What might happen to the ProV???

madmaclivemadmaclive Members Posts: 503 ✭✭
Patent Infringement and observations....
Everyone should know by now that Callaway AND Bridgestone have been to court with Titleist (Acushnet) regarding supposed patent infringements regarding the ProV1. Callaway recently won their lawsuit and was said to have valid grounds against Acushnet in 8 of 9 points. Acushnet has been ordered to pay millions of dollars to Bridgestone, and probably will also have to forfeit a similar sum to Callaway. But the real problem for Acushnet and the future of the ProV1 is that Callaway has now brought that suit to have ProV1's stopped from being produced at the end of 2008 and that the Acushnet staff players not be allowed to play with that ball. Does anyone else see a problem with this?



According to Titleist the ProV1 was used to win 169 tournaments on the major worldwide tours last year, with its nearest competitor being at a mere 28 wins. And since its inception in 2000 the ProV family is purported to have won more than 1,000 professional tournaments worldwide. That is an extremely large disparity between the ProV1 and every other ball on the market. If Titleist balls win 6 times more tournaments a year than any other ball, is it any wonder why the other manufacturers are bringing suits against them?



If Callaway and Bridgestone produced such solid products and in fact created the technology used in the current ProV lineup, then why are they such a distant competitor? Why is it that Titleist wins the ball count at every major tournament around the world regardless of the age or status of the player? U.S. Junior, U.S. Amateur, NCAA Championships, British Amateur, and probably every other worldwide major amateur tournament you could think of Titleist dominates the ball count. These are the tournaments that really count in my mind because they show what the best players in the country and world are playing. The ones that aren't getting payed to play anything, but play the best balls and equipment that they can find. At these tournaments you're unlikely to find someone playing something other than a ProV1. I've been playing at a highly competitive level for the last 8 or 9 years, and for the vast majority of that time I can remember only a couple of other players, out of the thousands I've played with, that were playing a ball that didn't have Titleist stamped on it. Every college player I've played with in the past 5 years uses a Titleist. The better players at my country club play only Titleist balls. My dad said he hasn't found a non ProV at a tournament in years, and can't remember the last time he did. I personally have tried nearly every ball on the market, but I use a ProV1X and you would have to pay me a pretty decent amount of money to play something else.



So, if Titleist is simply taking the technology that someone else (Callaway and/or Bridgestone) invented, than why can't anyone compete with them? Callaway and Bridgestone should be able to release balls that are comparable to ProV's and that give them a run for their money, especially if they are the originators of the technology used to create what is viewed as the best golf ball made. Why hasn't Callaway came out with a ball that wears better, plays better, spins better, flies farther, than a ProV?



At the 2005 United States Grand Prix (Formula 1), the teams that had Michelin tires withdrew from the race after the formation lap because Michelin told them their tires were inferior and there could be a safety risk if they ran the race. Because of this only 6 of the 20 cars ran the race. If players are told they would not be allowed to use a ProV for the 2009 season, and Titleist was no longer allowed to produce them, could this sort of thing happen in golf? At this point it has to be a confidence issue. Players use the ProV because they are confident in it and have won or played well with it. I have absolutely no desire to play any other ball out there. I believe that the ProV1X is the best ball out there for me and I don't want to change (if in fact I would have to).





*****This is all hypothetical of course, if in fact these rulings came down and Titleist had to shut down production of the ProV.



The underlying question is: Why are there no other balls that compete with the ProV? Why can't Callaway make a better, more competitive ball? If they created it, why aren't they on top?



Just some questions that I think are interesting and I want to hear other peoples opinions.
«1

Comments

  • bloodredsunbloodredsun Charter Members Posts: 1,831
    First off, IANAL.


    But the real problem for Acushnet and the future of the ProV1 is that Callaway has now brought that suit to have ProV1's stopped from being produced at the end of 2008 and that the Acushnet staff players not be allowed to play with that ball. Does anyone else see a problem with this?




    Not really. It's not good for golfers who use ProV1's (and I include myself in that group) but Titleist have admitted infringing (yes I have read the court proceedings) so deserve to be punished. The burden was on Titleist to prove that the patents were invalid and that is something they failed to do in court (even if the USPTO have recently annouced an initial finding that one of these patents is invalid). They settled with Bridgestone so you can only imagine what infringement Tity had there too.


    then why are they such a distant competitor




    This is the whole crux of Callaways request that they stop making the ProV1. When Cally's ball came out, Titleist were the dominant ball manufacturer. Cally's Rule 35 ball began to make inroads into the Tour players balls. In Cally's view, Titleist stole their ideas to make a ball of equal quality to the Rule 35 and then used their dominant market position to make sure that no one else changed. People tend to stick with the brand they know and in this case, Titleist made sure that they retained their No 1 position.


