5 ms·
The patent angle in one of the OPs argument struck me as very important - I wouldn't automatically disqualify a need to purchase some a legal monopoly of a part
by PeterisP 6y ago
The patent angle in one of the OPs argument struck me as very important - I wouldn't automatically disqualify a need to purchase some a legal monopoly of a particular sports-relevant aspect, where some competitors are prohibited to have it at the whim of a third party (e.g. the author suggested, perhaps hypothetical, example of a shoe 'sold to public' by putting 50 pairs in a Tokyo store once and never again) does not seem fair play.
Can we make a simple blanket policy that patent-protected gear of any kind are automatically prohibited in races? I mean, if there's no performance impact, then it shouldn't be a problem for athletes to use some other, patent-free gear, and if there is a performance impact, it shouldn't get used.
Perhaps this could also negate the core issue of this article, as the impact on sports is arguably caused by the desire to sell such tech to mass market; but if the high-tech shoes can be sold to mass market only without an impact on competitions, then Nike can put in their shoes whatever shiny gadgets they want.
- LatteLazy 6y agoI think this is a good idea. It reminds me of the "sharkskin" suits used in swimming that were expensive, single use, very effective and allowed enormous improvements in performance. Then had to be banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-technology_swimwear_fabric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-technology_swimwear_fabri...
- wging 6y agoMentioned in the article, FWIW: > Swimming? Who can forget what happened between 2008 and 2009...
- neolog 6y agoThey didn't have to be banned. They were banned unnecessarily, hindering the development of fabric tech.
- brokenmachine 6y agoThey were banned fairly because they were so expensive that many competitors couldn't afford to use them, putting them at a huge, probably insurmountable, disadvantage. The cost was mentioned in that wikipedia page, but I believe they didn't mention that they need to be individually fitted and are single-use only.
- neolog 6y ago> so expensive that many competitors couldn't afford to use them Olympic athletes don't buy their own equipment, do they?
- Doxin 6y agoPeople competing below Olympic levels probably do.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Olympic athletes don’t buy their own equipment, do they? That doesn’t mean that there are no cost constraints on their equipment. Also, AIUI, the governing bodies of individual sports which happen to be included in the olympics also govern lower-level competitions, under generally the same rules – because the Olympic competition is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport, not a different sport with a confusingly-similar name.
- LatteLazy 6y agoIs it that much of a hindrance? Or rather, if you're only market is helping people win at the Olympics then there isn't really a market for your product...
- bagacrap 6y agoThe sport (at the elite, televised level) is not just impacted by the desire to sell shoes, its only reason for existence is as a vehicle to sell shoes. Every professional runner has a salary paid by a shoe company.