I (plead the 5th)... Nike and they were pretty worked up about Lil Nas X demon shoes.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... hoes-mschf

I found that Nike won this case was 1. not a surprise, and 2. completely and ridiculous position for the courts to take. The shoes in question were not counterfeit, they were genuine NIke products purchased legally and later customized and made purchasable as collectors items. It's the equivalent of me buying a Honda Accord and painting a dick on the side and selling it on craigslist as a "Custom Honda Ding Dong Driver 1/1" and getting a call from Honda saying I can't paint ding dongs on cars.

It also reminds me of how Black Lion Audio got their start upgrading clocks and other parts in MAudio Delta 1010 and Digi 002 units. It of course voided your warranty, but it was your unit, do with it what you will.

I understand that companies should get to protect their copyright but being able to halt customization of a product after purchase seems like weird precedent to set. Maybe if people bought their own shoes and sent them in to be customized it would have gone differently in court, but who knows.

I don't care anything about shoes or raps, just thought it was a bit much.

Edited: Because possible legal issues.

jason from volo wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:50 pm
I think Nike has a valid beef.

I'm not blind to the beef they have, I'm just not sure where the borders of what reselling custom products are, or should be. If I bought 100 Ford F150's and put custom American flag wraps on them and jacked them up and put hillbilly tires and flag poles in the back on them and sold them for a profit, is that ok in the eyes of the law? Because there are a lot of companies that do exactly that.

To me, it smells like more consumer products in the future will be coming with an EULA when purchasing.

In my profession, customization of this sort will void any warranty or product support of a given OEM product. As it should be. You design a product to be used, deployed, and supported in a specific manner. Any deviation from that absolves the manufacturer from any liability for its mis-application or failure as a result.

This particular case gets into weenie-land because it centers around branding and brand integrity, as opposed to any functional performance concerns.

Kniferide wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:24 pmIf I bought 100 Ford F150's and put custom American flag wraps on them and jacked them up and put hillbilly tires and flag poles in the back on them and sold them for a profit, is that ok in the eyes of the law?

Might be okay with the law, but denizens of good taste would have a bone to pick.

Recurring theme of 2021: the free market is free until the market tells businesses something they don't like..

The Nike case is particularly extreme but I agree it sets a bad precedent.

DaveA wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:31 pm

Kniferide wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:24 pmIf I bought 100 Ford F150's and put custom American flag wraps on them and jacked them up and put hillbilly tires and flag poles in the back on them and sold them for a profit, is that ok in the eyes of the law?

Might be okay with the law, but denizens of good taste would have a bone to pick.

Typical LIB!

Kniferide wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:26 pm I found that Nike won this case

Did they? The article says there was a settlement, so I don't think a court actually sided with Nike.

People buy Nikes to customize and re-sell all the time it's a huge industry. Would Nike prefer customizers favored another brand idgi.

octoberallover wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:21 pm

Kniferide wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:26 pm I found that Nike won this case

Did they? The article says there was a settlement, so I don't think a court actually sided with Nike.

People buy Nikes to customize and re-sell all the time it's a huge industry. Would Nike prefer customizers favored another brand idgi.

yes.

Edited: to comply with possible NDA issues.

Kniferide wrote: I can't paint ding dongs on cars.

Quoting and sigging.

Kniferide wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:26 pm

octoberallover wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:21 pm

Kniferide wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:26 pm I found that Nike won this case

Did they? The article says there was a settlement, so I don't think a court actually sided with Nike.

People buy Nikes to customize and re-sell all the time it's a huge industry. Would Nike prefer customizers favored another brand idgi.

yes.

Edited: to comply with possible NDA issues.

It sounds like Nike legal successfully cowed Lil Nas X and MSCHF without having to convince a court that it can require customizes to obtain authorization before modifying and reselling its shoes. That’s asking for absurd limitations to be put on the first sale doctrine.

The copyright argument would be difficult to win, given that Nikes are fucking clothes, and it’s doubtful Nike was truly worried about damage to its brand in this instance. My guess is it doesn’t want hugely famous pop starts independently doing on a modest scale what could be done in collaboration with Nike on an enormous scale. Lil Nas X said his aim was to mock collab culture, which is probably what provoked them.