Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Titleist

[sapguy]

[quote name='wildwilly911' post='876256' date='Jan 22 2008, 08:55 AM']the only people that lose are the people that buy there equipment because the cost for you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you,
the corporate world is one big vicious CIRCLE JERK[/quote]

A box of Pro V1 already costs more than most of the other premium balls, but I will not at all be surprised to see Pro V1 go up in price even more, first due to the "misleading" concept that there will be a shortage for the balls because Titleist will be enjoined by the court from making the ball, but second (and this may be the real reason) because Titleist will try to milk this cow for all it's worth for surrendering to Callaway.

I am so glad to have gotten off the Pro V1 early last year

[TRB151]

I still believe that a ruling of a permanent injuction like the one that Callaway is proposing will take 10-15 years at minimum to decide and I highly doubt they will get a temporary injuction during the trial to stop the production of the ProV1.

That being said Titleist will introduce a new or different variant of the ProV1 (4 piece technology or more) and their marketing capability will keep the the #1 ball in golf.

The one thing that does intrigue me though is the comment about Phil Mickelson testifying about something in court. Can anyone elaborate on this?

[psygolf]

[quote name='TRB151' post='876385' date='Jan 22 2008, 11:23 AM']I still believe that a ruling of a permanent injuction like the one that Callaway is proposing will take 10-15 years at minimum to decide and I highly doubt they will get a temporary injuction during the trial to stop the production of the ProV1.

That being said Titleist will introduce a new or different variant of the ProV1 (4 piece technology or more) and their marketing capability will keep the the #1 ball in golf.

The one thing that does intrigue me though is the comment about Phil Mickelson testifying about something in court. Can anyone elaborate on this?[/quote]
A new 4 piece ball ...whose patent are they eyeing now!?

[ChrisM84]

The same patents that all the other OEM's are having a little peek at.

This is big business. They all do it.

[TRB151]

[quote name='psygolf' post='876395' date='Jan 22 2008, 10:34 AM'][quote name='TRB151' post='876385' date='Jan 22 2008, 11:23 AM']I still believe that a ruling of a permanent injuction like the one that Callaway is proposing will take 10-15 years at minimum to decide and I highly doubt they will get a temporary injuction during the trial to stop the production of the ProV1.

That being said Titleist will introduce a new or different variant of the ProV1 (4 piece technology or more) and their marketing capability will keep the the #1 ball in golf.

The one thing that does intrigue me though is the comment about Phil Mickelson testifying about something in court. Can anyone elaborate on this?[/quote]
A new 4 piece ball ...whose patent are they eyeing now!?
[/quote]

That does lead me to a an interesting question. How can they patent a technology like the # of pieces a ball has on it? or is this more specific to the type of material that was used to make the ball?

[sapguy]

[quote name='TRB151' post='876385' date='Jan 22 2008, 10:23 AM']I still believe that a ruling of a permanent injuction like the one that Callaway is proposing will take 10-15 years at minimum to decide and I highly doubt they will get a temporary injuction during the trial to stop the production of the ProV1.

That being said Titleist will introduce a new or different variant of the ProV1 (4 piece technology or more) and their marketing capability will keep the the #1 ball in golf.

The one thing that does intrigue me though is the comment about Phil Mickelson testifying about something in court. Can anyone elaborate on this?[/quote]

I am not a lawyer, so this is my layman opinion, but the courts have granted emergency temporary or even permanent injunctions before, especially if "skillful" lawyers are pressing the case

We live in the USA, where you can have the best legal representation that money can buy

A perusal of the case showed that Callaway is represented by Fish & Richardson, reputedly "the #1 firm in patents litigation" according to IP Law & Business (sorta the Darrell Survey for IP lawyers) and it was ranked the law firm with the Best Intellectual Property Practice in the 2007 edition of The Vault Guide to the Top 100 Law Firms.

