Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Titleist

14567810»

Comments

  • Sean2Sean2 #TheWRX (Callaway Trip) Members Posts: 30,826 ✭✭
    Wish they'd bring back the balata. I have never found a ball that feels better off the putter...just great.
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Rogue[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway GBB Epic 16º/20º/24º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Steelhead XR 25º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Apex CF16 6-AW [/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway MD3/MD-PM 54º/58º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway "O" Works #7[/font]
  • WWGWWG Hutch Members Posts: 34
    The price went up becuase Titleist is pulling a Ping and making it go up as of feb.1
  • StaffBagStaffBag Titleist is... and always will be... #1 Members Posts: 642 ✭✭
    bambooluv wrote on Feb 1 2008, 11:31 PM:
    StaffBag wrote on Feb 1 2008, 10:26 PM:
    bambooluv wrote on Feb 1 2008, 10:06 PM:
    Just noticed yesterday at my local golfsmith that the pice of the v1 went back up from 39.99 to 45.99.

    I got a few dozen as a gift so I traded them in for bridgestones.

    Pete






    This price "jump" has nothing to do with ANY pending, or other, court cases.... PERIOD!



    This thread is getting almost UNBELIEVABLE!!! image/wacko.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



    image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />






    So they just brought the price back up for no reason? I know it might not pertain to the court case but maybe because titleist didn't do so well last year,(just asking cause I don't know why they did this?) I know they are a manufacturer protected item so this is titleist's doing not the retailers, for anyone that didn't know. I used to work in the golfing industry for a stint and usually never see prices on balls go up.



    Pete





    I hope the v1 doesn't go away its a good ball for the industry. If titleist is found liable then I hope callaway will settle out of court with them.




    Nope! Titleist had a WONDERFUL year, at lest here in Minnesota!!



    The Suggested Retail Price for a dozen ProV1's is somewhere around what GG marked them up to. Probably they are trying to make a slight profit for them right now, instead of having them priced at a loss-leader. A manufacturer would not make a retail store charge a max for a product; however, there are many times when there is a MINIMUM ADVERTISED price that the strores have to charge. (Ping does this for clubs. If an account posts a price for some clubs below the minimum, the account can be CLOSED! ... As in stopped, ended, removed, lost, whatever you want to call it!)



    The price increase would be coming from Golf Galaxy, or what ever big box retailer we are talking about.



    The balls that seemed to have no sell-thru this past year (2007) was the Nike balls. It seemed that a bunch of accounts still had a large amount of inventory left over from them and the Titleist balls were selling through... twice... at, or near, the suggested retail price that is marked.



    Apparently GG decided to try to make some money back on some balls after the first of the year. (Remember, we did have a change from 2007 to 2008. A store can change thier prices for the new year on thier own.) Golf balls are hardly a true profit center for a retail operation, but you shouldn't have to price them at a loss forever just to get people inside the store.
  • 18th Legion18th Legion Members Posts: 1,102 ✭✭
    cyanid wrote on Jan 30 2008, 03:49 AM:
    I just heard that the Callaway ball tour iX Is delayed on the european market until 1st of june -08. Is it possible that it is somehow related to the topic discussed in this thread? Your guess is as good as mine image/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />




    No, Callaway actually abandoned the technology used in the Sullivan Patents prior to first release of the HX line. From David Dawsey's Golf-Patents.com:



    "I am not going to summarize the Brief in Support because a lot of the content focuses on issues that only attorneys are interested in, but I will point out a few interesting things that I learned while reading it. One statement in particular jumped out at me (although I don’t feel that it is particularly significant to the case… just interesting), was “If Spalding and Callaway truly believed that practicing the claims of the Sullivan patents was the reason the ProV1 was successful, one wonders why Spalding never chose to use this claimed technology in its products, and why Callaway has since abandoned it completely.” I did not realize that! Another interesting fact… “For the past 25 years, Titleist has been played by the majority of the professional players on the U.S. PGA Tour and more than all other golf balls combined.”



