Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Titleist

[NPVWhiz]

[quote name='drpino' post='880529' date='Jan 24 2008, 03:20 PM']NPVWhiz, thanks for another factual and informative contribution to this topic....it's refreshing amongst all the speculation and fan-boyism (from both sides).

as funny as the Titleist fan-boys are, the Callaway ones that are parading around yelling "burn 'em at the stake" are just as amusing.[/quote]

It's an interesting case study for me. I work in IP licensing, so it's at least relevant to watch how things progress.

The two companies must have really been at odds over the royalty rate for Acushnet to throw down the gauntlet with the re-examination request.

I'm afraid that Callaway is going to end up on the short end of the stick on this one (with the "full disclosure" caveat that my future predicting skills are NOT that good!)

For all of you youngsters considering a career, a top notch patent attorney bills about $450 an hour...more when it comes to litigation.

[hogans71]

NPV- quite imformative, thank you. It seems your expertise in the field will certainly be needed as this case goes forward. I have found all this quite fascinating and being a pro v1 player myself have a certain vested interest as to how this plays out...

[sapguy]

[quote name='Togatown22' post='880299' date='Jan 24 2008, 01:12 PM']Sapguy:
I think you might want to take a closer look at the 52 week and 2 year stock chart for ELY.... it's no where near " heading to Pluto" as I think you said.
The retail golf market is actually looking pretty flat this year; with regard to stock performance anyway.
No offense meant, just trying to make sure we keep some of this discussion factual.

Carry on.[/quote]
My comment that the Callaway stock was heading to Pluto was done absolutely "tongue in cheek" (especially on a board or forum like this one), but more importantly to "rub it in" to the "Titleist fan-boys" who are easily prodded to foam at the mouth in this Callaway vs Titleist discussion

However, when I made my first post on this brouhaha (1/21/08), Callaway's stock (ELY) opened on 1/22/08 at 14.26 and closed on 1/23/08 (when I made my "Pluto" comment) at 17.07, so it does give the illusion that the stock is headed to Pluto, right?

I do agree with you that the retail golf market is flat, so may be Callaway can increase their bottom line with royalty payments from Titleist as part of their settlement? Brilliant strategy if you ask me, as it's like killing 2 birds with one stone: increase your profit while at the same time weakening a key competitor

Oh boy!!! I see more mouth foaming from the Titleist fan-boys now

[Goldenhawk]

[quote name='scubus' post='880074' date='Jan 24 2008, 10:21 AM'][quote name='Goldenhawk' post='880066' date='Jan 24 2008, 10:10 AM'][quote name='StaffBag' post='879787' date='Jan 24 2008, 12:56 AM']My guess is that there won't be a problem with taking the ProV's off the shelves if it comes to that, because there will be a new ball to replace it! It's about time for them to do that anyway. The injuction will be specifically on just the ProV line and not a "new" line of golfballs! Market share will come back if it is damaged at all.[/quote]

I would love to know what this new replacement ball from Titleist is. It's been mentioned here numerous times. Is it some weird evolution of a wound, liquid-filled ball?
[/quote]
It could be a new multilayer solid core ball. That is not what is patented (as near as I can tell anyway). It is the interaction between those layers and core and the patents cover materials and dimensions.

My question is: if the ball and technology exist and a ball is just waiting to hit the shelves, why isn't it out there. I find it very hard to believe that the powers at Titleist would continue selling a ball whose lineage is even questionable when a better performing ball is waiting in the wings.
[/quote]

Just the point I was looking for. How can Titleist produce another mulitlayer solid core ball without infringing on Bridgestone and Callaway?

[scubus]

[quote name='Goldenhawk' post='880719' date='Jan 24 2008, 04:50 PM'][quote name='scubus' post='880074' date='Jan 24 2008, 10:21 AM'][quote name='Goldenhawk' post='880066' date='Jan 24 2008, 10:10 AM'][quote name='StaffBag' post='879787' date='Jan 24 2008, 12:56 AM']My guess is that there won't be a problem with taking the ProV's off the shelves if it comes to that, because there will be a new ball to replace it! It's about time for them to do that anyway. The injuction will be specifically on just the ProV line and not a "new" line of golfballs! Market share will come back if it is damaged at all.[/quote]

I would love to know what this new replacement ball from Titleist is. It's been mentioned here numerous times. Is it some weird evolution of a wound, liquid-filled ball?
[/quote]
It could be a new multilayer solid core ball. That is not what is patented (as near as I can tell anyway). It is the interaction between those layers and core and the patents cover materials and dimensions.