Acushnet, on the other hand, is represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon, no slouch firm but they are more of a general practice firm with a strong IP team. So looks like a case of "my lawyer is better than your lawyer" in the current Callaway victory (so far)

Regarding Phil Mickelson's [url="http://golf-patents.com/2007/12/10/the-golf-patent-infringement-trial-of-the-year-callaway-golf-v-acushnet-apparently-phil-mickelson-isnt-concerned-with-burning-bridges.aspx"]role[/url], he basically testified on rebuttal that he threatened to terminate his contract with Titleist unless Acushnet comes up with a better ball to compete with the Rule 35 ball pronto, and that was what caused Titleist to take some short cuts which now turned out to be quite costly

Phil Mick himself is an inventor and a holder of a golf [url="http://golf-patents.com/2008/01/14/which-top-5-golfer-is-an-inventor-on-a-golf-club-patent-and-who-owns-the-patent.aspx"]patent[/url] on decorations on the back of irons, and the Phil's patent was ironically assigned to Titleist - who'd thunk

[scubus]

[quote name='TRB151' post='876436' date='Jan 22 2008, 11:17 AM'][quote name='psygolf' post='876395' date='Jan 22 2008, 10:34 AM'][quote name='TRB151' post='876385' date='Jan 22 2008, 11:23 AM']I still believe that a ruling of a permanent injuction like the one that Callaway is proposing will take 10-15 years at minimum to decide and I highly doubt they will get a temporary injuction during the trial to stop the production of the ProV1.

That being said Titleist will introduce a new or different variant of the ProV1 (4 piece technology or more) and their marketing capability will keep the the #1 ball in golf.

The one thing that does intrigue me though is the comment about Phil Mickelson testifying about something in court. Can anyone elaborate on this?[/quote]
A new 4 piece ball ...whose patent are they eyeing now!?
[/quote]

That does lead me to a an interesting question. How can they patent a technology like the # of pieces a ball has on it? or is this more specific to the type of material that was used to make the ball?


[/quote]


My understanding is that it they aren't patents on the number of layers, but how those layers react and part of that is what the layers are composed of and the layer widths.

[drpino]

[quote name='505' post='876174' date='Jan 22 2008, 04:07 AM']Pretty crazy stuff, and I can't say that I fully understand what is going on, so please correct me if I am wrong here anyone.

As far as I can piece things together, this is the gist of it all:

... At some point along the way, Bridgestone also sued Titleist for infringing on ball patents, and also won. Jury ruled that Titleist share profits from PROV1 sales with Bridgestone. If the new jury rules for Callaway, they are basically screwing over the previous ruling for Bridgestone.

Again correct me if I am wrong or left anything noteworthy out.

In the end they all look like a bunch of d-bags in my opinion. Callaway stole the Sullivan patents, and are now 8 years later suing for the exact same crap that they pulled. Because of that hypocrisy I will never, ever, buy another Callaway product. On the other hand, Titleist is looking pretty shady as well. This is unfortunate for everyone involved, including us golfers.[/quote]

One minor correction:
Bridgestone settled out of court with Acushnet which resulted in a licensing deal (no finding of guilt in settlement). There is still pending litigation between BStone and Acushnet in Japan.

I agree that they all look like a bunch of d-bags rife with hypocrisy. The consumer gets the worst of it in inflated prices unfortunately

[Hifade]

If you know anything about patent law.....this post quoted below could not be any truer. Well said! Just to add, "stealing" is way to offensive and proactive of a word describing this judgement. I'm sure Titleist didn't have spies peering thru the windows at the R&D facitility at Callaway waiting to capture and steal that one written innovation, to use in the production of the ProV, that would keep them on top of the golf ball world. Arguing and defending patent claims is a monumental task where interpretation can play a roll. Developments in many fields happen, simultaneously, all over the world that can be argued and interpreted to infrindge on others that are "similar." The point is, there is a tremendous amount of "grey area" whan it comes to patent claims. Filing a patent means casting the broadest claims net possible and being told which are allowed and which need to be narrowed. Believe me, it's a very lengthy process and also why it's so expensive. In my opinion, patents are flied and issued to protect you from infringing on anyone elses while also laying your stake to tour intellectual propert rights.

This one is interesting, to say the least.



[quote name='NPVWhiz' post='874773' date='Jan 21 2008, 09:05 AM']I'd gently offer that the "stealing" characterization is way off the mark. Acushnet has been an innovatorl...an original inventor of new and ground breaking ball technology for decades.

To be honest...and I've always admired Callaway's brand management...Callaway acquired their innovation portfolio for golf balls the old fashioned way. They bought it with the acquisition of Spalding/Top Flite's ball patent portfolio. Granted, they've gotten into the game very strongly, but Callaway would be out of the ball business if it weren't for their cross licenses with other patent holding entities.