    I must admit, Acushnet’s Brief in Support is pretty darn good; but, when there is so much money at stake I wouldn’t expect anything less from either side. Can you imagine how much has been spent on legal fees so far?"



    Hey White Stripe, see above, in the opinion of David Dawsey "Acushnet's Brief in Support is pretty darn good;" and by the way it is spelled Spalding - not Spaulding.
    TaylorMade M4 D 10.5 Aldila Synergy
    Callaway Rogue 4 Fwy Aldila Synergy
    Callaway Rogue Heavenwood 21 Aldila Synergy
    Callaway Rogue Hybrids 4,5 Aldila Synergy
    Callaway CF16, 6-PW TT XP95
    Callaway X Forged 50-12 / 55-15 C grind / 60.9 C grind
    TaylorMade Rossa Maranello / Bettinardi BB34
    TaylorMade Burner TP LDP / TP5x
    Ogio Ozone / Edge / Nexos
  • trickyrictrickyric Members Posts: 106
    Titleist has not stolen or done anything with malice intent.

    as this section of a recent article states spalding abandoned these patent applications in 1995 and Titleist R&D came up with the same ideas on their own. the Patent office was not allowed to have it's reexaming used in court the first time but will in the appeal. Titleist will win this lawsuit.



    Article:



    The court case, which has been ongoing for almost two years and looks like it will continue for several more, has it roots back in 1995 in a golf-ball patent application filed by Spalding, a sporting goods company originally from Chicopee that was acquired by Callaway in 2003.



    That patent application was abandoned by Spalding, but the company filed a continuation of the application in 1997 and then a second continuation in 1999. This second continuation was granted a patent on April 3, 2001.



    Spalding went on to receive three more patents, all stemming from the original patent application in 1995, that were issued at three different dates in 2003. All four patents involved multi-layer golf balls, according to Callaway's initial complaint.



    Although the first of these patents was not granted until 2001, Spalding was able to claim a priority date back to 1995, when the initial application was filed.



    Acushnet Co. introduced the Titleist Pro V1, based on its own patents, at the PGA Tour's Invensys Classic on Oct. 12, 2000, several months before the first Spalding patent was issued.



    But some legal experts point out that having a patent is not always enough.



    "Having a patent is not a safe harbor," said Michael J. Meurer, a professor at Boston University School of Law who teaches patent law. "Even though I've got a patent on my technology, I still might be infringing."



    Mr. Meurer continued, "Most infringers of patents are not pirates. Most infringers have independently created the technology on their own."



    According to Mr. Nauman, Acushnet Co. developed the technology that led to the Pro V1 line of golf balls without any knowledge of the patent applications Spalding had pending. Until patents are issued, communications between the inventor and the patent office are normally private.



    One patent directly related to the Pro V1 was issued in 1999, before Spalding's 1999 application that led to a patent in 2001, Mr. Nauman said.



    According to Mr. Meurer, however, "Having a patent is never a source of defense."



    In the court case, Acushnet Co. had to prove, not that they had a patent on the technology they were using for the Pro V1 golf balls, but that the patents owned by Callaway were invalid, Mr. Nauman said.







    In trying to prove the claims of the patent invalid, Acushnet Co. was relying in part on an argument of "obviousness," which means that the advancements claimed in the patent would have been obvious to someone experienced in the field based on information — or "prior art" — that was already available, according to Mr. Nauman.



    Although Acushnet Co. recently settled a different patent infringement case with Bridgestone Sports, makers of a variety of golfing products, Mr. Nauman said the company has no intention of settling with Callaway because it strongly believes that the Callaway patents in question are invalid.
  • VolgolferVolgolfer Members Posts: 475 ✭✭
    My my, I've started quite a fuss. "May I clarify my statement Senator?"



