Slashdot Mirror
Apple Declares DRM War On Sneaker Hackers
theodp writes "Nicholas Carr is not pleased that Apple has applied for a patent to extend DRM to tennis shoes and other articles of clothing. Apple apparently views tennis-shoe DRM as a way to head off a potential plague of sneaker hacking. 'Some people,' the patent application observes, 'have taken it upon themselves to remove the sensor from the special pocket of the [iPod-linked] Nike+ shoe and place it at inappropriate locations (shoelaces, for example) or place it on non-Nike+ model shoes.'"
God damn it, not another bizarro world. Hope I can slide again soon.
I'm not sure which is more ridiculous - the patent application or the fact that there's an iPod link in a shoe.
I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
I think it's more of a counterfeiting thing. There are tons of fake Nikes coming from Asia that are honestly way worse in quality, durability, and comfort. So that's gotta end. But plugging an ethernet cord into my shoes once a week or they'll stick to the floor and refuse to move, that's a problem. Oh and weigh you too. I don't know that's for sure what they're going to do so I guessed based on their previous products. So their implementation is probably gonna be some ridiculous idea that won't fix anything but it is a bad problem.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
The Martin Guitar company is considering whether to file a patent on DRM on its guitar strings - the company notes that "some players" are fitting Martin-manufactured strings to "non-Martin labeled guitars." IT'S AN OUTRAGE!
Disclaimer: The above is not true - except the outrage bit.
It is possible to buy the sensor without the shoe. In fact, I had assumed that the sensor never came with the shoe - but that Nike sold shoes that had a built in pocket for the sensor.
I bought a sensor and a nano - but I don't run in Nike shoes. But a few different companies make pouches designed just to hold the sensor, at the laces.
I bought it before the application date on the patent.
I ended up getting a Garmin Forerunner now that they are smaller. Much better as far as accuracy and amount of information. I still run with the Nano for music but not the pedometer. And I'm not positive on this - but I could swear that I saw an ad in Runners World for a nike thing that let you use the sensor without a nano.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I'm not an Apple fan because of their tendency to use proprietary standards, etc, but I can appreciate that they build a good user experience for people that are perhaps not as technically inclined. But I think it's definitely moving towards the point where you (as TFA says) are embarrassed to be an Apple fan. This sort of action is just petty.
+5? Stupid
OK, I can't attach the piece in my shoe to any other shoe, especially because it's not branded Nike?
Next, Nike "holes", the only way to get water... On the next Maury, all wells out of business. =P
Yum, Jack Daniels and the new Metallic(adethatool)
You can't download an integrated circuit.
To get the chips, a pair of nikes must be bought, guaranteeing the revenue no matter what the electronics within are use for next.
I don't see why apple should care. I know I wouldn't give a damn if it were used on another pair of sneakers, modified to play old 8 bit game cartridges, or attached to tomahawk missiles.
The fact they do care is rather disturbing, as it reflects a general trend toward companies asserting ownership over your stuff. I'm not talking about copyrighted works either, i'm talking about everything.
They're walking a fine line, installing technologies designed to subvert people's right to modify and use their own devices for their own (sometimes unforseen) purposes.
You are allowed to sell something any way you wish, but if they sue someone for modifying their own shoes, I expect them to lose, as it's related to physical goods rather than copyrighted material.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
So?
As has been observed on Slashdot many times in the past, if I have bought [whatever], I can do whatever the hell I want with it.
So I feel the urgent need to own a pair of iPod compatible sneakers, and duly buy a pair. I can now;
Paint them purple.
Shred them with a razor blade.
Change the laces.
Remove a sensor to see what it is and what fun I can have with it.
Apparently not. Apple seem to think that they have some say on what I can do with my shoes. What are they smoking? DRM'd sneakers. FFS, give me a break.
Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
If someone OWNS an object they can do whatever they want to with it. Play in your own box and leave others alone.
What is it with evilness generally claiming that they have to protect the stupid halfwits from themselves? Apple's patent app:
"Since only authorized garments are configured to electronically pair with authenticated sensors, a user (or manufacturer) can be assured that the sensing data received by the sensor is both accurate and consistent with its intended use (a sensor designed for use with running shoes can not properly be used with dance shoes, for example)."
Dear Corporate World:
We are not complete tools... we can take care of ourselves. Believe it or not, we know the difference between dancing and running.
Thanks Much
-Consumers of the World.
With every passing day of Apple-related news, I forsee "appleisevil" becoming more and more obvious to everyone, despite the RDF being so strong here.
I told you Apple has no soul.
Table-ized A.I.