You have to understand that when it comes to patents for golf balls, in most cases these days we're talking very small, incremental changes or very unusual approaches to measuring long-existing ball traits. How about a patent on a ball with a certain softness profile? You might be able to get such a patent with a $450 an hour patent atty that really knows the ball patent art well.

That doesn't at all mean you could actually manufacture the ball. Having a patent gives you the right to exclude others from using your innovation. It doesn't necessarily give you the right to practice your own if there are other dominating patents that you would need to do so. This captures the most of the last 50 years of golf ball innovation fairly well.

One company patents a ball dimple layout. Another company patents the use of certain cover materials with any existing dimple design. Then neither company can actually manufacture a ball with both innovations without a license from the other.

This is the competitive game that the ball companies try to use to ensure that they can continue to have some leverage against their competitiors. This is how Spalding and Acushnet battled for years...a t**-for-tat that kept the lawyer in Mercedes and BMWs for ages.

But, keep in mind that it is entirely possible for two engineers at two different golf ball companies to come up with the same incremental innovation independently, and almost at the same time.

This is a very narrow field. Is someone working on a patent for a five cover ball? Probably, analogous to the old 10 bladed razor skit on SNL....I think there is a four bladed razor on the market today, but only because that's about the only place razors can go.

It is possible, though, for two companies to come up with an innovation at almost the same time independently. In the US, the first to invent (based on records) will get the patent, but in just about every other country, the first party to file gets the patent.[/quote]

[doublenuts]

This does not bode well for Titleist.
It sounds like either;

A) Someone pissed off the Callaway folks.
B) Callaway is grandstanding due to the decision.


Something like this USUALLY is done quietly. So, if it's at this point, I would think that some negotiations broke down.

[mat562]

All this is making for remarkable reading.

What with mercilessly screwing the nut on Titleist and asking the sort of prices that will have prospective buyers taking out a second martgage for an Optifit FTi driver and some X-Muscle irons, Callaway look set to soon have more cash in their back pocket than Laura Norman.

I think it would save a whole lot of time and effort by the lawyers if they just asked the US Treasury for Callaway to be given a licence to print money...

[obsessed_golfer]

Bridgestone should come out the big winner in all this......the B330-S is such a good ball and plays so silmilar to their Titleist counterpart. Titleist players (like me) will swing over there.

[The Boom Bapp]

[quote name='wildwilly911' post='876256' date='Jan 22 2008, 08:55 AM'][quote name='505' post='876174' date='Jan 22 2008, 05:07 AM']Pretty crazy stuff, and I can't say that I fully understand what is going on, so please correct me if I am wrong here anyone.

As far as I can piece things together, this is the gist of it all:

1995 - Sullivan, who was working for Spalding, came up with the solid core multi-piece urethane cover ball. He got several patents for it.

1997 - Callaway begins work on the Rule 35 ball. They basically steal the Sullivan patents, yet "claim" that they "came up with the ball from scratch".

1999 - Callaway produces Rule 35 ball. They expect to dominate the market.

2000 - Titleist, under pressure from their staff players, needs a new ball to replace the Tour Prestige and compete with Rule 35. In turn, they use Rule 35 and several other solid ball designs in the revision stage of their prototype PROV1. They hit the market with it while using competitors technology, and basically steal all of Callaway's thunder. PROV1 quickly becomes dominant and never looks back.

2003 - Spalding wins suit against Callaway for stealing the Sullivan patents. Callaway then buys all of the Spalding ball patents for ~$175 million.

2007 - Callaway sues Titleist for infringing on what is now "their" Sullivan patents. Titleist says that the patents are improper and seeks that they be thrown out. Callaway wins on 8 out of 9 claims, jury finds Titleist guilty of patent infringement.

2008 - Callaway is now demanding the injunction to pull all PROV product that "infringes on their patent portfolio".

... At some point along the way, Bridgestone also sued Titleist for infringing on ball patents, and also won. Jury ruled that Titleist share profits from PROV1 sales with Bridgestone. If the new jury rules for Callaway, they are basically screwing over the previous ruling for Bridgestone.

Again correct me if I am wrong or left anything noteworthy out.

