http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17937828/
I am sure you have all seen the running/jogging shoes that are thin, flexible, and are easily able to be folded up for the convenience of storage. Well, Reebok claims they are the first company to develop, implement, and utilize this technology. Recently Nike came out with a line of shoes using the same "foldable" shoe technology. Well, Reebok feels that Nike infringed on their patent for the shoe. This raises a few issues. Reebok has admittingly stated that even if Reebok wins the suit, it would not affect Nike financially. Furthermore, the sales from the shoe line in which Reebok feels the technology was stolen earns Nike $100 million in revenue every year; a considerably small percentage of Nike's overall revenue. Furthermore, those in the shoe industry understand that there is not much patent differentation when it comes to shoes, so there is less room for creativity. So is it really worth it for Reebok to sue Nike? Is it more of a suit over principle than one for financial gain or to inflict damage? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Is it worth Reebok to sue Nike? Probably not. I do think it is over principle. I think that Reebok really just wants to try and discredit Nike's name. But everyone knows that whatever someone says about Nike it's not going to hurt them financially. If the whole sweat shop thing didn't hurt them, the fact they might or might not have ripped off an idea from Reebok isn't going to either. Unless Nike does something DRASTIC that shocks the world, their financial stability is never going to be in jeopardy.
Ill second the principle argument. Theres really no other reason do do this. These two companies remind me of the big fast food chains. McDonalds and Burger King both pretty much have the same crap. The dollar menu, the "healthy" options, etc. etc. Both companies will make the same amount of money without suing the other. Granted, their products will be similar, but theres only so much room for creativity.
I'm going to disagree with Sam and Pick slightly on this one. Yes, they're right that Nike will absolutely not feel the effects from this suit; win or lose. However, I don't think that's why Reebok is doing it. It's no secret that Nike's marketing department has seemingly been on a 20+ year hot streak. It's incredible, think back about all of your classic, favorite sports commercials. They're like 90% Nike. (We're, of course, ignoring that little misstep where they replaced the swoosh logo with nike written in lowercase, cursive letters and replaced "Just Do It" with "I Can").
Now think of how many Reebok ads you remember. Uh huh, that's what I thought. I really believe that Reebok was worried that everyone would associate this no folding shoe technology with Nike, thus making it look like Reebok were the copycats, if they hadn't of done something. Thus, the suit is purely cosmetic; it's just Reebok's way of marketing their product. Odd, but I'll bet it helps them in the long run.
On a side note, since my post was longer than Sam's and Pick's combined, I think that should automatically be awarded the victory for this argument.
Post a Comment