Course Content
Watch
Watch the video, read the scripts (optional)...
0/2
Discuss
Think about the [Question] and refer the [Comment], and discuss with your family and friends.
0/2
The Sneaker Crime Conundrum
About Lesson
@sherisanand7875:
It depends because if Kings has a patent on the shoe or not
@user-tv8fc8wh4j:
Not related but King could try to buy ACE or destroy it because it is smaller. Plus, if the new shoes just have King logos crossed out, who would want to buy ACE anymore?
@alex140666:
No crime. He gave them exactly what he promised (rings that ware changed by magic) and audience volunteered their rings to make it happen by raising their hands.
@ChatGPT:

CRIME:
The Ace shoe company crossed ethical boundaries by remixing and selling customized versions of shoes from the popular brand King, particularly when they began incorporating King shoes with the logo crossed out. This approach not only infringes on intellectual property rights but also deceives consumers who may believe they are purchasing a unique Ace product. The blatant use of King shoes with altered logos suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers and capitalize on the reputation of the established brand. Such actions can be considered a “CRIME” against fair competition and intellectual property rights.

NO CRIME:
The Ace shoe company might argue that their remixing of King shoes falls within the realm of artistic expression and creativity, contributing to the fashion industry’s culture of reinterpretation. They may assert that their intention is not to deceive but to offer a unique and transformative perspective on existing designs. From this viewpoint, Ace’s actions could be seen as pushing the boundaries of fashion innovation rather than engaging in criminal behavior. However, opinions may differ on whether this creative approach crosses ethical lines, as some might argue that the incorporation of King shoes with altered logos goes beyond acceptable industry practices.