    Why hasn't Callaway came out with a ball that wears better, plays better, spins better, flies farther, than a ProV?




    In Callys eyes, they did - it was the Rule 35. It's just that someone came along and copied the result of all their research and innovation to make a similar ball. Having spent millions (perhaps tens or hundreds of millions) on R and D and then to see your rival nicking the results


    If players are told they would not be allowed to use a ProV for the 2009 season, and Titleist was no longer allowed to produce them, could this sort of thing happen in golf




    Doubt it. The quality of other current balls - Srixon, TM, Nike, Bridgestone and Cally - means that now golfers have options whereas a few years ago they didn't.


    The underlying question is: Why are there no other balls that compete with the ProV? Why can't Callaway make a better, more competitive ball? If they created it, why aren't they on top?




    Again, Cally say that they did but then Titleist stole whatever advantage that they had (same as Maclaren and Ferrari to use an F1 analogy and that was a 50 million quid fine.). Because the Cally ball was only the same rather than noticeably better than the Tity one, players who were happy playing Tity balls were always going to stay Tity players. That the Tour players stayed meant that the up and comers stayed Tity and so would the top amateurs and so would joe golfer. This trickle down effect is what Cally are using in their justification for the injunctive relief. And to say that there are no equivalents in the market is very one-eyed. I would rate the ProV1x as one of the best balls around but I am equally happy with the NOP and Z-URS.



    Do I think Titleist are guilty and should be punished? Yes I do. They have been found guilty of patent infringement (and they broke an earlier 1996 agreement with Cally regarding patents) so should be penalised.



    Do I think that Cally are whiter than white? Nope. I believe that Cally's acquisition of the Sullivan patents stems from a later purchase (2003) rather than their own R&D so there are questions there.



    Would I agree with Injunctive Relief, i.e. no more ProV1? Yes, unfortunately for everybody concerned, I would.
  • madmaclivemadmaclive Members Posts: 503 ✭✭
    That could be the best response I've ever read to a post. Practically every real question I posed was answered. I understand where the argument is and that the "ball" is now in the courts hands (pun intended). Callaway also said they spent upwards of $150 Million to design, engineer, and produce the Rule 35 ball.

    I think you are very right in that Titleist should be punished on this, but I don't know about Injunctive Relief. On the other hand, I don't think any sort of punitive damages that Acushnet would have to pay Callaway would be the cure to the problem. Personally, even though my support lies with Titleist, is that there needs to be some sort of injunction.

    The problem with the suit is that Callaway is claiming rights to intellectual property, and that could be a major issue. The Sullivan patents will be called into question without a doubt. Considering that Michael Sullivan is now working for Acushnet could be a problem for Titleist as he is their director of intellectual property, but was vice president of golf ball R&D at Top-Flite and his patents were bought by Callaway when they acquired Top-Flite in 2003.

    The question now is whether there will be an injunction to Titleist and what Titleist will attempt to do to salvage what would be left of their golf ball business.
  • ej002ej002 Guests Posts: 5,129 ✭✭
    edited Jan 29, 2008 #4
    First off Titleist is fighting the legimacy of all the patents. So the fact that they infringed could become meaningless. That would be the best case for Titleist.



    Titleist is already found to have infringed. But honestly, courts will not give an injunction unless there is not legal remedy (meaning $$$) available. I am sure some sort of financial settlement or judgment will be made, if the Patents are upheld. My reasoning behind this is that Callaway could probably prove the % of technology utilized by Titleist in the ProV1.



    What Callaway (or anyone for that matter) cannot prove, is what would have happened if Titleist did not take the technology. Who knows, maybe Bridgestone or Nike would have became the new Titleist. Callaway has nothing but a bunch of "what if" arguments that will not go anywhere. But lets say a judge buys Callaway's "we lost market dominance because of the infringement" argument; I highly doubt that Callaway will be given an injunction for exaclty the reason that an earlier poster stated. They are not "whiter than white." To get an injuction the plaintiff (Callaway) has to come "with clean hands." That means they cannot be in the wrong when asking for one, and it appears that there is significant evidence that Callaway infringed on the Top Flight Patents in the first place, but lucked out by buying them 5 years later. So Callaway does not APPEAR to deserve an injunction, because they themselves infringed.



    But hey, new technology will need to accommodate the new groove rule when it is implemented anyway. So the dominant balls of today, including the Pro V1 will probably be obsolete by then. At least on tour.