In the end they all look like a bunch of d-bags in my opinion. Callaway stole the Sullivan patents, and are now 8 years later suing for the exact same crap that they pulled. Because of that hypocrisy I will never, ever, buy another Callaway product. On the other hand, Titleist is looking pretty shady as well. This is unfortunate for everyone involved, including us golfers.[/quote]

pretty much;
basically any one that makes a 3 piece ball could be sued under the very very relaxed pat.
its so much a crap shoot when it comes to juries in cases like this that why this will never end, the only people that lose are the people that buy there equipment because the cost for you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you,
the corporate world is one big vicious CIRCLE JERK
[/quote]


Exactly, Callaway searched and searched tirelessly for the smaller market companies that owned the design templates and intellectual patents that Titleist foolishly integrated in to the production templates of the ProV line and as sneaky and underhanded as it was of Titleist to arrogantly do, Callaway followed suit and pulled all stops to try any way possible to cut Titleist down at the knees to gain a "level playing field". This putrid behavior by Callaway to angle their way into a lawsuit against the dominant ball maker ends ultimatly with US (the golfing public) having to forcably comply and cough up higher prices and play with inferior gear because Titleist could not help themselves in their persuit of the almighty $$$$!

What I am saying is, As far as Global Business's go, both Callaway and Titleist should apologize to the Golfing public for practicing such gross practices against one another that. Can we act any less like two 5 year olds fighting over a blue gumball and the color being the only reason either of them want it!!

It's just an insignificant 40 gram ball that we loss thousands of every year that means as much as the space between these 2 lines (| |). Very Little. Let's worry more about taking care of the Big Ball first and I am referring to the one we live on, Earth


Hello Nike Platinum, welcome to my bag!!

[Sean2]

Please. This is a business. You are in business to make money. Integrity, duty, responsibility, LOL! And by the way, it's not called "stealing", it's called "benchmarking". If Callaway has that strong a case I suspect they don't want a settlement. They want market share. A lot more money there.

[jhornsby421]

Take off the Titliest is great glasses for a second.
They lost 350 million to Bridgestone for infringement in the US market only.
They will lose to Callawy which is actually Spalding patents.
Srixon has a lawsuit waiting and so does Bridgestone in Asia.

Acushnet Golf is for sale for $350 million. fortune brands want to sell it and by Absolute
for 10 billion.

The image is damaged, thats all they sold. The #1 ball on tour is a marketing ploy, it should say most paid to use ball on tour.

[TRB151]

[quote name='jhornsby421' post='876794' date='Jan 22 2008, 02:54 PM']Take off the Titliest is great glasses for a second.
They lost 350 million to Bridgestone for infringement in the US market only.
They will lose to Callawy which is actually Spalding patents.
Srixon has a lawsuit waiting and so does Bridgestone in Asia.

Acushnet Golf is for sale for $350 million. fortune brands want to sell it and by Absolute
for 10 billion.

The image is damaged, thats all they sold. The #1 ball on tour is a marketing ploy, it should say most paid to use ball on tour.[/quote]

Could you post this again...in english please?!?

[DemolitionMan]

[quote name='The Boom Bapp' post='876635' date='Jan 22 2008, 10:29 AM'][quote name='wildwilly911' post='876256' date='Jan 22 2008, 08:55 AM'][quote name='505' post='876174' date='Jan 22 2008, 05:07 AM']Pretty crazy stuff, and I can't say that I fully understand what is going on, so please correct me if I am wrong here anyone.

As far as I can piece things together, this is the gist of it all:

1995 - Sullivan, who was working for Spalding, came up with the solid core multi-piece urethane cover ball. He got several patents for it.

1997 - Callaway begins work on the Rule 35 ball. They basically steal the Sullivan patents, yet "claim" that they "came up with the ball from scratch".

1999 - Callaway produces Rule 35 ball. They expect to dominate the market.

2000 - Titleist, under pressure from their staff players, needs a new ball to replace the Tour Prestige and compete with Rule 35. In turn, they use Rule 35 and several other solid ball designs in the revision stage of their prototype PROV1. They hit the market with it while using competitors technology, and basically steal all of Callaway's thunder. PROV1 quickly becomes dominant and never looks back.

2003 - Spalding wins suit against Callaway for stealing the Sullivan patents. Callaway then buys all of the Spalding ball patents for ~$175 million.

2007 - Callaway sues Titleist for infringing on what is now "their" Sullivan patents. Titleist says that the patents are improper and seeks that they be thrown out. Callaway wins on 8 out of 9 claims, jury finds Titleist guilty of patent infringement.

2008 - Callaway is now demanding the injunction to pull all PROV product that "infringes on their patent portfolio".