My question is: if the ball and technology exist and a ball is just waiting to hit the shelves, why isn't it out there. I find it very hard to believe that the powers at Titleist would continue selling a ball whose lineage is even questionable when a better performing ball is waiting in the wings.
[/quote]

Just the point I was looking for. How can Titleist produce another mulitlayer solid core ball without infringing on Bridgestone and Callaway?
[/quote]
First of all, please remember I am not an attorney. I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, and if I had to go to court I'd find a real attorney and keep my mouth shut.

That caveat aside, the way I read the patents is that they are concerned with the manner in which the layers interact, and more specifically the polymer formulation and thickness required to make all the layers play nice and create the distance and spin that is the goal in golfball design.

I also understand that patenting the layers is somewhat problematic since even wound, liquid core balls have layers. And many wound balls had solid cores. We used to unwind them as a kid to get the superball out! It is pretty obvious there are going to be layers.

I also think saying something like "rubber core" is overly broad. Rubber is not specific enough. Saying the core will be a polymer, titanium, unobtanium blend with a shear coefficient of 0.08 and a rebound coefficient of 0.99 is pretty specific. It also gives others the chance they need to wiggle around the patent and improve it and compete.

I also suspect that is in part Titleist's argument that the patents should not have been issued. They are either obvious or overly broad. That is nothing more than my personal guess since I just can't force myself to wade through the documents. I just don't care that much beyond casual conversation.

Now, I am ready for one of the real attorneys here to school me, but that is my understanding.

[withdrew]

I could care less about Titleist vs. Callaway. Competition is GOOD people! That's the backbone of capitalism or a free market economy, THEY duke it out and we get cheaper and better golf balls.

If you want to be brand loyal, that's cool. I like to stick to a few special brands too. BUT- if you tell me that Callys are better than Tittys and they are cheaper, for something that I'll probably [i]fade[/i] (slice is such an ugly word) into the woods anyway, I'll take the Cally.

Just my humble opinion.

[keephooking]

All of this reminds me of a quote from tv...

"And these are the days of our lives...."

[sapguy]

[quote name='withdrew' post='880774' date='Jan 24 2008, 05:14 PM']If you want to be brand loyal, that's cool. I like to stick to a few special brands too. BUT- if you tell me that Callys are better than Tittys and they are cheaper, for something that I'll probably [i]fade[/i] (slice is such an ugly word) into the woods anyway, I'll take the Cally.

Just my humble opinion.[/quote]

I'm with you on this one! I do game with Callys (especially when the dollar bets are involved) but I am no pro-level players and so I do my fair share of [i]fade[/i] (agree that slice is such an ugly word) into the woods anyway as you said, so Callys, Tittys, whatever, I don't care and I am not going to recoil in horror if someone gives me a sleeve of Tittys.

Oh, and I failed to do a full disclosure: while I play with Callys HX-Tour, my son plays the Pro V1 almost exclusively in his high school matches, and in his IJGT tournaments (the IJGT people give him Taylor Made Red or Black balls at the tournaments, but nooo, he has to play Titleist Pro V1). So I don't have any problem with Pro V balls (and I would play with them if someone gives them to me), just that I prefer to buy the HX Tour, purely personal preference, and on top of that, I save $5-$6 per dozen too

[jm07716]

Tiger played Titleist--now plays Nike
Sergio played Titleist--now plays Taylor Made
Goosen played Titleist--now plays Taylor Made
Mickleson played Titleist--now plays Callaway
Els played Titleist--now play Callaway
Fuyrk played Titleist--now plays Srixon

and the list continues to grow.

Titleist does not have the lead in golf ball count it thinks it does.....

I hear the new Callaway i ball is 10-15 yards longer than the ProV, should be fun to try.

I think Srixon makes a great ball too

[mat562]

It depends how you class 'the lead.'

It's true to say there is now better and wider-ranging competition in the golf ball marketplace, but, in overall usage at practically all levels of golf, Titleist still has the lead by any reckoning.

Yes, they pay to some extent to maintain that lead, but all the non-Titleist-playing big names aren't playing Taylor Made/Callaway/Srixon/Nike for free.

[Sean2]

The real question that should be asked is: What ball does the judge play?

[withdrew]

I would love to see what equipment, clubs, balls the pros would use if tomorrow there was no such thing as endorsements.
If money was no object, but they picked their own equipment without having to be bound by a contract.

Would be interesting to see.

[hogans71]

[quote name='jm07716' post='882276' date='Jan 25 2008, 12:01 PM']Tiger played Titleist--now plays Nike
Sergio played Titleist--now plays Taylor Made
Goosen played Titleist--now plays Taylor Made
Mickleson played Titleist--now plays Callaway
Els played Titleist--now play Callaway
Fuyrk played Titleist--now plays Srixon

and the list continues to grow.

Titleist does not have the lead in golf ball count it thinks it does.....

I hear the new Callaway i ball is 10-15 yards longer than the ProV, should be fun to try.