    JMO
  • NPVWhizNPVWhiz Members Posts: 1,976 ✭✭
    Even if the court were to grant the injunction, everyone should keep in mind that the Callaway patents are in the process of being re-examined by the US Patent and Trademark Office.



    One of the five patents has already been found to be invalid.



    The other four apparently have significant issues, with non-final office actions issued that reject the claims.



    You can imagine that the negotiations between Callaway and Acushnet were very tense prior to Acushnet requesting re-examination.



    When Acushnet did this, they basically threw down the gauntlet.



    Part of the problem is that during the trial, the PTO found one of Callaway's patents invalid, but the jury ruled that at trial Acushnet hadn't persuaded the jury that the patents were invalid. So the jury let stand, for the purposes of the trial, a patent that had been ruled invalid by the Patent Office.



    Strange happenings, which makes for a very dicey situation.



    Two points: 1. Sometimes patents are awarded by the US PTO that shouldn't be awarded. It happens, and there is a mechanism to correct such problems; 2. A jury usually doesn't do a very good job at patent validity determinations, simply because they can be highly technical in nature.



    Acushnet changed the NXT Tour this year...the second layer of the ball is much thicker than the old ball.



    If you run into an infringment scenario, you invent around it. Simple as that. Titleist will come up with a ball that doesn't infringe if it needs to, and it's tough to believe that it won't be a good ball. Titleist has been the premier ball in golf since I was a small child....decades, because they've built a brand franchise, not because a better ball can't be made.
    Taylormade r11s 9 Penley Stealth 70x 44.5" D-3
    > Taylormade 16 M1 8.5 GD AD TP6x 44.0" D3 PX Hzrdus Black 75 6.0 44.5" D-3
    Nickent 3DX Pro 14 MRC Diamana WB 83s
    Hybrid: Adams Idea Pro 18 Grafalloy CNote ProtoX
    Mizuno MP62 DG x-100 Sensicore D-4 3-pw
    > Ping i200 DG120 S3 D-3 +1/4" Red 4-U.
    Vokey SM6 56-14/60-04M DG x-100 Sensicore 1xss D-5
    > Vokey SM6 56/10 60/4M DG 120 S300 35" D-5
    Scotty Golo
  • DRGJR72DRGJR72 Members Posts: 2,336
    edited Jan 29, 2008 #6
    Hypothetically if they are ordered to stop production of the ProV1, they will just come up with something better or with more buzz than the pro V1 that they will be forced to stop selling....It might actually help them, business wise. Maybe they will come out with the Prov3 or something, and then they will hype it like no tomorrow. I.E. After being forced to stop production of the ProV1 we then went to the R&D team here at Titleist, what they came up with is the best ball we have ever made, period.. (or something like that), then they get some tour use, press, etc. and it is a done deal.



    I don't see them losing much market share over this...just a blip on their business radar screen.



    Dan
    Driver: GBB Rogue Sub Zero
    3W: Callaway DBD
    Hybrid: Adams LSP
    Irons: Bridgestone J40 cb/TM P-790 on the way
    52, 56, 60 Fourteen
    Putter: Odyssey Highway 101 #7
  • bloodredsunbloodredsun Charter Members Posts: 1,831
    That supposes that they have something ready to come out as a replacement.



    If their pipeline of future versions of the ProV1 or other premium balls are all infringing, what are they going to do? If they are made to stop production and don't have an equally good non-infringing replacement they will lose millions of dollars. Unless they didn't think for one minute that the patents would be upheld, I can't imagine they wouldn't have a non-infringing ball available but their belief that the patents are invalid may be the reason that they were happy to go to court with Callaway, unlike their deal with Bridgestone.
  • BEND OF THE RIVER GCBEND OF THE RIVER GC Charter Members Posts: 6,559
    Titleist could spin this in their favor in a variety of ways. They could introduce a newer, and better ball. The V1/V1x lines at at the end of their shelf lives anyway.



    If they could prove that they have a newer and better ball, they could advertise that their competitor's (Callaway and B-Stone) are still clinging to "old technology"



    I would look for a new ball from Achushnet, sooner rahter than later.
    TM M1 Kurokage shaft
    TM RBZ 3 wood stock Ozik shaft
    TM R11 4 wood Fujikura Rombax 6X07
    TM RBZ with Oban Revenge shaft
    Ping G irons 4-UW
    Nike VR 56*
    Nike VR 60*
    Black Lab oil can 350g custom grind by Geo
    Ping 4 Under carry bag
  • scubusscubus Members Posts: 194 ✭✭
    BEND OF THE RIVER GC wrote on Jan 29 2008, 07:28 PM:
    Titleist could spin this in their favor in a variety of ways. They could introduce a newer, and better ball. The V1/V1x lines at at the end of their shelf lives anyway.



