Where on earth does that say anything along the lines of "we're going to cut holes in our shoes, and that's an original idea that no one should be able to copy."
It says:
The communication device may include housing into which is disposed a sensor that detects the macro-manipulation of the communication device by the user.
Disposed is a transitive verb meaning to place or arrange in a particular position.
Macro-manipulation describes the input type to the sensor as a type of squeezing or compressing - as in pressing with your hands or feet.
It then continues to describe how this device is then communicating to an Apple branded handheld.
[B]So, tell me, what have you been doing lately to work against moral bankruptcy?
I haven't bought their products, haven't engaged in any activity that would bring them any more revenue and have told all my friends to do the same. That's as far as I can go, as I'm not an employer of thousands, with one of the world's most known brands and 7 billion USD in the bank.
Quote:
Not that I disagree with the criticism, but most people that employ these arguments don't really help their alleged causes much either.
Wrong. Just because I don't have any power to do any harm to the Nike industry, does not mean that I am wrong or out of line in criticizing them and their methods, and by virtue, the extenders of their methods by way of 'agreements' and other 'business' related stuffs.
Quote:
You could argue they shouldn't have tied up with ANY of the sportswear manufacturers but if that's the case then they quite possibly shouldn't also be using many of the components in any of their computers either.
So it does have something to do with ethics - they just ignored them. I don't blame them, but let's not try to think of them as the Good Guys that need to be partners with Nike et al to survive in the tough industry of running iPods.
Steve Jobs has been wearing black turtlenecks, Levis blue jeans and new balance running shoes pretty much EVERY FREAKING DAY for the past 15+ years. Now we see him wearing NIKEs!
If you look beyond the surface, this has HUGE implications.
Steve Jobs is an idealist and a man with principles he sticks to(no matter how wrong they are)
Steve's idealism has in the past conflicted with doing what is best for Apple.
We are now seeing a new Steve who is willing to let go of his idealism and do what is best for Apple.
Steve Jobs has been wearing black turtlenecks, Levis blue jeans and new balance running shoes pretty much EVERY FREAKING DAY for the past 15+ years. Now we see him wearing NIKEs!
If you look beyond the surface, this has HUGE implications.
Steve Jobs is an idealist and a man with principles he sticks to(no matter how wrong they are)
Steve's idealism has in the past conflicted with doing what is best for Apple.
We are now seeing a new Steve who is willing to let go of his idealism and do what is best for Apple.
Examples...
1) Mac mini was not shaped like cube
2) Intel Switch
3) Boot Camp
4) NB -> Nike Switch
Nice theory but maybe he just needed some new trainers
This move to partner with Nike is a bit perplaxing. It tarnishes Steve's Disney influence a few weeks back. Why would Steve request to pull Disney toys from Happy Meals (the largest toy distribution in the World!!!) if he didn't believe in good corporate ethics? Was he just responding to the negative press on child obesity or was it a move against McDonalds (or both)?
Either way, this pact with Nike is lame. I will never buy a Nike product. Anti Nike news articles were rampant before Moore and Moore wasn't just spouting out pure lies and here-say. Nike has a long track record of using inhuman work conditions which forced many other companies to do the same.
Nike has also ripped off numerous underground artists in their advertising.
Then the sad end to Converse. Once the largest shoe makers in the world and were made in the US with no animal products from 1908 to 1966! Now a bastard child exploited by their rival.
Nike's revenue is $13+ billion dollars (over $13,000,000,000) a year. Don't tell me they can't afford to pay people in Asia a living wage.
Either way, this pact with Nike is lame. I will never buy a Nike product. Anti Nike news articles were rampant before Moore and Moore wasn't just spouting out pure lies and here-say. Nike has a long track record of using inhuman work conditions which forced many other companies to do the same.
So what are you buying instead? They're all as bad as each other IMHO.
So what are you buying instead? They're all as bad as each other IMHO.
Unfortunately I have a thing for Puma which manufactures in China and Vietnam.
