What might happen to the ProV???

2»

Comments

  • sidewindersidewinder Members Posts: 1,260
    wesmangolfer,



    That's a nice letter but it means nothing. What else would you expect them to say? Callaway is equally optimistic.....



    Scott
  • gjones77gjones77 Members Posts: 934
    Actually on Feb 29th the Patent Office came back after a review of the patents and basically said all of the patents that Callaway was using in this case were outdated and non-enforceable after they said 1 of the two was still valid, they are now saying both are invalid.



    This will just get drawn out in court for a few more years, but from what it looks like Callaway is going to lose this one.
  • PMantlePMantle Members Posts: 216 ✭✭
    sidewinder wrote on Mar 5 2008, 03:40 PM:
    4. The Courts will decide if the Callaway case has merit, not some hack with a bag full of Titleist gear.




    Was this called for?
  • laseranimallaseranimal Ball Striking Machine Members Posts: 1,163
    edited Mar 5, 2008 #35
    I don't think the fact that player x is getting paid by company y to use their ball makes any difference at all in the minds of Joe Sixpack, he only cares what player x is playing, not who's paying them. If it did then there'd be no sense at all in paying players to use anything because the product would stand on its own merits. Granted nobody would play something that sucks, but to say tour use doesn't drive the weekend market then all the money spent on paying pro golfers is a REALLY dumb investment by these companies.



    Face it, if the Pro V1 wasn't being marketed to golfers people would cease to play them



    How many people are playing MacGregor, Wilson, or Hogan today?



    If Nike/Callaway/Srixon/Taylormade make a better ball then Titleist and get it into the hands of more players, they will have the perception that they have a "better" ball



    Thats all this really is, people will stick to what they feel comfortable with



    for years now thats been Titleist, we'll see if that changes or not
  • sidewindersidewinder Members Posts: 1,260
    PMantle,



    It certainly was superfluous....



    We're all hacks to some extent......unless we are on some Tour making a living playing golf.



    Scott
  • imsocrabbyimsocrabby inflammatory. in all the right places. Members Posts: 3,351
    sorry but sheeple do pay attention to advertising and who's using what.



    if that weren't the case, why would any company pay for endorsements? they spend money to make money. they pay tiger woods to use his name and likeness on 'stuff'....and people buy it.



    would the number of NIKE irons sold be the same if David Duval was their main draw?
  • sigmamasonsigmamason SigmaMason ClubWRX Posts: 451 ✭✭
    jcjr34 wrote on Jan 30 2008, 08:54 AM:
    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..




    Same could be said of those that are playing the Titleist ball and under contract to play other equipment.

    People forget that Titleist gives out ball contracts to a LOT of pros. Similar to tm and their driver deals...
  • scubusscubus Members Posts: 194 ✭✭
    Micah wrote on Mar 5 2008, 03:18 PM:
    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.


    I think you are reading and applying the opinion incorrectly, and I'm not certain your history is correct.
  • gjones77gjones77 Members Posts: 934
    Here we go, the update I was looking for.



    http://www.golfdigest.com/equipment/2008/03/bombgouge

    ( Go to bottom of page, but I pasted it below)


    PRO V1 DISPUTE NOT OVER



    Equipment companies wrangle over patent issues all the time, but rarely do they become big news. The exception is when the most popular ball in golf -- the Titleist Pro V1 -- is found to violate another company's patents.



    Nearly two years ago, Callaway Golf sued Acushnet (parent of Titleist) in U.S. District Court in Delaware, claiming the company's Pro V1 infringed on its patented golf-ball technology (patents that Callaway acquired when it purchased Top-Flite in 2003). In December, a jury found in favor of Callaway. Now the company wants monetary damages and an injunction against sales of the Pro V1. The case is intriguing not just because it went to trial and ball category leader Titleist lost. The court's ruling contradicts U.S. Patent and Trademark Office actions, which initially found the disputed patents invalid and during an ongoing review again has found one patent invalid. That process could nullify Callaway's victory.



    "I'm sure there's a constitutional law professor scratching his head wondering how this will play out," says David Dawsey, a patent attorney in Columbus, Ohio, and founder of the website golf-patents.com. "Both sides know the risks. It wouldn't surprise me if Callaway discounted what it perceives to be its value in this case by 50 percent [settles the case], knowing the patents could be declared invalid. Acushnet knows it faces the potential for a huge damage award. But there's really no predicting it."



    The story above also appeared in the March issue of Golf Digest. The following update was added on Feb. 29, 2008.



    Update (2/29/08): The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially found four disputed patents invalid and, in a second review, found one of the patents invalid. The USPTO has now concluded its second review and has found -- as it did in its initial review -- all four patents to be invalid.



    The significance of the USPTO's second review is that although the four patents were initially found to be invalid, this information was not permitted to be introduced to the jury at trial. According to Joe Nauman, Acushnet's executive VP, corporate and legal, the upholding of the invalidity of the four patents may now be taken into consideration by the court going forward.



    Both Callaway and Acushnet have the opportunity to respond to the USPTO's second office actions, a process that should be completed sometime this Spring. Those responses are another in a lengthy line of legal proceedings that may drag this case out for some time.
  • XiphosXiphos Members Posts: 185
    DRGJR72 wrote on Jan 29 2008, 07:02 PM:
    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




    I agree. Titleist has the market share they have in golf balls because of the green grass operation they have in place. It is second to none. Go to any golf course, no matter how dumpy and small and you will find Titleist products there. It may hurt them in the short term, but their long term business plan is better.
    Driver: HiBore XL 8.5 w/x-stiff
    Fairway: Taylor Made RBZ 3-wood w/x-stiff
    Irons: Henry Griffiths OS-1 w/TS 85
    Wedges: Srixon WG-706
    Ball: Not sure?!?!?!!
  • MicahMicah Members Posts: 69
    scubus wrote on Mar 5 2008, 08:08 PM:
    Micah wrote on Mar 5 2008, 03:18 PM:
    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.


    I think you are reading and applying the opinion incorrectly, and I'm not certain your history is correct.








    This was from an article explaining where the suit was stemming from. It stems from the purchase of Spalding and the patents that Spalding applied for which is now in Callaway's hands.



    It is going to end up going all the way to the high courts which from what I have seen will side with Titleist but before it gets there it looks like they will have a new ProV1 that will not be in question.
  • gjones77gjones77 Members Posts: 934
    Ahhh... didn't you guys read my post, the Patent Office said the patents were invalid...
Sign In or Register to comment.