    If they could prove that they have a newer and better ball, they could advertise that their competitor's (Callaway and B-Stone) are still clinging to "old technology"



    I would look for a new ball from Achushnet, sooner rahter than later.


    As long as the new, better ball didn't include any of the infringing technology. If Acushnet felt the patents were invalid, why would they abandon the technology?



    I think it is a big assumption that there is a suitable replacement for the ProV series. There may be, but I kind of doubt it. Would Titleist be prepared to continue pouring what is probably millions into legal fees and continue to have their nose bloodied if they could just introduce the "New, Improved ProV2?"
  • TLUBulldogGolfTLUBulldogGolf Sasquatch Members Posts: 2,417 ✭✭
    As far as the reason why Titleist is so popular with the college players and amateurs is 1) Titleist is a sponsor of AJGA and when juniors play in these tournaments they all get Titleist golf balls, so they just grow up using them; and 2) Titleist has a very good relationship with college teams in that they offer clubs, balls etc. at greatly reduced prices from retail, which gives college players/coaches an incentive to order their stuff.



    As far as the injunction, I have a hard time seeing that happening, but I would expect some kind of replacement for the V1/V1x in the future assuming Titleist has some kind of replacement in the works with orginal technology.
    Titleist 917 D3 9.5* Kiyoshi Black 65-05
    Titleist 917 F3 15* VA Composite Drago 75-X
    Titleist 818 H2 19* Tensei White 100-TX
    Mizuno JPX 900 Tour 3-PW PX 6.5
    Titleist Vokey SM6 Jet Black 54* S Grind PX 6.5
    Titleist Vokey SM6 Jet Black 60* M Grind X100
    Odyssey Works #7 w/ SuperStroke Pistol GT
  • TNGolfer8TNGolfer8 Members Posts: 248 ✭✭
    I think you bring up some good points, and it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months. I have no allegiance to either ball, playing both with good results in the past. Here is something interesting, though-Only 4 of the top 10 players in the World play Titleist currently, with more play by Titleist in the 11-20 rankings.



    1. Tiger Woods- Nike

    2. Phil Mickelson- Callaway

    3. K.J. Choi- Nike

    4. Ernie Els- Callaway

    5. Adam Scott- Titleist

    6. Steve Stricker- Titleist

    7. Rory Sabbatini- Callaway (as of Jan. 2008) Previously with Nike

    8. Vijay Singh- Titleist

    9. Jim Furyk- Srixon

    10. Padraig Harington- Titleist

    11. Justin Rose- Taylor Made

    12. Trevor Immelman- Nike

    13. Luke Donald- Titleist

    14. Zach Johnson- Titleist

    15. Sergio Garcia- Taylor Made

    16. Angel Cabrera- Titleist

    17. Aaron Baddely- Titleist

    18. Geoff Ogivy- Titleist

    19. David Toms- Titleist

    20. Daniel Chopra- Titleist
    Driver-PIng G400 Max
    3W- Ping G400
    5W-Wishon 949mc
    25* Maltby Tour Hybrid
    5-GW- Maltby TE Forged
    SW- Ping Glide 2.0 56*
    LW- Ping Glide 2.0 60*
    Maltby Pure Track Tour Milled Blade Putter
    Ball- Snell MTB Black

    Also frequently used-
    Wishon 919 thi
    Maltby UFW 7W
  • bunana3bunana3 Members Posts: 594
    I do not think Titleist is going to loose much if any market share out of this ordeal because the average golfer will never even hear about the court battle. Out of the people that have heard of the court battle, half of the Titleist players wont switch anyway (like myself).
    Tour issue Aeroburner TP 10.5* Diamana D+ 70x
    SLDR 15* & 19* Diamana blueboard 83x
    Adams Red 20* Ozik x
    Macgregor Pro-C 4 Iron X100
    Macgregor Pro-M 5-PW X100
    Callaway Forged Copper 54 & 60*
    Scotty Cameron Classic black Newport 2 34"
  • jcjr34jcjr34 Members Posts: 370
    TNGolfer8 wrote on Jan 30 2008, 08:26 AM:
    1. Tiger Woods- Nike

