http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html

Does anybody know what Apple is actually planning to do with it? No. Yes, they could potentially enter into an exclusive agreement. Or, they could also take it in a completely different direction, and license the technology to any shoemaker that wants it. Now let’s assume that the sensor remains the way it is as an external device. Hmm, now you can switch your sensor to a different shoe and still get accurate results. Now wouldn’t that just be awful. Seeing as they don’t get residuals from the sensors(unlike iPhone), this would actually be a much smarter business strategy.

Also, from the claims and wording in the patent, it indeed appears this is what their plan is. For instance:

“It should be noted that at any time, any of sensors 306 can be swapped for any other sensor or interchanged between any of garments 308 thereby affording the user complete freedom of association between available sensors, garment inventory, or sensor/garment replacements. ”

“In this way, an extensive database of pertinent garment data can be stored and made available for the user and any other interested party such as a manufacturer interested in garment wear patterns, a user interested in correlating specific garment design to user performance statistics as would be the case with running shoes and run times, for example. Such data can include specific performance data (number of hours of use from time of purchase, for example) and any other data deemed appropriate. It should be noted that there could be a one-to-one correspondence between a particular garment and a particular tag identifier at a time. However, at any time, a particular tag identifier can be re-assigned to any other garment simply by removing the identification module associated with the particular tag identifier from one garment and placing it onto or in another garment. Moreover, the tag identifier can itself be re-assigned by, for example, re-programming a non-volatile type memory device (incorporated in the identification module) into which the particular tag identifier had been previously programmed.”

Why don’t I see these things being brought up? Hmmm, cause none of the sheep actually read the whole patent. And that’s why I am calling them sheep. If someone has read the whole patent and wishes to complain and have an opinion on the matter, that’s great. But anyone who hasn’t bothered to do so doesn’t have all the info to form an informed opinion, and is therefore a sheep(including the author of the original article).

Not distinguishing between individuals and corporations is a great way to pull the wool over your own eyes. Fact of the matter is, even if corporations are legally identical to people (which they aren’t — ever seen a corporation given the death sentence for murder? I haven’t.), they AREN’T people, and they aren’t the same thing. The corporate charter has gone way too far, and corporations are largely not held accountable for their actions.

As for sheep – I think following a large trend of people railing against something I consider evil is about the most noble form of “sheepism” in existence.

It seems to me that you are calling a large group of people sheep not because of why you think you are, but because they simply believe something different than you. You claim they don’t understand, but honestly, after this discussion, it seems you are the one that doesn’t understand. (Too bad you’re not part of a larger group, or I could call you a sheep! ) I’ve read the articles, I’ve read what it does. You don’t really need to go into the patent-level detail to understand the issue, though you tried to disguise it as being “too complicated for the layman; I know because I’m an engineer”; that doesn’t stop the reality of the situation from being understandable to others, including non-techies.

And the “consumer also has the right to not buy it” is a classic conservative-oriented “the market will fix itself” argument. Not every person who can buy a pedometer can afford to run a business making and selling pedometers. (Probably less than 0.1%!) And alternatives don’t necessarily exist. Choice existing somewhere else doesn’t mean choice here isn’t being taken away.

I fail to see anything sheepish about joining any group of people and standing up to what IS indeed DRM that prevents you from using functional hardware as you see fit.

Some other random comments from other people:

“I got the impression from the patent you would utterly wreck the shoe by taking the authenticating RFID chip out – to work it would have to be buried within it pretty inaccessibly. Like you’d have to dig it out of the rubber sole or something.”

“Hmmm sounds like a lot of bureaucratic big brother syndrome to me… ”

“rm just a thought here – but if people remove the sensor and put it on a different shoe..then what stops them removing the RFID tag too?? rendering the system pointless”
-Yes, but what if the RFID tag gets broken? A perfectly good sensor disables itself using DRM. Better buy more Nikes!

“In most case the trainers won’t last as long as the pedometer. So I would be tempted to remove the pedometer from the shoes when they are worn out. This prevents your from salvaging a good pedometer from worn-out shoes. Forcing you to buy Nike again if you want to keep this feature.”

“I pay for the shoes I can do whatever the hell I want with them. God, screw yourselves and your chinese slave labor.”

“Well I’ll never be able to use the Nike Plus Ipod thing now. I have wide feet and Nike shoes don’t fit (in mens sizes they offer “D” width only), so I have to wear New Balance shoes because they fit my feet. ”

“Fascism brought you the Volkswagon, but Communism brought you the Yugo. You decide!”