"Since January 2004, PUMA is a participating member of the Fair Labor Association. The aim of this non-profit organization is ?combining the efforts of industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), colleges and universities to promote adherence to international labor standards and improve working conditions worldwide?.
The partnership with the FLA requires a certain percentage of PUMA?s suppliers to be independently monitored by FLA-accredited monitoring institutes every year.
Furthermore, membership in the FLA allows any individual or group (for example: workers, NGOs, etc.) to report possible violations of PUMA?s Code of Conduct at any of PUMA?s supplier factories directly to the FLA. "
"In spring 2004, the Munich based rating agency Oekom Research analyzed 12 international apparel companies on 200 social and environmental performance criteria. As a result of the rating PUMA was one of only two brands that were recommended by Oekom for a Socially Responsible Investment."
The communication device may include housing into which is disposed a sensor that detects the macro-manipulation of the communication device by the user.
Disposed is a transitive verb meaning to place or arrange in a particular position.
Macro-manipulation describes the input type to the sensor as a type of squeezing or compressing - as in pressing with your hands or feet.
It then continues to describe how this device is then communicating to an Apple branded handheld.
Okay, well I read the whole thing as if it were talking about a controller or remote of sorts, or at least something you manipulate intentionally in order to do a task (in which it repeatedly gives the example of dialing a phone number). Claiming that the shoe chip is that controller and the shoe is it's casing is quite a stretch, if you ask me. Additionally, this is an Apple patent, and Apple's not making the shoes, which is what my original question was addressing. Is Nike going to try and patent a hole in the middle of their shoes so that competitors couldn't cash in on the iPod geek's desire for a new pair of new running shoes? (Remember, with the exception of one model, they're not selling them with the controller in them, and competitors wouldn't need to either, so it's really only the hole that's in question, not the chip.)
Not that anyone really cares. It was just a small observation, and I think I've probably dragged it out long enough.
Okay, well I read the whole thing as if it were talking about a controller or remote of sorts, or at least something you manipulate intentionally in order to do a task (in which it repeatedly gives the example of dialing a phone number). Claiming that the shoe chip is that controller and the shoe is it's casing is quite a stretch, if you ask me.
I agree, but patents are written in vague and generalized wording like this to cover a wide territory. It is a whole other language.
Quote:
Originally posted by xanthohappy
Additionally, this is an Apple patent, and Apple's not making the shoes, which is what my original question was addressing. Is Nike going to try and patent a hole in the middle of their shoes so that competitors couldn't cash in on the iPod geek's desire for a new pair of new running shoes? (Remember, with the exception of one model, they're not selling them with the controller in them, and competitors wouldn't need to either, so it's really only the hole that's in question, not the chip.)
Actually, I believe I already mentioned that it IS Nike's patent. It just references Apple Computer because they helped with the technology, but the patent was filed and awarded to Nike.
it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the next couple years (post 2004)
Yes, there seems to be enough fuss kicked up by consumer campaigns, NGOs, Unions and groups like Play Fair that many of the manufacturers have taken notice and some have started doing something about it.
The other thing to note is many sports manufacturers moved production to China and Vietnam away from Taiwan (which has pretty good practices on a par with most Western countries and consequently higher wages) a few years back but the quality sucked so they've been moving back again.
well, sweatshops or no sweatshops... if shoes were all manufactured from end to end with american labor, in order for Nike to retain their large profit margins they would have to sell shoes starting at 200 bucks or maybe even higher.
well, sweatshops or no sweatshops... if shoes were all manufactured from end to end with american labor, in order for Nike to retain their large profit margins they would have to sell shoes starting at 200 bucks or maybe even higher.
They don't have to be manufactured from end to end with American labor. They could just start treating their employees like humans and not some shit pile they dump when they're done exploiting their cheap manual labor.
How about paying them a decent salary by international standards to begin with? 25 cents a day is a fucking joke considering the margins they have on their products.
Comments
Originally posted by xanthohappy
Where on earth does that say anything along the lines of "we're going to cut holes in our shoes, and that's an original idea that no one should be able to copy."