Anyway, from the article:
Since only authorized garments are configured to electronically pair with authenticated sensors, a user (or manufacturer) can be assured that the sensing data received by the sensor is both accurate and consistent with its intended use (a sensor designed for use with running shoes can not properly be used with dance shoes, for example).
That actually makes sense- its really just a check to ensure calculations are accurate. But I would hardly think that it is patent worthy.
Still, the actual patent application doesn't even mention DRM, or that it tries to prevent "sneaker hacking"- its just validating data.
Sensationalist shit. What will Apple do if you move your sensor to something else? NOTHING. War? What kind of war? All you do is void your warranty. It's just another patent application like millions out there. Christ, I'd expect this kind of crap from Digg, not from Slashdot.
Presumably what Nike and Apple are worried about is capturing profits from shoe sales as well as sensor sales. But rather than have all of this DRM garbage, why not just raise the price of the sensor to cover the 'losses' from people who don't buy Nike shoes? The sensor is, after all, the critical part of the equation, and the vast majority of customers have one pair of shoes and one sensor.
Hell, what Nike should really do is raise the price of the sensor to compensate for any losses, and sell their own adapter. That would have the benefit of providing another revenue stream, more branding, and allow people who like Nike shoes but not necessarily ones with the built-in pocket to use the sensor.
I think Nike and Apple are seriously overthinking this.
Apple knows they can't win this, but they have to establish a track record.
IIRC, the classic example is that you own a lot of land. Your neighbor parks his dump truck on a part of your land that you don't use and you don't see. After several years, you want to develop that land. Since you allowed his to park there for years he can argue that he has your permission.
Look, first of all Apple is a big corp. and big corp's job is to make money. So don't blame them for trying to use the existing laws. ( ok, blame them a little ) However... I think the two big places where blame should go is the patent laws ( and politicians ) but also, let us not forget the market. I mean, as long as "we the people" keep buying their stuff, they will continue to do it. Cut the money and don't buy an item, then watch how fast they will turn around and change.
This is ofcourse, if the market is not rigged. That is ofcourse another big story for itself.
This patent can't be for the Nike+ sensors since they were being sold before this patent's filing date (March 7th, 2007).
Hey, some of us are only alive because of the tidbits of delicious apple news that occasionally escape the compound - if we didn't have rumours and rumours about rumours upon which to ruminate, then what would we talk about between ipod release announcements?
How else do you expect me to survive the 6 months between their planned obsolescence announcements? I can only refresh apple.com so many times a day on my iPhone before I max out my data plan... Do you think I'm made of money?
I guess this spells the demise of sneakernet
If someone OWNS an object they can do whatever they want to with it. Play in your own box and leave others alone.
Ah, but if they get their way, you won't own anything anymore, you'll just license it... including your hardware.
I *had* decided to get a Mac the next time I got a new computer. Not now. Good job.
It's the loneliness of the long-distance hax0r.
Apple: Still not as bad as Micro$oft. But we're trying. God damn, we are trying.
Damn! Even my sneakernet isn't safe anymore!
Just because a company has applied for a patent doesn't mean that they intend to commercialize it. More than likely, some engineers just had an idea about how to ensure that only Nike+ shoes were used with the Nike+iPod sensor, and Apple's lawyers decided to preemptively patent it in case anyone else came up with it.
The sensor is great. The integration with the iPod is cool. The fact that Nike only makes one width of shoe (and that their "medium" is pretty much a narrow) means I can't have this technology? Hmmm...maybe we should get some sort of ADA-for-tech law passed so that you can hack something to make it work for you if it doesn't work as sold...
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
I just wish people would take a lesson from the Defcon badges and make stuff that encourages hacking.
(In before "Windows crap security encourages hacking" jokes.)
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
OK, I'd be careful of the whole social networking thing. I'm pretty sure that if you meet a potential spouse through this, the rights on your first born child are forfeit to Apple, Nike, and AT&T.
The new iPod nano arm band offered by Apple is advertised as having a pocked for the Sport Kit sensor.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB769?mco=MjUwMDU
Well, that's what happens when a totalitarian regime gets into control. They make sure you only use the brands THEY want you to use. Want this phone? Only with that service. Want a shoe with this feature? Only with the brand shoe we tell you. And if you do anything different... lawsuit! I find it amusing that many of /.'s readers recognize this sort of thing (and hate it) when it's done by this company or that, but simultaneously want to vote into government offices people who will implement this sort of thing on a national scale. And I find it even more amusing that they don't recognize that their political opinions are actually exactly the opposite of what they want.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
They already bought the damn sneakers! WTF? Am I missing something?