I think Srixon makes a great ball too[/quote]

You must remember that a number of these players played other equipment prior to their Titleist days- To wit:

Ernie Els- Taylor Made
Mickelson- Yonex
Furyk- Hogan irons
Tiger- Mizuno irons

What that suggests to me is a couple of things
1- Brand allegiance may not necessarily exist on tour (remember Titleist's commercials w/ Mickelson and the pro v1? He swore up and down about the performance of that golf ball. Now does the exact same thing in reference to Callaway) as much as we might think it does. Furyk seemingly always had a hodge podge of manufacturers in his bag- I'm fairly certain it is quite common out there to see such a bag unless a total bag deal is done. Which leads me to ...

2- Money talks. Big time!! I think we are to the point where iron innovation is at its peak- not much of a different direction can you head into. Besides, most players' equipment is nearly identical in appearance to what they played prior to their new deals, no? I could be a bit misguided in that judgement but, save for some minor cosmetic changes here and there, most equipment is rather similar to their older stuff( unless of course one goes from a set of blades to a cavity back or vice versa).

Personally, I love my Titleist irons- Had a set of 681's before trying the 690 cb's and finally settling on 735cm's for the last year and a half or so. However, I dont like the last few Drivers they have offered, so I have played Taylor Mades' recent offerings. Thats not to say I wouldnt like a select few of Mizuno's irons, or perhaps some of the new drivers from Ping, etc, just personal preference regarding feel, looks et al... And from a pro's perspective, why not go where the money is if there is not a whole heck-of-a-lot of difference in equipment to begin with? Just a thought...

By the way, if you were just referring to the ball itself (being that this is a ball thread), I apologize in advance...

[TRB151]

Did anyone read in Golf World that Callaway is also filing suit over Cobra and Titleist drivers over a patnent that a Dr. John B. Kosmatka holds?

[mat562]

The more I hear of this saga, the less likely I am to ever buy another Callaway product, purely on principle.

[imsocrabby]

yodo guy....yeah i thought that too.

then those farking wedges showed up.

[sapguy]

[quote name='TRB151' post='882503' date='Jan 25 2008, 03:20 PM']Did anyone read in Golf World that Callaway is also filing suit over Cobra and Titleist drivers over a patnent that a Dr. John B. Kosmatka holds?[/quote]

John B. Kosmatka, PhD, PE, is [url="http://casl.ucsd.edu/people/jkosmatka_resume.htm"]Professor[/url] of Composites and Aerospace Structures at the University of California at San Diego, where he also holds the "Callaway Golf Chair of Structural Mechanics" in the Department of Structural Engineering.

What a coincidence, huh

Dr. Kosmatka has consulted with Callaway Golf on several aspects of golf club design, specifically the ground breaking work on high MOI in which he holds the [url="http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6602150-description.html"]patents[/url] and which has made the FT-3, FT-5, and FT-i such a big success in sales.

The [url="http://www.golf-patents.com/2007/06/13/callaway-sues-acushnet-again-this-time-for-infringement-of-5-golf-club-patents.aspx"]lawsuit[/url] filed by Callaway back in June of 2007 alledged that Titleist and Cobra infringed on Callaway's patents on the following drivers: King Cobra 454 Comp, King Cobra F Speed, King Cobra HS9 F Speed, King Cobra HS9 M Speed, and King Cobra LD F Speed, Titleist 905R, Titleist 905S, and Titleist 905T clubs.

Why can't Acushnet endow some Professorship chairs at MIT or some school in Massachussetts where Acushnet is located so that they can come up with their own breakthrough instead of continuously stealing technologies from Callaway?

[mat562]

You know when you play Monopoly...

And [i]every time [/i]you roll the dice you end up on a square with a hotel or 3 houses on it and end up paying out lots of cash to the smug bloke on your left...

And it gets really, [i]really[/i] annoying?

[petergf]

[quote name='petergf' post='878153' date='Jan 23 2008, 08:02 PM']Does anybody know if the titleist professional 90/100 balls fall under the patent rip- offs.
cheers peter[/quote]

Is this such a difficult question to answer , considering the magnitude of legal talant responding to this thread

[scubus]

[quote name='petergf' post='882637' date='Jan 25 2008, 04:38 PM'][quote name='petergf' post='878153' date='Jan 23 2008, 08:02 PM']Does anybody know if the titleist professional 90/100 balls fall under the patent rip- offs.
cheers peter[/quote]

Is this such a difficult question to answer , considering the magnitude of legal talant responding to this thread
[/quote]
Hmm... just a little looking on my own shows that the Professional was released ahead of the patent filings.

I'd hazard a guess that the Professional series is not infringing.