    2. Phil Mickelson- Callaway

    3. K.J. Choi- Nike

    4. Ernie Els- Callaway

    5. Adam Scott- Titleist

    6. Steve Stricker- Titleist

    7. Rory Sabbatini- Callaway (as of Jan. 2008) Previously with Nike

    8. Vijay Singh- Titleist

    9. Jim Furyk- Srixon

    10. Padraig Harington- Titleist

    11. Justin Rose- Taylor Made

    12. Trevor Immelman- Nike

    13. Luke Donald- Titleist

    14. Zach Johnson- Titleist

    15. Sergio Garcia- Taylor Made

    16. Angel Cabrera- Titleist

    17. Aaron Baddely- Titleist

    18. Geoff Ogivy- Titleist

    19. David Toms- Titleist

    20. Daniel Chopra- Titleist




    Don't most of the players not playing Titleists (specifically at least 3 of the top 4 players) on the list have big $$$ contracts w/ those manufacturers though? Wonder what they'd be playing if they weren't getting paid to play those balls..
  • lizardohlizardoh Members Posts: 76
    I prefer the injunction relief. If there was a financial settlement, that will mean that the PV1 would sell for $60+ a dozen. Someone has to pay for all that and it ain't Acushnet...
  • TheCapedAvengerTheCapedAvenger Members Posts: 1,119 ✭✭
    yes. The only one on that list who isn't playing the ball of his club sponsor is rory, and thats because adams doesn't make a golf ball.



    looking at the top 10 as an indcator of quality is preposterous.
  • SpeedyProSpeedyPro Members Posts: 565
    madmaclive wrote on Jan 29 2008, 02:43 PM:
    So, if Titleist is simply taking the technology that someone else (Callaway and/or Bridgestone) invented, than why can't anyone compete with them? Callaway and Bridgestone should be able to release balls that are comparable to ProV's and that give them a run for their money, especially if they are the originators of the technology used to create what is viewed as the best golf ball made. Why hasn't Callaway came out with a ball that wears better, plays better, spins better, flies farther, than a ProV?


    You asked.


    If players are told they would not be allowed to use a ProV for the 2009 season, and Titleist was no longer allowed to produce them, could this sort of thing happen in golf? At this point it has to be a confidence issue.


    You answered.



    I hit no farther nor straighter with Pro V1, but I play best with them because I'm confident on my putting with Pro V1's hardness and weight.



    And no matter what's the reason behind the lawsuit, if Acushnet did something illegal, they should be punished.
  • 1day2day1day2day Members Posts: 148
    Stuff what the amateurs are using...... you want a real idea of what really works, go and watch the guys on the mini tours play, see what they are buying themselves and trying to win enough $$ to pay the bills.

    Again its PRO V
  • press007press007 Members Posts: 334
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<So, if Titleist is simply taking the technology that someone else (Callaway and/or Bridgestone) invented, than why can't anyone compete with them? Callaway and Bridgestone should be able to release balls that are comparable to ProV's and that give them a run for their money,

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



    Short answer: This is not China, we have patents that protect inventors.



    As far as I`m concerned if its determind Titleist has done what is charged, they can put them out of business, I dont care, there will be 5 that replace them. And yes I played Pro V`s and have a set of Titleist 755`s. I dont owe my game to either so again I dont care.
  • Veritas Veritas Members Posts: 629
    Marketing is a powerful tool. I am not saying the ProV1 is not a good golf ball, but if you take a good golf ball and put good marketing behind it you end up with the ProV1's following. There are so many psychological effects at play here it's not funny. I find this especially true when any golf ball test I have seen has not shown the ProV1 to be a huge standout over any of the other premium balls. Even Titleist has said during the court proceedings that the success of the ProV1 is due to the marketing and not the performance of the ball.
  • lotbean21lotbean21 Members Posts: 259 ✭✭
    The main reason for Titleist's balls domination is due to marketing, like TaylorMade with their drivers.

    Don't get me wrong Titleist do make good golf balls, however they pay out much more in ball contracts to Tour players and they are very generous with young pros and good amateur players.

    For example:At regional tournament qualifying events you will find a Titleist rep offering a dozen balls on the first tee. Once accepted you are then added to the Titleist ball count. Obviously no struggling pro or good amateur is going to turn down free balls. You won't find other ball companies at these events.

    Titleist have a virtual monopoly on the golf ball market making it very difficult for competitors to erode Titleists market share.

    Other companies make similar performing balls to Titleist, some may argue even better performing balls.

    It will take a huge amount of money for any other ball company to seriously compete with Titleist, but ultimately it is all down to having a good product and limitless marketing.
  • ej002ej002 Guests Posts: 5,129 ✭✭
    edited Jan 30, 2008 #21
    TheCapedAvenger wrote on Jan 30 2008, 01&#58;25 PM:
    yes. The only one on that list who isn't playing the ball of his club sponsor is rory, and thats because adams doesn't make a golf ball.



    looking at the top 10 as an indcator of quality is preposterous.