Is this some mental-deficient's idiotic idea of a fucking joke? DRM on a goddamn fucking shoe? Are you fucking KIDDING ME??!?
Why god, why, does the sensor have to be buried in rubber and resin so your investment wears out with the soles of your $200 shoes (euros hurt). Oh wait... I just answered my question to god. :)
Battle, skirmish, engagement, or even foreshadowing of future conflict would be a more appropriate choice of words. The technology in question isn't even in production shoes yet, and if anything, this is a gift to sneaker-hackers - Apple's patent may discourage other companies from using similar measures.
Stay away from jobs in marketing. Seriously.
No sig today...
Um. The cost is the whole point.
By spending lots of money you're showing the world how committed you are to your workout regime.
You people should definitely stay away from jobs in marketing. Your "functional" versions of this product would bomb in the market place.
No sig today...
Funny, yes. Informative?!?
Why does my ass hurt?
-posted on an iMac G5
In corporatist America, tennis shoes own YOU!!!
I believe the patent covers pairing the sensor unit with an RFID chip in the shoes ; ensuring that the device won't work out of proximity of the shoe.
In one embodiment, the sensor can be authenticated for use with a particular garment using, for example, an identification device (such as an RFID type device)
They are even talking about active RFID, using a battery or a running-powered charge generator.
Since the RFID can be glued between the sole and the inner, or even cast into the foam, it would be an effective way of making sure the user bought a pair of Nikes, even if they just intended to destroy the shoes to get the RFID out.
This is whole lot more robust and less expensive to implement than giving the sensor a tilt switch.
Some people speculate that Nikes already have RFID tags in them ; I have no confirmation of that (but I may destroy my current pair when they wear out to find out). But this would be an excuse to put one in, and imagine the uses for an RFID tag in a shoe. The ideal location, because you can pretty much guarantee the sole of a shoe is going to be in contact with the ground, so you now know the ideal place to site your aerial.
So Apple has applied for a patent that allows it to create connections that only work between one kind of player and one kind of shoe. When the patent is granted, Microsoft won't be able to build a connection that only works between a Zune and an Adidas shoe. They still can build connections between Zune and Adidas, or Zune and Nike, or iPod and Nike, they just can't make a connection that works only between one combination.
So Apple has a patent how to make a product less valuable for customers. So they are voluntarily giving advantages to their competitors. Why should we care about that?
You were allowed the land to work it, improve it.
You abandoned it instead.
So why should you keep it?
And if someone else uses your land and improves it, why should YOU benefit from the work done by them because you were lazy???
Since you mention it, let me point out that no true slashdotter that plays a guitar should ever consider using other than Ernie Ball strings
Good luck finding a tech company to buy from that hasn't filed for crazy patents.
This is hilarious.
I like the MAC OS; it is built on BSD Unix, and that is a good thing indeed.
However, the folks who are running this company have their head stuck so far up their arse they might as well do an appendectomy while they're there.
If Microsoft had pulled this stunt, they would have been ridiculed till the cows come home.
that was a pretty messed up episode.
But in a very measured way.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
then i assume i'll be able to install a firewall and antivirus on my shoes too, right?
What's even more disturbing is if this trend (for companies to impose EULAs/DRM over hardware that you've purchased or the software running on them) continues as we move more toward ubiquitous, embedded computing.
What's next?! I buy an sweater but can only wear it with 'approved' shirts? I buy pants but can only wash them in 'approved' washing machines? I change the buttons on my coat and that opens me up to liability/prosecution for 'hacking'?
If you think pedophilia is funny, you are going to laugh your ass off when I rape your sister.
You're going to look pretty fucking stupid when you rape his sister to prove your point, then it turns out that she's 37 years old.
Let people do what ever they want with shoes they bought! People can harvest parts from their old computers and do what they want with the parts. Patent law is becoming like a joke because of lawyers like Apple's and our patent law system that allows these patents to got through. Companies just want to maximize their profits in anyway possible. Shameful!
I guess it's still September and this is a real story.
I guess now at least I'll have some real proof to show my wife that I DON'T lay around, be lazy and sleep for months at a time.
It used to be cool to be an Apple fanboy. Now it's starting to be embarrassing.
I wish this had been the first sentence in the article. I wouldn't have wasted my time reading the rest of it.
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Give Apple a foot and they WILL try to take the whole yard!
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
For example, I can't use Nike brand running shoes, their basic last has bumps where my feet don't have a suitable dent. This has nothing to do with the brand, it's just a physical fact. My feet just fit better into Adidas or Asics running shoes.
So, Apple is basically telling a large group of people that Apple doesn't want their money. Which is fine by me, but in my opinion stupid from the Apple shareholders' point of view.