... At some point along the way, Bridgestone also sued Titleist for infringing on ball patents, and also won. Jury ruled that Titleist share profits from PROV1 sales with Bridgestone. If the new jury rules for Callaway, they are basically screwing over the previous ruling for Bridgestone.

Again correct me if I am wrong or left anything noteworthy out.

In the end they all look like a bunch of d-bags in my opinion. Callaway stole the Sullivan patents, and are now 8 years later suing for the exact same crap that they pulled. Because of that hypocrisy I will never, ever, buy another Callaway product. On the other hand, Titleist is looking pretty shady as well. This is unfortunate for everyone involved, including us golfers.[/quote]

pretty much;
basically any one that makes a 3 piece ball could be sued under the very very relaxed pat.
its so much a crap shoot when it comes to juries in cases like this that why this will never end, the only people that lose are the people that buy there equipment because the cost for you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you, you to sue me, me to sue them, them to sue you,
the corporate world is one big vicious CIRCLE JERK
[/quote]


Exactly, Callaway searched and searched tirelessly for the smaller market companies that owned the design templates and intellectual patents that Titleist foolishly integrated in to the production templates of the ProV line and as sneaky and underhanded as it was of Titleist to arrogantly do, Callaway followed suit and pulled all stops to try any way possible to cut Titleist down at the knees to gain a "level playing field". This putrid behavior by Callaway to angle their way into a lawsuit against the dominant ball maker ends ultimatly with US (the golfing public) having to forcably comply and cough up higher prices and play with inferior gear because Titleist could not help themselves in their persuit of the almighty $$$$!

What I am saying is, As far as Global Business's go, both Callaway and Titleist should apologize to the Golfing public for practicing such gross practices against one another that. Can we act any less like two 5 year olds fighting over a blue gumball and the color being the only reason either of them want it!!

It's just an insignificant 40 gram ball that we loss thousands of every year that means as much as the space between these 2 lines (| |). Very Little. Let's worry more about taking care of the Big Ball first and I am referring to the one we live on, Earth


Hello Nike Platinum, welcome to my bag!!
[/quote]

Callaway didn't search and search tirelessly, they put in the high bid at an auction in Bankruptcy court. Looking back, Titleist is the stupid one and should be justly punished. Wally should be flat out fired for making the dumb decision not to outbid Callaway for Spaulding. They knew darn well they were at risk "borrowing" technology they did not own and could have cleaned up after themselves for a relative bargain by getting Spaulding. It was quite stupid of both Acushnet and TMAG to not up the ante in court and make Callaway pay dearly if they wanted Spaulding so bad. Instead, both of them played nice and let Callaway steal Spaulding for $175M. Ooops. You can be sure Acushnet would love to go back in time and pay $250M to make today's headache go away.

[dalehead]

As I expected the anti-Titleist crowd is using this case to bash Titleist. The pro-Titleist crowd sticks up for their guys.

A few observations:

1) To those of you analyzing and speculating on every detail of this case, "GET A LIFE!"

2) To those of you basing your decision on what ball to play based on this case, "You have GOT to be kidding!"

3) To those of you who think Titleist will come out with a new ball and the earth will continue to spin on its axis, I'm with you.

[mat562]

I don't play either ball.

But regardless of the whys and wherefors and potential damages involved I still think Callaway are being petty about the matter and it smacks of a bit of jealousy that their balls can't outsell Titleist's...

[Goldenhawk]

I'm going to throw another tidbit into this whole mess. Nike. They had Tiger play the TW Tour Accuracy ball back in 2000 and then he won all those tourneys and majors. The TW TA was a three piece rubber core ball too. It makes me wonder if the Nike ONE is outselling the Callaway Tour HXs and if Nike is next on the list......or is Nike already paying royalties to use the technology?

[bk4]

[quote name='wardogatc' post='874401' date='Jan 20 2008, 11:13 PM']They should refer to the case of Callahan Auto Parts vs. Zalinsky Auto Parts. In a landmark ploy, Callahan avoided a buyout by selling their product to Zalinsky, thus making the necessary capital to avoid a bank forclosure. Zalinsky had planned to buy out Callahan, close the production factory, and sell the Callahan product as a premium name in Zalinsky stores. Maybe Acushnet should try this with Callaway.