    As I said, I have no qualms with Callaway using legal means to protect "their" patent. However, the remedy they seek seems to be excessive. As I understand it, not only do they want monies related to the ProV1 profits, but also a share of the profits from the rest of the Titleist line - claiming that Titleist made money on them purely because of ProV1 sales.



    Yes, take the money related to the alleged patent infringement - but that's where it should stop. If you agree with Callaway's greedy tactics, well then shame on you too.



    I'm sick of the legal system gouging for the sake of padding pockets and attorney fees....
    Srixon Z585 4 & 5
    Srixon Z 785 6 - P
    Mizuno T 56/58/60
    Cobra LTD 10.5
    Titleist 909 3w & 5w
    Taylormade Spider
    Snell MTB
  • petergfpetergf Members Posts: 85
    drpino wrote on Feb 2 2008, 01:38 PM:
    cyanid wrote on Jan 30 2008, 03:49 AM:
    I just heard that the Callaway ball tour iX Is delayed on the european market until 1st of june -08. Is it possible that it is somehow related to the topic discussed in this thread? Your guess is as good as mine image/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':partytime2:' />




    According to my rep (and delay confirmed on the Callaway website...which is painfully slow btw), the launch of the Tour i (not iX) is being delayed in the US until July. He claimed that since the HX Tour was and the new Tour iX is anticipated to be the bigger seller of the two, this was done in an effort to ensure no shortage of Tour iX balls for the start of the season.



    Smacks of irony considering they want to be the leader in golf balls but aren't prepared to keep up with supply at the moment.




    I tried the callaway ix today, bluntly, nothing flash and certainly no rival to the prov1

    cheers peter
  • WhiteStripeWhiteStripe Worldwide Golfer Members Posts: 133
    18th Legion wrote on Feb 3 2008, 12:13 AM:
    cyanid wrote on Jan 30 2008, 03:49 AM:
    I just heard that the Callaway ball tour iX Is delayed on the european market until 1st of june -08. Is it possible that it is somehow related to the topic discussed in this thread? Your guess is as good as mine image/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':partytime2:' />




    No, Callaway actually abandoned the technology used in the Sullivan Patents prior to first release of the HX line. From David Dawsey's Golf-Patents.com:



    "I am not going to summarize the Brief in Support because a lot of the content focuses on issues that only attorneys are interested in, but I will point out a few interesting things that I learned while reading it. One statement in particular jumped out at me (although I don’t feel that it is particularly significant to the case… just interesting), was “If Spalding and Callaway truly believed that practicing the claims of the Sullivan patents was the reason the ProV1 was successful, one wonders why Spalding never chose to use this claimed technology in its products, and why Callaway has since abandoned it completely.” I did not realize that! Another interesting fact… “For the past 25 years, Titleist has been played by the majority of the professional players on the U.S. PGA Tour and more than all other golf balls combined.”



    I must admit, Acushnet’s Brief in Support is pretty darn good; but, when there is so much money at stake I wouldn’t expect anything less from either side. Can you imagine how much has been spent on legal fees so far?"



    Hey White Stripe, see above, in the opinion of David Dawsey "Acushnet's Brief in Support is pretty darn good;" and by the way it is spelled Spalding - not Spaulding.




    Who are you? Dawsey's adopted son? Look, it's common sense, any lawyer with time to run a blog, while his heart might be in the right place, that's a lousy lawyer. Nothing personal, just reality. Good lawyer = $500/hr with more clients than time in a week. Mediocre blogger practically works for free. I think you are confused, Dawsey said the brief was good, not Tilteist was going to win.



    Let the big boys figure this out and the rest of us can keep on with the usual routine here - posting opinions.
  • StaffBagStaffBag Titleist is... and always will be... #1 Members Posts: 642 ✭✭
    Are we still fighting about this?!



    You've got to be kidding me!! Talk about beating a dead horse!!!





    It's gonna be in the courts for a while... Let's move on please!
14567810»
This discussion has been closed.