Not enough evil! Who will Apple partner with next? Union Carbide, British American Tobacco, the Revolutionary Guard?
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
I'm no DRM fan (not that this story really has anything to do with DRM) but I gotta break in on this little mutual admration society you've got going.
First, my main bitch is with the blog being pimped. The dude hot-linked the authors image (New Scientist) in the posting. To me, that's bigger news than this Smart Clothing patent. Comedically it looks like the author from NS showed up in comments to give a smackdown.
Second, if you read the actual article or maybe even the patent app. itself, instead of the POS submission, this is pretty much a lot of hand waving and acronym throwing over nothing.
They want to make a sensor and clothing combo that can tell if the sensor is in the right place. To me that's pretty simple and even seems patentable compared to a lot of things I've read.
Last, for this to be "bad", shouldn't this harm the "shoe sensor market" or "smart clothing market' if there even were such things? I don't see how this is going to stop anyone from making other systems or other sensors. Patent licensing is another opening for competition even if someone else produce from Apple's patent.
Lame story. Now go harass that guy for hot-linking New Scientist's image. It's 2008 for crying out loud! :-)
-Matt
You people obviously didn't read Nike's EULA. They aren't selling you shoes, they are selling you a license to use the shoes. As soon as you open the box, you agree that you will abide by Nike and Apple's arbitrary rules regarding how you can use their shoes.
We should be happy that Nike and Apple have graciously allowed us the opportunity to pay for the ability to use their shoes so long as we follow their TOS.
Wow. This thing pretty much hits all the points of non-patentability.
1) Most of it -- the non-DRM stuff -- isn't at all novel; it has been done before by Apple, even. They're just re-iterating the prior art to bulk out the application. The stuff about analyzing the running style, I've been hearing about being used for athletes for years; commercializing it doesn't make it patentable.
2) Nor is it non-obvious. The patent (again, aside from the DRM stuff) appears to be trying to cover a specific sort of telemetry. Telemetry has been done for a while -- likely from garments, even, if you consider a spacesuit or a diving suit a garment. Given that you have telemety, it's pretty obvious (here in 2008, or even in 2007) you can process it on a networked computer or receive it on a portable computer. And making that computer a portable multimedia player doesn't make it any different either.
3) The DRM stuff isn't novel either. Using a physical device to provide authorization and authentication information goes back to antiquity. Using it in computers goes back to the days of "dongles". Using an RFID device to provide authorization and authentication... well, isn't that one of the originally envisioned uses of RFID? Using a hammer to drive in a nail isn't novel, even if the nail itself is.
4) Not really related to patentability, but it's unlikely to be implemented, at least in the RFID embodiment. Providing enough power to ping passive RFID will kill the sensor's battery. And active RFID is likely to be too expensive and present manufacturing problems, not insurmountable but certainly greater than the "problem" of having people do other things with the sensors.
Either your sig is sarcastic, or you're suggesting that the candidate who is actually for net neutrality, and a transparent government, is the opposite of what I want?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
They do realize that they would have only sold like 10 of these things if they required people to buy Nike shoes with them, right?
Nike doesn't make running shoes in my size. And I'm a jogger and a Nike+ user. Well I was until my sweat short circuited the Nike+ sensor. Apple needs to think about things like water resistance in these things. Did the Nike 10k last week and there were probably only 10% Nike shoes. Nike isn't that popular with runners.
It's not that great of a product. But the price ($30) is unbeatable. If you have to buy shoes with it the price is quite beatable by better tech on the market.
Where are the mod points when you need them? :(
Boo! Creepy shoe hacker!
Hooray beer!!!
how about the accessory market for iPods, which requires special licensing and fees?
Good job, you named another one. But the problem with is.....what, exactly? If Bose wants to sell a fancy iPod doc for over $200, why is it unreasonable for Apple to get a chunk from an accessory market that they created?
Airtunes, Airtunes, Airtunes
There's a difference between "proprietary" and "not holding your hand". This is a case of the latter:
Heck, how about this very patent? You "Yawn" about it because everybody abuses patents, which makes Apple a saint of course, because Microsoft does it too.
Yes, yawn. Apple is not a patent troll. If you want examples of that, look at how Adobe and Macromedia would sue eachother every six months over lame patents.
The problem of the anti-Mac fanboys is that they're making false comparisons between Microsoft (a convicted monopolist) and Apple, which doesn't have a monopoly on anything. If you don't like FairPlay or the licensing fee, nothing is preventing you from having a similar experience with similar devices from other manufacturers.
That a company doesn't operate the way you want it too != design flaw or abusive practice. Porche wont sell me a 911 Turbo for $30,000, but you don't see me whine about it.
