoes SHOULD BE”. Honestly?
Imagine if the development of the shoes wasn't allowed in the past century!
Picture showing spikes that Paavo Nurmi was wearing around 1925.
https://www.ts.fi/static/content/pic_5_2689260_k902627_1200.jpg
The difference between that and a modern spike is probably fairly insignificant. You'd want shorter pins for a synthetic track, but it's probably pretty light. It looks lighter than the Nike spikes that my little brother handed down to me in the '80s (Zoom X, 10 ounces) and I used as late as 1999. -
Sport is a outlet for innovation. Businesses us sport, all sports, to develop and innovate product.
While part of me does like the idea of all athletes on the same and equal foot (whatever that means = everyone runs barefoot, a spec shoe for each event, etc) the reality is that is not reality at all.
If the Olympics were this utopian ideal of “equal footing” for all then you’d create Olympic sports and all other sports. The events would be totally separate from the professional and non-Olympic events.
For many events, until recently, the Olympic basically did that. Non Professional participants and slightly different rules. The Olympia’s were dying due to it and only in the past few has there been any real uptick in interest (not just running).
I’m totally fine with a defined rule set for equipment, shoes in this case, that ALL companies and athletes understand and work too. If that is the ruling we just had... so be it. It’s stands.
Why has this taken 4 years basically? For a filling? For other companies to even attempt to play catch-up. Seems like a lot of people in running just tried to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the situation.
Why didn’t non-Nike athletes push their sponsors to make better product to compete with Nike? Why didnt other companies press for a ruling before the last minute?
None of this means Nike or Nike athletes should be punished for “being better” (equipment, innovation, etc).
While it be totally fine with all running events were ruled to be barefoot tomorrow - to even the playing fields you know - but even that is as morally corrupt as stopping innovation in gear.
We have a clear ruling now. All companies have to abide by it now.
Sport is innovation. Innovation comes from business... be it hard foods or methods... they are for profit ventures 95% of the time (unless “the state” is funding/pushing that and we all know how they went in the Cold War days).
Swimming and cycling are two sports that had wild technical advancement for periods that were out of control and were shut down by rule changes. The net/net is that running seems to have gone through the something similar now. Like swimming or cycling we have a clear rule set to work from now.
So what happens when Nike out innovates the Alphafly2, within the rule set we now have? It’s going to happen. It’s not their fault they have top research and innovation. They WILL make a better product that other companies... they always have. That is what Nike does...
So we repeat this again yearly? -
We would not be having this discussion if the shoes were not a threat to our sport.
It's more of a threat than losing the 5 and 10 because of the Diamond League.
We have created self-driving cars, heck we went to MOON in the 1960s!
Why do people think this is okay? -
Who is John Galt? wrote:
So we repeat this again yearly?
Yes, why not? Without even looking it up, I know the current rule is different from the one rule in place a few days ago, as well as the rule in 2016. So there have been at least two different revisions/three different sets of rules in that period.
Other sports constantly change their rules in response to competitive fairness issues, especially those with technical elements like auto racing. -
In just a few years your 15-year-old daughter will be able to do 20 x 400 in 50 seconds with only 1 minute rests between each. Oh, isn't that going to be just dandy!
-
So it's not about the actual shoe then? It's about one company working within the "rules" better than another?
-
it currently seems at least to me more that Nike was heavily involved in creating these new rules around these shoes specifically they had in mind anyway.
They didn't even bother to actually make strict stack height rules, other than some vague buts, which can be easily avoided by saying: hey, these 43mm are still just marginally more stack than 40mm and are needed for this size 11 shoe. I'm no pro, but it seems to me this wishy washy rule has only been announced like this, because the Alphafly just really purely by accident doesn't happen to have a stack height smaller than 40mm at larger sized than 8, or 9, or whatever -
Who is John Glat? wrote:
So it's not about the actual shoe then? It's about one company working within the "rules" better than another?