Just an idea...shut up Richard![/quote]
Brilliant

[jkloster]

[quote name='Goldenhawk' post='876887' date='Jan 22 2008, 04:42 PM']I'm going to throw another tidbit into this whole mess. Nike. They had Tiger play the TW Tour Accuracy ball back in 2000 and then he won all those tourneys and majors. The TW TA was a three piece rubber core ball too. It makes me wonder if the Nike ONE is outselling the Callaway Tour HXs and if Nike is next on the list......or is Nike already paying royalties to use the technology?[/quote]

I believe Nike's golf balls are constructed off-of liscensed technology from Bridgestone. I do know Bridestone actually manufactured Nike's golf balls when they were just getting started...so it would make sense the one platinum and one black would be rooted in Bridgestone IP.... much like Titleist and the ProV1....based on other's patents & tech and tweaked.

[scubus]

[quote name='Goldenhawk' post='876887' date='Jan 22 2008, 03:42 PM']I'm going to throw another tidbit into this whole mess. Nike. They had Tiger play the TW Tour Accuracy ball back in 2000 and then he won all those tourneys and majors. The TW TA was a three piece rubber core ball too. It makes me wonder if the Nike ONE is outselling the Callaway Tour HXs and if Nike is next on the list......or is Nike already paying royalties to use the technology?[/quote]
Nike is probably paying royalties to Bridgestone.

I'll point out, again, it isn't the number of layers, or even layers in general that is patented. It is what the layers are made of and how the layers interact.

[Grum]

No one can deny titleist have done wrong, but I think Callaway are pushing their luck. Makes them look like petty bullys. Not my favorite company anyway, needless to say they won't be getting any more of my money!

[teedoff]

[quote name='505' post='876174' date='Jan 22 2008, 04:07 AM']Pretty crazy stuff, and I can't say that I fully understand what is going on, so please correct me if I am wrong here anyone.

As far as I can piece things together, this is the gist of it all:

1995 - Sullivan, who was working for Spalding, came up with the solid core multi-piece urethane cover ball. He got several patents for it.

1997 - Callaway begins work on the Rule 35 ball. They basically steal the Sullivan patents, yet "claim" that they "came up with the ball from scratch".

1999 - Callaway produces Rule 35 ball. They expect to dominate the market.

2000 - Titleist, under pressure from their staff players, needs a new ball to replace the Tour Prestige and compete with Rule 35. In turn, they use Rule 35 and several other solid ball designs in the revision stage of their prototype PROV1. They hit the market with it while using competitors technology, and basically steal all of Callaway's thunder. PROV1 quickly becomes dominant and never looks back.

2003 - Spalding wins suit against Callaway for stealing the Sullivan patents. Callaway then buys all of the Spalding ball patents for ~$175 million.

2007 - Callaway sues Titleist for infringing on what is now "their" Sullivan patents. Titleist says that the patents are improper and seeks that they be thrown out. Callaway wins on 8 out of 9 claims, jury finds Titleist guilty of patent infringement.

2008 - Callaway is now demanding the injunction to pull all PROV product that "infringes on their patent portfolio".

... At some point along the way, Bridgestone also sued Titleist for infringing on ball patents, and also won. Jury ruled that Titleist share profits from PROV1 sales with Bridgestone. If the new jury rules for Callaway, they are basically screwing over the previous ruling for Bridgestone.

Again correct me if I am wrong or left anything noteworthy out.

In the end they all look like a bunch of d-bags in my opinion. Callaway stole the Sullivan patents, and are now 8 years later suing for the exact same crap that they pulled. Because of that hypocrisy I will never, ever, buy another Callaway product. On the other hand, Titleist is looking pretty shady as well. This is unfortunate for everyone involved, including us golfers.[/quote]

Forgot one detail in the timeline.

1999 - Bridgestone sues Callaway for 4 patent infringements involving core design in the Rule 35. Callaway requested a licensing agreement with Bridgestone but was not granted them prior to the launch. Callaway settles out of court after 1 1/2 years with Bridgestone resulting in monetary damages awarded to Bridgestone as well as the licensing of three piece technology patents by Callaway.

[teedoff]

[quote name='scubus' post='877019' date='Jan 22 2008, 04:39 PM'][quote name='Goldenhawk' post='876887' date='Jan 22 2008, 03:42 PM']I'm going to throw another tidbit into this whole mess. Nike. They had Tiger play the TW Tour Accuracy ball back in 2000 and then he won all those tourneys and majors. The TW TA was a three piece rubber core ball too. It makes me wonder if the Nike ONE is outselling the Callaway Tour HXs and if Nike is next on the list......or is Nike already paying royalties to use the technology?[/quote]
Nike is probably paying royalties to Bridgestone.