I go along with your summary of what patents are for, but let's take a closer look at how those principles are being applied here.
This is not a story about Apple using a patent to prevent competition in the "make an iPod-sneaker interface" market. Someone making a device just like the iPod+Nike sensor thing might run into IP trouble somewhere along the way, but it won't be because of this patent.
This is a story about Apple using DRM to protect the viability of their marketing agreement with Nike, and using a patent to prevent competition in this part of the "using DRM to protect the viability of marketing agreements" market.
If we keep in mind that the patent dosen't "allow" Apple to use such a DRM system -- it merely prevents others from doing so -- then the patent itself doesn't seem so bad. The thing being patented, though, seems to belong in the "are you serious?" bucket. Apple is trying to protect a poorly-thought-out business model because that model only works in the real world if you can control your customers' behavior; if they're free to do what they want with what they bought, then the value to Nike of the marketing deal drops rapidly.
And really, that's no all that different from 99% of what DRM gets used for...
ÌMHO, MS has been riding on the back of IBM making the PC a relative open architecture. Where Apple was already having fights with people producing DIY motherboards and imitations like the Pear II (no kidding), MS nicely remained in the background and rode with IBM into many homes.
When it finally had enough products begged, borrowed, copied, imitated and plain stolen to have a complete offering it started to close the door.
From the closed shop angle, Apple has never been any other way.
Insert
Or is someone linking to The Onion again?
or can you still get at the data by reading it as a normal USB device (i.e. from Linux) ?
...or as a NMEA-speaking standard USB-Serial port ???
Heres a great dissection...Patent my ass, its basic stuff.
Nikepod dissection.
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/tutorial_info.php?tutorials_id=41
There Apple. Now everyone knows how it works.
Fark off.
They Live, We Sleep
Honda has now added an RFID pairing system to prevent you from putting their engines in other manufacturer's cars!
Someone has to have bought a pair of Nikes to get the device, so why is it a problem? If I don't happen to like the Nike shoes, why shouldn't I be able to buy a pair and pull out the device? If they include an RFID tag or equivalent to tie the sensor to the shoes, then I guess I could just rip the tag out as well. Maybe it'll become "cool" to have the eviscerated skeleton of a "Nike+" shoe attached to your Reeboks.
The criticism from self-identified Apple "fanboys" in the comments on TFA are interesting, perhaps this will put a crack in the reality distortion field.
I figured out a long time ago that if I stop reading Internet forums for a while, I feel much happier with my computer(s), and computing in general. Basically, stop listening to other people's complaints, and find your own reasons to like/dislike something.
I am so sick of their control freak bullshit
It's Apple's ridiculous policies that have completely turned me off
I remember when Apple was cool
I'll build me a Hackintosh, just to spite the bastards
So much emotion for a machine...
Try closing your eyes, forget all about the Internet, it doesn't exist. Forget all about silly "evil company" memes, boycotts, idealistic bullcrap, what's "cool" , what's not, etc, and separate yourself from the emotional baggage of that... other place. Now, open them and just use your computer. Go try out one of the "evil" company's products. See how it doesn't burn your skin when you touch it? Imagine millions of people using it productively with no regrets, and no worries. That's the real world.
I've also been a Linux sysadmin for several years, so I keep trying out various multimedia software and distros when they come out or get updated, (like dyne:bolic, ubustud, ardour, ecasound, etc). Much to my chagrin, I can never get the multitrack recording to work for me in Linux. It seems jackd is always the problem, no matter which soundcard I try (and I've got several I bought because they were listed as "compatible" but they really are not, like M-audio with the envy24 set). I don't know what the hell is up with the jackd devs, but I do know that sooner or later, there will be a satisfactory Linux solution to multitrack recording
Read that back to yourself, is this really where you want to be?
I'm a Linux sysadmin too, I know where you are coming from. It's easy to get all caught up in the free/open idealism, and lose focus on what computers are really here for. That's to make our lives easier & better, not the circular "for us to work on them" that the bulk of you reading this get stuck on.
Make a list of pros/cons for free and open software, their development models, philosophies, and so on. Do you really find the pros contributing much towards your goal of professional audio recording? In a developer driven world, will audio recording ever take a front seat to service hosting and server administration?
Just some food for thought.
To get the chips, a pair of nikes must be bought, guaranteeing the revenue no matter what the electronics within are use for next.
[...] I know I wouldn't give a damn if it were used on another pair of sneakers, modified to play old 8 bit game cartridges, or attached to tomahawk missiles.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
But why does Nike care? They sold you the dongle, they got your money, why should they care what you do with it?