Clarify your point? I'm saying if the rules don't result in an even playing field between athletes in competition, then they will need revision so the rules do result in an even playing field. World Athletics should certainly monitor what happens to competition this year, and revise the rules yearly or as necessary. Maybe the "innovation within the stack height" rule is sufficient to make things fair, but maybe not. If the Alphaflys give the rumored 8% efficiency advantage, that's putting the wearers in an entirely different pack in a race over equal quality runners. If is actually the case, a much more tightly regulated/spec'd shoe rule will be need. -
The priority here is integrity of elite competition. So World Athletics can just rule to say that all sole units should be made available to other shoe companies for the purposes of elite competition. Saucony/Brooks/NB etc can then stick a Varporfly sole unit to their own upper. Hell, that guy Rolows does it. That way, everyone has access to the shoe (and I get that there is still the super-responder issue that Tucker talks about but the cat is out of the bag now).
Nike would still retain the rights to commercially exploit the technology, they'd still be the only company selling proven super-shoes to the recreational running community and elite competition would be protected as far as possible. -
zzzz wrote:
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.
Of course it's not fair to Nike. We're not talking about business here. We're talking about what's fair for the athletes. Easton has invented a ton of bats that are way better than anything used in Major League baseball. Is it fair that we don't let them be used in the games?
I put this in the other thread. Imagine if this was a track spike and we gave it to Ben True. Would you be pumped that Ben True is the best 5000 guy in the land (a 2% gain would be worth more than 15%). Or give a pair to a 1500 runner like Stewart McSweyn. Do you really want a guy who can't make the final at Worlds normally now winning gold (4+ seconds)?
The gains we are talking about here are likely way better than any drug Alberto Salazar ever gave his athletes.
Companies are forced to license patents all the time in business anyway. -
Baltsu wrote:
Think About It wrote:
No - they are shoes - that’s kinda obvious.
Before “nylon and mesh” (BTW who decided that’s what shoes should be made of?) there was canvas and other materials - so when mesh was first used (35 years ago? ) imagine if we had the internet and message boards! Imagine the uproar! Now you are saying that’s what “racing shoes SHOULD BE”. Honestly?
Imagine if the development of the shoes wasn't allowed in the past century!
Picture showing spikes that Paavo Nurmi was wearing around 1925.
https://www.ts.fi/static/content/pic_5_2689260_k902627_1200.jpg
If you posted a picture of those spikes next to a picture of adios’s and alpha fly’s and asked someone to pick the odd one out, they would pick the alpha fly every time. -
Baltsu wrote:
Think About It wrote:
No - they are shoes - that’s kinda obvious.
Before “nylon and mesh” (BTW who decided that’s what shoes should be made of?) there was canvas and other materials - so when mesh was first used (35 years ago? ) imagine if we had the internet and message boards! Imagine the uproar! Now you are saying that’s what “racing shoes SHOULD BE”. Honestly?
Imagine if the development of the shoes wasn't allowed in the past century!
Picture showing spikes that Paavo Nurmi was wearing around 1925.
https://www.ts.fi/static/content/pic_5_2689260_k902627_1200.jpg
When I set my PB's (in the 90's and 00's) I would literally have been perfectly happy running in those spikes (maybe changing the pins out), and wouldn't expect to see any noticeable effect, good or bad, on my times. Which is how it should be. -
Think About It wrote:
No - they are shoes - that’s kinda obvious.
Before “nylon and mesh” (BTW who decided that’s what shoes should be made of?) there was canvas and other materials - so when mesh was first used (35 years ago? ) imagine if we had the internet and message boards! Imagine the uproar! Now you are saying that’s what “racing shoes SHOULD BE”. Honestly?
You can't be this dense, so I choose to believe you are being disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
I specifically wrote that MATERIALS should improve through time (mesh vs leather, canvas, etc) in the name of light weight and comfort. But the IDEA of a racing shoe is the same--thin upper, thin midsole for protection, outsole for traction. Cheaterflys distort that and ADD the ingredient of DEVICE to improve performance.
The picture of the Paavo Nurmi spikes is pure gold, you cheaterfly apologists prove the point for me---that spike is much closer IN FORM to a nike victory or jasari than a viperfly with an extra spring blade or alphafly clown shoes, but most importantly, the Nurmi spikes are in the same SPIRIT of fair competition. -
So now according to the shoe hysteria folks, any high-stack shoe is a massive advantage because it extends the length of the leg! So much rubbish! If that were even remotely true, people should be running many minutes faster in the marathon wearing Hokas LOL.
The new standard has been set. Nobody is going back. And every other company had the same opportunity to make a shoe like the VF, but they failed. I'm a Nike hater, but road racing has now evolved with a slightly better shoe. If that bothers you, just quit running and sharing such rubbish.