It says:
The communication device may include housing into which is disposed a sensor that detects the macro-manipulation of the communication device by the user.
Disposed is a transitive verb meaning to place or arrange in a particular position.
Macro-manipulation describes the input type to the sensor as a type of squeezing or compressing - as in pressing with your hands or feet.
It then continues to describe how this device is then communicating to an Apple branded handheld.
Originally posted by Chucker
[B]So, tell me, what have you been doing lately to work against moral bankruptcy?
I haven't bought their products, haven't engaged in any activity that would bring them any more revenue and have told all my friends to do the same. That's as far as I can go, as I'm not an employer of thousands, with one of the world's most known brands and 7 billion USD in the bank.
Not that I disagree with the criticism, but most people that employ these arguments don't really help their alleged causes much either.
Wrong. Just because I don't have any power to do any harm to the Nike industry, does not mean that I am wrong or out of line in criticizing them and their methods, and by virtue, the extenders of their methods by way of 'agreements' and other 'business' related stuffs.
You could argue they shouldn't have tied up with ANY of the sportswear manufacturers but if that's the case then they quite possibly shouldn't also be using many of the components in any of their computers either.
So it does have something to do with ethics - they just ignored them. I don't blame them, but let's not try to think of them as the Good Guys that need to be partners with Nike et al to survive in the tough industry of running iPods.
If you look beyond the surface, this has HUGE implications.
Steve Jobs is an idealist and a man with principles he sticks to(no matter how wrong they are)
Steve's idealism has in the past conflicted with doing what is best for Apple.
We are now seeing a new Steve who is willing to let go of his idealism and do what is best for Apple.
Examples...
1) Mac mini was not shaped like cube
2) Intel Switch
3) Boot Camp
4) NB -> Nike Switch
Originally posted by Johnny Mozzarella
Steve Jobs has been wearing black turtlenecks, Levis blue jeans and new balance running shoes pretty much EVERY FREAKING DAY for the past 15+ years. Now we see him wearing NIKEs!
If you look beyond the surface, this has HUGE implications.
Steve Jobs is an idealist and a man with principles he sticks to(no matter how wrong they are)
Steve's idealism has in the past conflicted with doing what is best for Apple.
We are now seeing a new Steve who is willing to let go of his idealism and do what is best for Apple.
Examples...
1) Mac mini was not shaped like cube
2) Intel Switch
3) Boot Camp
4) NB -> Nike Switch
Nice theory but maybe he just needed some new trainers
This move to partner with Nike is a bit perplaxing. It tarnishes Steve's Disney influence a few weeks back. Why would Steve request to pull Disney toys from Happy Meals (the largest toy distribution in the World!!!) if he didn't believe in good corporate ethics? Was he just responding to the negative press on child obesity or was it a move against McDonalds (or both)?
Either way, this pact with Nike is lame. I will never buy a Nike product. Anti Nike news articles were rampant before Moore and Moore wasn't just spouting out pure lies and here-say. Nike has a long track record of using inhuman work conditions which forced many other companies to do the same.
Nike has also ripped off numerous underground artists in their advertising.
Then the sad end to Converse. Once the largest shoe makers in the world and were made in the US with no animal products from 1908 to 1966! Now a bastard child exploited by their rival.
Nike's revenue is $13+ billion dollars (over $13,000,000,000) a year. Don't tell me they can't afford to pay people in Asia a living wage.
Originally posted by kidhack
Either way, this pact with Nike is lame. I will never buy a Nike product. Anti Nike news articles were rampant before Moore and Moore wasn't just spouting out pure lies and here-say. Nike has a long track record of using inhuman work conditions which forced many other companies to do the same.
So what are you buying instead? They're all as bad as each other IMHO.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
So what are you buying instead? They're all as bad as each other IMHO.
Unfortunately I have a thing for Puma which manufactures in China and Vietnam.
"Since January 2004, PUMA is a participating member of the Fair Labor Association. The aim of this non-profit organization is ?combining the efforts of industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), colleges and universities to promote adherence to international labor standards and improve working conditions worldwide?.