[dalehead]

[quote name='jm07716' post='882276' date='Jan 25 2008, 01:01 PM']Titleist does not have the lead in golf ball count it thinks it does.....

I hear the new Callaway i ball is 10-15 yards longer than the ProV, should be fun to try.

I think Srixon makes a great ball too[/quote]


I was also hoping for great things from the new Callaway ball, but the recent Golf Magazine tests were disappointing. It seems to be a good ball, but nothing special compared to the other top of the line balls, including the Pro V1.

[golferdb-pro]

I heard that both companies had copied patents from Spalding, thats why Callaway bought Top Flite, which is the problem in the case, as it wouldn`t be right [b]surely[/b] for Cally to benefit, when they stole similar patents themselves with rule 35, but then bought the company to avoid litigation.

[scubus]

[quote name='golferdb-pro' post='882792' date='Jan 25 2008, 06:01 PM']I heard that both companies had copied patents from Spalding, thats why Callaway bought Top Flite, which is the problem in the case, as it wouldn`t be right [b]surely[/b] for Cally to benefit, when they stole similar patents themselves with rule 35, but then bought the company to avoid litigation.[/quote]
Everything else aside, it would be right. Callaway [i]paid[/i] for the patents when they purchased the company.

I'm certain that Callaway would sell for the right price. Titleist doesn't have the right price...

[mat562]

They've had the right ball though for nigh on 7 years...

Am I the only one who is dubious about this 'Pro V1 is the same as the Rule 35' argument?

The V1 was, and is, a top-notch ball that was pretty much unequalled for several years. The Rule 35 was distinctly average and played entirely differently for me; despite the supposed similarities.

Similar technology or not, Titleist seem to have sprinkled magic dust over the ball that they created and made a good job of making it a staple diet in golf bags worldwide from a marketing standpoint.

Call me cynical, but I'm seeing a smidgeon of jealousy from the Callaway camp because they ended up second-best in the golf ball stakes. A case of 'if you can't beat 'em.. sue.' And the only way they got into a position to be able to do that was via some shady practices themselves when it came to buying up the Top Flite patents to legitimise their own plagiarism.

[golferdb-pro]

So you`re saying, there is nothing wrong in breaking the law as long as you can pay to shut the people/person or company up

I guess thats why Michael Jackson is a free man

[e-dog9]

Gosh, thinking about all these intellectual property issues makes me wonder what golf would be like if the world was suddenly totalitarian in the style of Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm.

The ministry of recreation announces we are no longer at war with Spaulding, we are at war will Titleist. We are victorious against Titleist. The Ministry of Sports reminds us all that there is only one ball on tour, only one ball for recreation the PolitburoV1.

All balls are created equal but some balls are more equal than others. The PolitburoV1 is the superior to all others, no other ball compares, no other ball exists, and no other ball will be permitted.

All those in possession of any ball other than the PolitburoV1 will submit themselves for reeducation. We are no longer at war with Spaulding, we are victorious over Spaulding, we are at war with Titleist.

[scubus]

[quote name='golferdb-pro' post='882814' date='Jan 25 2008, 06:12 PM']So you`re saying, there is nothing wrong in breaking the law as long as you can pay to shut the people/person or company up

I guess thats why Michael Jackson is a free man[/quote]
That is not what I said, but if you want to put words in my mouth, go ahead. It is a shame you are so short sighted.

[e-dog9]

[quote name='scubus' post='882882' date='Jan 25 2008, 03:44 PM'][quote name='golferdb-pro' post='882814' date='Jan 25 2008, 06:12 PM']So you`re saying, there is nothing wrong in breaking the law as long as you can pay to shut the people/person or company up

I guess thats why Michael Jackson is a free man[/quote]
That is not what I said, but if you want to put words in my mouth, go ahead. It is a shame you are so short sighted.
[/quote]

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo

[golferdb-pro]

You did say that because you said it WOULD be right because Callaway PAID for the patents !

They Paid for the patents after they had stolen them from Spalding and have avoided litigation by buying them out, that doesn`t make it right, both companies were equally in the wrong when the mis-justice happened !

Cally shouldn`t make a dime out of it.

Like i said this is why MJ is a free man

[e-dog9]

[quote name='golferdb-pro' post='882905' date='Jan 25 2008, 03:52 PM']You did say that because you said it WOULD be right because Callaway PAID for the patents !

They Paid for the patents after they had stolen them from Spalding and have avoided litigation by buying them out, that doesn`t make it right, both companies were equally in the wrong when the mis-justice happened !

Cally shouldn`t make a dime out of it.

Like i said this is why MJ is a free man[/quote]


Stick your head in dog doo

Please as long as we are quibbling over stupid details we know nothing about can you provide some more background on Mis-Justice, and compare her to Mis-July?