    1. Tiger Woods- Nike

    2. Phil Mickelson- Callaway

    3. K.J. Choi- Nike

    4. Ernie Els- Callaway

    5. Adam Scott- Titleist

    6. Steve Stricker- Titleist

    7. Rory Sabbatini- Callaway (as of Jan. 2008) Previously with Nike

    8. Vijay Singh- Titleist

    9. Jim Furyk- Srixon

    10. Padraig Harington- Titleist

    11. Justin Rose- Taylor Made

    12. Trevor Immelman- Nike

    13. Luke Donald- Titleist

    14. Zach Johnson- Titleist

    15. Sergio Garcia- Taylor Made

    16. Angel Cabrera- Titleist

    17. Aaron Baddely- Titleist

    18. Geoff Ogivy- Titleist

    19. David Toms- Titleist

    20. Daniel Chopra- Titleist



    Okay, wait a minute. VJ plays Cleveland, Luke plays Mizuno, Cabrera PING, Baddely Adams now. They dont have balls and could pick any other ball they want to. BUT they all choose to play Titleist. So that is 4-1. Everyone else is with their contract.



    So of the top 20, who dont get paid to play the ball of their club contracts, 4 out of 5 prefer Titleist. That is about % Titleist dominates over Callaway. And I think that is an excellent indication of quality. These guys are playing for Millions of dollars, they are going to play the best thing they can. JMO
  • lotbean21lotbean21 Members Posts: 259 ✭✭
    edited Jan 30, 2008 #22
    ej002 wrote on Jan 30 2008, 07&#58;45 PM:
    TheCapedAvenger wrote on Jan 30 2008, 01&#58;25 PM:
    yes. The only one on that list who isn't playing the ball of his club sponsor is rory, and thats because adams doesn't make a golf ball.



    looking at the top 10 as an indcator of quality is preposterous.




    1. Tiger Woods- Nike

    2. Phil Mickelson- Callaway

    3. K.J. Choi- Nike

    4. Ernie Els- Callaway

    5. Adam Scott- Titleist

    6. Steve Stricker- Titleist

    7. Rory Sabbatini- Callaway (as of Jan. 2008) Previously with Nike

    8. Vijay Singh- Titleist

    9. Jim Furyk- Srixon

    10. Padraig Harington- Titleist

    11. Justin Rose- Taylor Made

    12. Trevor Immelman- Nike

    13. Luke Donald- Titleist

    14. Zach Johnson- Titleist

    15. Sergio Garcia- Taylor Made

    16. Angel Cabrera- Titleist

    17. Aaron Baddely- Titleist

    18. Geoff Ogivy- Titleist

    19. David Toms- Titleist

    20. Daniel Chopra- Titleist



    Okay, wait a minute. VJ plays Cleveland, Luke plays Mizuno, Cabrera PING, Baddely Adams now. They dont have balls and could pick any other ball they want to. BUT they all choose to play Titleist. So that is 4-1. Everyone else is with their contract.



    So of the top 20, who dont get paid to play the ball of their club contracts, 4 out of 5 prefer Titleist. That is about % Titleist dominates over Callaway. And I think that is an excellent indication of quality. These guys are playing for Millions of dollars, they are going to play the best thing they can. JMO






    I agree to an extent but VJ, Donald, Cabrera and Baddely have extremely generous Ball contracts with Titleist in addition to their respective club contracts.

    Call me cynical but I'm sure if Bridgestone, Nike or Callaway offered them a better contract just for playing their respective ball those pros would jump ship in a heartbeat. I imagine trying to buyout VJ's Titleist ball contract would be prohibitively expensive. However with Srixon taking over Cleveland, I wouldn't be surprised if VJ starts using a Srixon ball in the near future.
  • WWGWWG Hutch Members Posts: 34
    It is simple, Titleist has always had the biggest staff budget, not to mention they basicaly give balls away to any good young player, 3 of my employees are on high school teams and they get all the free titleist balls they want. When you see titleist by a players name that means they are paid to play it. I hope they go down and go down hard. Anyone who was in the business back when the pro v first came out knew they had to have copied other balls. For months tity was saying no we don't need a solid core multi layer ball like nike, precept, strata, callaway, then there tour staff gets ticked and low and behold we had titleist prototype version one on the market. They think they are so great. Now they think they are ping and can tell me what to sell there ball for. 45.99 a dozen when we have been 38.99 for years. I hope they go down.
  • vaca22vaca22 Commander In Beef Members Posts: 673 ✭✭
    edited Jan 30, 2008 #24
    rdbivyleagun and lotbean21 make excellent points.



