From the IPKat's longstanding supplier of information Miri Frankel (Beanstalk) comes a guest posting for your delectation, based upon a curious little item she spotted a little while back:Is Apple’s action an example of DRM for your clothes, as suggested by New Scientist? Not exactly, says the Kat. The Nike + iPod partnership is extremely lucrative. With the market in decline, Apple is merely protecting its and Nike’s bottom line. Apple, not Nike, has the standing to apply for a patent that clearly links their cooperative products. Merpel wonders whether Nike is seeking design rights in the sensor-shaped hole in the soles of its footwear."No, Trinny and Susannah are not devoting their fashion sense to trainers and athletic wear. However, the Kat has heard here that Apple is aiming to limit all users of the Nike + iPod kit to wearing the sensors only in authorized Nike trainers.
Right: While the Kat does take his tunes on the road, he can usually be found listening to his iPod while relaxing.
Apparently, iPod-loving athletes have been using the sensors with non-Nike footwear by attaching the sensors to their shoelaces. Apple has filed US patent application 2008/0218310 to combat this circumvention of the Nike + iPod partnership. According to the patent application, Apple has developed updated sensors that only work when embedded in authorized Nike+ athletic wear, and which are inoperable when rogue athletes try to wear the sensors in unauthorized gear –- which is unfortunate for any Kat who is partial to Puma".
Many thanks, Miri (who also provided the Kats' comments).
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html