I'll point out, again, it isn't the number of layers, or even layers in general that is patented. It is what the layers are made of and how the layers interact.
[/quote]

Simplest way to describe Nike's relationship pertaining to golf balls is that they are a customer of Bridgestone. Bridgestone continues to make the performance golf balls for Nike.

[scubus]

[quote name='teedoff' post='877315' date='Jan 22 2008, 06:48 PM'][quote name='scubus' post='877019' date='Jan 22 2008, 04:39 PM'][quote name='Goldenhawk' post='876887' date='Jan 22 2008, 03:42 PM']I'm going to throw another tidbit into this whole mess. Nike. They had Tiger play the TW Tour Accuracy ball back in 2000 and then he won all those tourneys and majors. The TW TA was a three piece rubber core ball too. It makes me wonder if the Nike ONE is outselling the Callaway Tour HXs and if Nike is next on the list......or is Nike already paying royalties to use the technology?[/quote]
Nike is probably paying royalties to Bridgestone.

I'll point out, again, it isn't the number of layers, or even layers in general that is patented. It is what the layers are made of and how the layers interact.
[/quote]

Simplest way to describe Nike's relationship pertaining to golf balls is that they are a customer of Bridgestone. Bridgestone continues to make the performance golf balls for Nike.
[/quote]
True, but I am certain that Bridgestone would not allow Nike to use their patents for free.

First of all, they are too valuable. Even if Nike went to another manufacturer, they would still have to pay the license fee.

Second, if you fail to defend your patent in every instance, you weaken your ability to defend it in other cases.

Nike either licenses the patents or they are not included in the manufacture of Nike golf balls.

[webber]

[quote name='wardogatc' post='874401' date='Jan 20 2008, 08:13 PM']They should refer to the case of Callahan Auto Parts vs. Zalinsky Auto Parts. In a landmark ploy, Callahan avoided a buyout by selling their product to Zalinsky, thus making the necessary capital to avoid a bank forclosure. Zalinsky had planned to buy out Callahan, close the production factory, and sell the Callahan product as a premium name in Zalinsky stores. Maybe Acushnet should try this with Callaway.

Just an idea...shut up Richard![/quote]

"I could take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, believe me, I've got time."

[QueenCityGolfer]

Ahhhhhh....simple, detailed facts. Finally.

So basically, Callaway is suing Titleist for stealing patented technology that Callaway originally stole themselves, and then later bought. That's really all that ever needed to be said here. I guess all of the negative remarks I made about Callaway and their character, or lack thereof, are even more deserved than I had previously thought.

What do you do when your chief competitor makes the decision to cheat their way to the top, seemingly unchallenged? I would say you do whatever you can to remain competitve, and worry about the details later. What Titleist did seems fair to me, eye for an eye, so to speak.

Case closed in my book. Cryaway are the villiains here. The only reason they own the patent is because they didn't get away with stealing it in the first place.

[StaffBag]

[quote name='QueenCityGolfer' post='877772' date='Jan 22 2008, 09:30 PM']Ahhhhhh....simple, detailed facts. Finally.

[b]So basically, Callaway is suing Titleist for stealing patented technology that Callaway originally stole themselves, and then later bought. That's really all that ever needed to be said here. I guess all of the negative remarks I made about Callaway and their character, or lack thereof, are even more deserved than I had previously thought.
[/b]
What do you do when your chief competitor makes the decision to cheat their way to the top, seemingly unchallenged? I would say you do whatever you can to remain competitve, and worry about the details later. What Titleist did seems fair to me, eye for an eye, so to speak.

Case closed in my book. Cryaway are the villiains here. [b]The only reason they own the patent is because they didn't get away with stealing it in the first place.
[/b][/quote]



Finally!

Truth!

[i](The truth is out there if you look for it.)
[/i]


Relax to all of the Titleist lovers here. I really strongly dout that Titleist will be forced into removing thier product from the market by a grandstanding complaint from Callaway. If they do reomve the ball from the line, it will be on thier own merits and at thier own time. [i](That meaning... a brand new ball to replace the ProV1 and V1X.)
[/i]

Remember... Titleist isn't #1 because they are... [i]STOOPID![/i]
They are #1 because they are the [u]best[/u] at what they do.



The rest are doing everything in their power to try and scratch and claw thier way to grab at the crumbs left over!