    Titliest already had a solid following prior to the release of the Pro V1. If you read the redacted brief filed by Callaway, you can see that after the Rule 35 ball was released (this is from a chart that was provided in the brief) Callaway was selling a lot more balls than Titleist in 2000. Players were disappointed with the performance of the wound ball which was the best offering that Titleist had at the time and threatened to leave the company, or at least voiced their displeasure. With the introduction of the so-called "infringing Pro V1", Titleist was able to retain many of those players who would have otherwise left to use a different ball.



    Furthermore, Titleist capitalized on this by creating the "Titleist Exclusive Pro Shop." Under this particular program, Titleist (or Acushnet more specifically) offered golf pro shops additional incentives if they agreed to sell only Titleist and Pinnacle branded golf balls. Callaway is arguing that prior to this, they were able to sell their golf balls to these pro shops that had not been contacted (if that's the right word) by Acushnet. This netted Acushnet many exclusive relationships, and subsequently enabled Acushment to effectively snuff out the competition (ALL competition).



    I personally started playing the Pro V1 simply because everyone else was and everyone claimed it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm sure I wasn't the only one, and that's where the power of effective marketing comes into play. Am I saying the Pro V1 is a bad ball? Not at all. All I'm saying is that the power of effective marketing and branding is incredibly influential.
  • ej002ej002 Guests Posts: 5,129 ✭✭
    edited Jan 30, 2008 #25
    Good points. But I personally dont buy into the theory that the V1's success is based solely on titleist brainwashing or cornered the market. I played a bunch of the balls named, but not the Srixon. I think all are good balls, but the V1 gives me noticeably more distance off the tee. (I am talking like 10-15yds). I dont know why, I just it is true for ME. I think the Nike One ( not sure if it is black or platinum) is a distant second. Maybe I need to experiment more.



    But I agree to an extent that Titleist does do a better job of marketing and may ride its name recognition. I am really not being biased here. In highschool I was an outcast for playing Callaway Rule 35, while my teamates were "cool" because they played a professional. I was not dumb, I played the longest ball with the most spin I could find.



    Who Knows?



    Does anyone agree with me though that there will be a new "ball revolution" due to the new groove rule? I think at the minimum players will have to use something that spins at least as much as a V1 or a 330s.
  • MicahMicah Members Posts: 69
    edited Mar 5, 2008 #26
    Didn't mean to bring this thread back from the dead, but this is what was said by a Supreme Court Justice.



    In that case, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the Supreme Court said that if an individual or a company takes two known elements in a given field and combines them to create a new element, that new element is not necessarily patentable: "The results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the opinion of the court.







    If this is the case then Callaway doesn't have a leg to stand on. Besides they are just bringing up old patents that Spalding brought to Titliest asking about the patent but ended up dropping it because a patent is not a safe harbor. Titleist received their patent before Spalding even though Spalding applied first. Titleist also released the ProV1 before Spalding. Another thing is a patent is not a defense. So basically Callaway is bringing up old patents that they purchased from Spalding. Spalding obviously saw that they had no case. Callaway is going to end up getting overruled because of the Supreme Court Justices comments under patent laws.



    Obviously they broke patent laws against Bridgestone because they had to pay. Basically Callaway was trying to extort money from Titleist.
  • sidewindersidewinder Members Posts: 1,260
    You have no idea whether or not Callaway has a leg to stand on! The phrases "not necessarily patentable" and "not patentable" are not the same. Nor do you know if what Callaway has patented is "ordinary innovation". The Courts will decide if the Callaway case has merit, not some hack with a bag full of Titleist gear....



    Scott
  • MicahMicah Members Posts: 69
    edited Mar 5, 2008 #28
    sidewinder wrote on Mar 5 2008, 04&#58;11 PM:
    You have no idea whether or not Callaway has a leg to stand on! The phrases "not necessarily patentable" and "not patentable" are not the same. Nor do you know if what Callaway has patented is "ordinary innovation". The Courts will decide if the Callaway case has merit, not some hack with a bag full of Titleist gear....