(last one included for humor)

You hit the nail on the head there. Exactly. You see, I don’t distinguish between individuals or corporations. An individual or corporation(and many corporations are run by individuals) has the right to design a product to work, or not work, in whichever fashion they see fit. The consumer has the right to modify to modify that product to make it work the way they want(except that that may run afoul of DMCS, which is a crock of shit). That doesn’t mean the designer needs to make it easy for you to do so. The consumer also has the right to vote with their wallet and not buy said product, or better yet, design a better alternative.

You see, for each restriction the manufacturer adds, there will be a competitive market for the same type of item without restrictions.

As far as copyright goes, I’d like to see how those cases went. Copyright should not prevent resale. I sure do hope that first sale doctrine was upheld.

But this whole discussion has gotten really off topic. My post was about the fact that the majority of the people posting or commenting on slashdot(if you look at some of their claims) have absolutely no idea or technical knowledge of what they are complaining about. This was merely one very blatant example of that.

P2: And you’re still missing me: The specifics DO NOT MATTER. Take the specifics, and draw blanks over them. Just because this device happens to be “X” where you can by something else that does “X” for $3 has *nothing* to do with the right or wrong of the situation. Maybe someone works at a shoestore that closed, has a ton of leftover shoes, and wants to use them to form a jacket that lights up when you move around. It doesn’t matter. Reality is pretty complicated, and components are re-used in many ways that are not the intended way. That’s part of innovation. I don’t know how as an engineer you cna act like you can’t imagine a situation where someone might want to use these things — but even if you can’t, it doesn’t matter. The right or wrong is not based on how easy someone can do the same thing with something else.

You then talk about what you want, but this isn’t about what you want. This is about letting a person do what they want. You seem to be using your own expertise as a justification for limiting others. Maybe I’m just looking for a binary value, and accuracy matters now. It doesn’t matter!!

P7: Copyright has indeed been used to prevent resell of software. Google about Microsoft and people selling windows on Ebay. People have had to re-assert Doctrine Of First Sale in the courts — I believe in the last 6 months. That’s why I mentioned that.

P2: Once again, you are looking at it ideologically, vs practically. You bought it to measure distance. They probably have some software to give accurate results with certain shoes. I’m glad you mentioned the case about someone who doesn’t care about accuracy, though. That person is a moron. If accuracy is not important, a pedometer will do the same job. You can get one for $3. Why spend $30 for the Apple kit? And if you’re trying to do something entirely different with it, there are also cheaper and more practical alternatives.

It’s also not about necessarily corporate control, it’s about making sure things work. I do a lot of work with embedded type systems. It’s about making things robust. If a sensor failure occurs(or in this case, if the shoe is mismatched with the sensor), I’d rather have the system not work at all as opposed to putting out garbabge data.

P6: You can still use your hardware as you see fit. As an Engineer I can guarantee you 2 things. The first thing I will guarantee you is that Apple buys these off the shelf. They’re not in the business of making accelerometers. The thing consists of a cheap(REAL cheap) accelerometer mounted on a PCB. If the sensor is what you’re after, remove it from the PCB.

P7: Still don’t see where you were going with that. Copyright doesn’t prevent you from reselling your software, or anyone else from reverse engineering it.

P2: Wow. I guess corporations should dictate how we use anything we can use, huh? Who are we, but mere peons, unable to live up to the ivory towers of those paid to professionally know about things. How dare we try to exercise any freedom or discretion of our own. Like I said, and you conveniently ignored — someone might want to use the sensor for an application where accuracy is not important. Because when I buy an item, I’m not buying the ability to use it as I see fit? Instead, I must answer to a central authority?

Wow. Sounds like you ascribe your own personal expertise with some things as being a rationalization for corporate control over private property. I find that fascist.

P5: Way to ignore what I said again. My point had nothing to do with that specific example, but instead all you could think about was the example I gave. This seems to be exact same confusion that I talk about in P1. You seem to think something not working is the same (or “idelogically” the same) as DRM. It’s not. Impossibility — and possiblity stopped only by someone else “managing” your property — are not the same thing. One is a horse with no legs; the other is a horse with its legs shackled to a pole.

P6: Not at all off topic. This is about using your hardware as you see fit. Exactly the same thing. Lucky for you your camera doesn’t prohibit the operation of CHKD, or you’d have no battery percentage left indicator. Lucky for you there aren’t intentionally locks on this functionality.

P7: I brought up first sale doctrine because they might try to say the software on it is copyrighted even after the patent expires. It wasn’t intended to be about patents, sorry for the confusion.