The partnership with the FLA requires a certain percentage of PUMA?s suppliers to be independently monitored by FLA-accredited monitoring institutes every year.
Furthermore, membership in the FLA allows any individual or group (for example: workers, NGOs, etc.) to report possible violations of PUMA?s Code of Conduct at any of PUMA?s supplier factories directly to the FLA. "
"In spring 2004, the Munich based rating agency Oekom Research analyzed 12 international apparel companies on 200 social and environmental performance criteria. As a result of the rating PUMA was one of only two brands that were recommended by Oekom for a Socially Responsible Investment."
Hopefully these are steps in the right direction.
Originally posted by kidhack
Unfortunately I have a thing for Puma which manufactures in China and Vietnam.
Perhaps you should read http://www.fairolympics.org/backgrou...y_Profiles.pdf
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Perhaps you should read http://www.fairolympics.org/backgrou...y_Profiles.pdf
it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the next couple years (post 2004)
Originally posted by rongold
It says:
The communication device may include housing into which is disposed a sensor that detects the macro-manipulation of the communication device by the user.
Disposed is a transitive verb meaning to place or arrange in a particular position.
Macro-manipulation describes the input type to the sensor as a type of squeezing or compressing - as in pressing with your hands or feet.
It then continues to describe how this device is then communicating to an Apple branded handheld.
Okay, well I read the whole thing as if it were talking about a controller or remote of sorts, or at least something you manipulate intentionally in order to do a task (in which it repeatedly gives the example of dialing a phone number). Claiming that the shoe chip is that controller and the shoe is it's casing is quite a stretch, if you ask me. Additionally, this is an Apple patent, and Apple's not making the shoes, which is what my original question was addressing. Is Nike going to try and patent a hole in the middle of their shoes so that competitors couldn't cash in on the iPod geek's desire for a new pair of new running shoes? (Remember, with the exception of one model, they're not selling them with the controller in them, and competitors wouldn't need to either, so it's really only the hole that's in question, not the chip.)
Not that anyone really cares. It was just a small observation, and I think I've probably dragged it out long enough.
Originally posted by xanthohappy
Okay, well I read the whole thing as if it were talking about a controller or remote of sorts, or at least something you manipulate intentionally in order to do a task (in which it repeatedly gives the example of dialing a phone number). Claiming that the shoe chip is that controller and the shoe is it's casing is quite a stretch, if you ask me.
I agree, but patents are written in vague and generalized wording like this to cover a wide territory. It is a whole other language.
Originally posted by xanthohappy
Additionally, this is an Apple patent, and Apple's not making the shoes, which is what my original question was addressing. Is Nike going to try and patent a hole in the middle of their shoes so that competitors couldn't cash in on the iPod geek's desire for a new pair of new running shoes? (Remember, with the exception of one model, they're not selling them with the controller in them, and competitors wouldn't need to either, so it's really only the hole that's in question, not the chip.)
Actually, I believe I already mentioned that it IS Nike's patent. It just references Apple Computer because they helped with the technology, but the patent was filed and awarded to Nike.
Originally posted by kidhack
it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the next couple years (post 2004)
Yes, there seems to be enough fuss kicked up by consumer campaigns, NGOs, Unions and groups like Play Fair that many of the manufacturers have taken notice and some have started doing something about it.
The other thing to note is many sports manufacturers moved production to China and Vietnam away from Taiwan (which has pretty good practices on a par with most Western countries and consequently higher wages) a few years back but the quality sucked so they've been moving back again.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
well, sweatshops or no sweatshops... if shoes were all manufactured from end to end with american labor, in order for Nike to retain their large profit margins they would have to sell shoes starting at 200 bucks or maybe even higher.
They don't have to be manufactured from end to end with American labor. They could just start treating their employees like humans and not some shit pile they dump when they're done exploiting their cheap manual labor.
How about paying them a decent salary by international standards to begin with? 25 cents a day is a fucking joke considering the margins they have on their products.