    Scott




    You are wrong when a Supreme Court Justice makes a statement like that it usually sticks. In this case the judge will probably overturn the jury verdict. Again I didn't see any posts in this thread that stated the whole issue. This goes back to when Spalding was a company. It has nothing to do with recent patents. It has to do with patents from 95 to 99. Spalding applied for the patent in 95 but did not recieve their patent until later in 2001. Titleist placed theirs in 99 and received their patent before Spalding, they also introduced the ProV1 in 2000 on the tour. Spalding went to Titleist and questioned this but after talks with Titleist they dropped the issue because obviously they had no case. If so they would still be in business with help from a settlement from Titleist. Again Callaway is bringing up old news that was settled 8 years ago. I know what I'm talking about I actually did some research on the topic.



    Like I said, I'm sure they stole some info from Bridgestone or broke patent laws against them but from my research Callaway is just looking for a hand out.



    Thanks

    Micah
  • imsocrabbyimsocrabby inflammatory. in all the right places. Members Posts: 3,351
    with regards to Titleist dominating ball use amongst pro's based on the pay for play scenario....the same can be said for Taylor Made's driver use.





    if you pay...i will play seems to be THE common denominator.









    i will never play a callaway ball. not even a free one.
  • sidewindersidewinder Members Posts: 1,260
    Micah,



    Nothing I said was incorrect.



    1. You have no idea whether or not Callaway has a leg to stand on.



    2. The phrases "not necessarily patentable" and "not patentable" are not the same.



    3. You don't know if what Callaway has patented is "ordinary innovation".



    4. The Courts will decide if the Callaway case has merit, not some hack with a bag full of Titleist gear.



    Not one of those statements is wrong. The result of the proceedings may favor Titleist. But what you suppose and imagine is irrelevant.



    Unless you have intimate knowledge of all aspects of the case, you are just guessing. The fact that the case is still alive shows that there is no easy answer here.



    By the way, reading an article in a newspaper does not make you an expert or constitute "research":



    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.d...60309/-1/NEWS01



    Scott
  • PINGRebelPINGRebel Members Posts: 409 ✭✭
    I know it is long, but read!





    February 20, 2008 Dear Valued Customer: As you may know, we are currently involved in a patent dispute with Callaway Golf involving our Pro V1 golf ball family. We know that there is a lot of speculation and misinformation in the marketplace about this law suit, and I wanted to reach out to you directly to be sure that you had the facts and to share some new information. First and foremost, I want to assure you that it is business as usual, and you can continue to order, sell and play Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls with confidence. This dispute relates to patents that were issued by the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office after the Pro V1 came into the market and became the best-selling ball in golf. At Acushnet’s request, in early 2007 the Patent Office re-examined these patents and issued initial decisions finding that all claims of all four patents were invalid. Over the last 90 days, the Patent Office issued second decisions on each of the four patents and again determined all claims of all four patents invalid. The last three second Patent Office decisions were issued after the jury trial ended on December 14, 2007. In this process, four separate patent examiners have reached the same conclusion – that it was a mistake to issue these patents in the first place. Unfortunately, this pivotal information was not allowed as evidence at the trial in which the jury rendered an inconsistent and unsupportable verdict. As a result, Acushnet has asked the Court to come to the same conclusion as did the Patent Office and determine that all claims of all four patents are invalid, thereby reversing the jury verdict. Second, I want to assure you that we will vigorously oppose Callaway’s request for an injunction against the sale of the Pro V1. Acushnet’s opposition will include the inconsistency of the jury verdict, the recent decisions from the Patent Office and Callaway’s long delay in filing the law suit. These matters will take the court some time to decide. We are confident in our positions and believe that they are correct. However, regardless of what the Court decides, these matters will likely be appealed to a higher court, resulting in final decisions not being made until well into the future. I can also tell you that we are well along in the development of the next generation of the Pro V1 family, which is slated for introduction in early 2009. This is consistent with the two-year cycle for introducing new and improved product that we have maintained for the Pro V1 since its inception in 2001. These golf balls will continue to be based on Acushnet technology, including 70 of our own patents, and will be outside the claims of the Callaway patents involved in the law suit. I hope that this gives you a better understanding of the situation and reaffirms the confidence and steadfast support that you have maintained for our brand through the years. At Titleist, we dedicate ourselves to earning your trust and that of your customers every day. It is a commitment to excellence that began with the first Titleist golf ball over 70 years ago, and remains as purposeful today. We look forward to supplying you with the highest performance and best quality golf balls for years to come. Thank you for your continued support,titleist <http://www.titleist.com/images/enews/wrusigsmall.jpg>; Wally UihleinChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAcushnet Company
    Ping G400 Max
    Ping G Hybrid #2
    Ping G Hybrid #3
    Ping i200 Irons 4-W
    Ping Glide Forged 50, 56, 60
    Ping 303 Milled Anser 2
Sign In or Register to comment.