Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Titleist

[sapguy]

[quote name='vaca22' post='886689' date='Jan 28 2008, 09:43 AM']I was just horsing around on the Callaway website and I came across a link to a subsite for the new Tour X and Tour iX balls. Check it out...[url="http://callawaygolf.com/Global/en-US/Products/GolfBalls/TheGoodBall.html"]
[/url]
[url="http://callawaygolf.com/Global/en-US/Products/GolfBalls/TheGoodBall.html"]http://callawaygolf.com/Global/en-US/Produ...heGoodBall.html[/url]

Pay close attention to the wording...[/quote]


Yup, the wording is soooo cheesy but yet sooooo cute. Here is the text:

GOOD BALL FROM A GOOD COMPANY
Callaway is a company of innovators and doers. Our enemy has always been superstition, blind faith, and unthinking decisions. At Callaway we stand for good choices and good deeds, good play and good technology. It's who we are, it's in our DNA.
Good Ball is a good idea, from a Good Company.

Ely would be proud."

Amen, brother !!!

Love the subtle subtext

[18th Legion]

It is far from over.

Acushnet has filed a Post Trial Motion for Relief, basically asking for a new trial.

[PurePursuit]

oooo the plot thickens, this is going to be fun to follow.

[withdrew]

This should be on CourTV

[Goldenhawk]

[quote name='18th Legion' post='887130' date='Jan 28 2008, 02:40 PM']It is far from over.

Acushnet has filed a Post Trial Motion for Relief, basically asking for a new trial.[/quote]

Acushnet should file for relief. Their business will depend on it.

[kemau]

[quote name='18th Legion' post='887130' date='Jan 28 2008, 02:40 PM']It is far from over.

Acushnet has filed a Post Trial Motion for Relief, basically asking for a new trial.[/quote]

yep this was posted yesterday by what appears to be the gentleman who runs the IP Golf Patents website originally referenced.....screenname here matches the website name so could it be???

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=136542&view=findpost&p=885219"]http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=885219[/url]

in his write up for Acushnet's latest response, he starts by saying [b]"Last week’s post titled “Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction… Is There A Risk That Titleist ProV1’s Will No Longer Be Available?” [u]has obtained the distinction of being the most widely read Golf-Patents blog post of all time![/u]"[/b] so it seems to me that would be due to all the attention this forum has given it!!! nice

and he has also suggested to check out Callaway's slide presentation used in their opening statement at trial. well worth a look for sure

[url="http://golf-patents.com/files/22847-21779/20080124_exhibit_4___blog.pdf"]http://golf-patents.com/files/22847-21779/...it_4___blog.pdf[/url]

[StaffBag]

YEP!

Don't lose any hope yet, Titleist fans! Your ProV1's aren't going anywhere, yet!!

This will be tied up in the courts for a few years yet... at the very least!



Pull up a chair, get some chips and something to drink.... we are gonna be here for a while!

(Should be an entertaining show!)

[tulkaz]

So have I understood this correctly?

1.People are saying that Acushnet stole something that Callaway invented. Didn't Callaway just buy Spalding to get those patents?

2.The actual patent violation here is that Acushnet is using multilayer ball construction? How can you patent that kind of construction, isn't that sort of obvious?

[squarre]

[quote name='tulkaz' post='888427' date='Jan 29 2008, 03:56 AM']So have I understood this correctly?

1.People are saying that Acushnet stole something that Callaway invented. Didn't Callaway just buy Spalding to get those patents?

2.The actual patent violation here is that Acushnet is using multilayer ball construction? How can you patent that kind of construction, isn't that sort of obvious?[/quote]
From what I gather the patents are a little more complicated than that. However, that is their general idea and Titleist is arguing that the patents should have never been issued so it seems that they are almost making that argument.

[WhiteStripe]

The Titleist response smacks of desperation. You can just see the scene where Wally got on a conference call with the lawyers and jumped up and down screaming, "do something! we are not letting those $&%&$(# get away with this!" And some meek lawyer, says, well the jury is just stupid, they don't get it, let's tell the judge that. Yep, that's right, tell it to the judge. Nothing like adding insult to injury when you get the legal bill for that pathetic strategy.

The Callaway slide set just shows what a huge miscalculation Acushnet made when they did not buy Spaulding. What a bunch of greedy fools. Patents valid or not, they knew darn well when the Sullivan patent was issued they were at a huge risk. At that point they should have set aside $1 from every dozen of Pro V1s sold into a buy Spaulding fund. It was just plain stupid to not buy Spaulding on the cheap in bankruptcy court. At the very least, it would have legitimized their Pro V1 sales. Just plain dumb, like the question Titleist asks in their so called supporting brief that goes something like this, "well, if Spaulding's patents were so great, how come they didn't bring a three-piece ball to market based on their patents?" Uh, how come because Spaulding was beyond broke, they didn't have the $14 million to buy new equipment to manufacture the ball. Remember? The cronies known as KKR ran it into the ground?

To question the validity of the Sullivan patent is to question the validity of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other patents. If you are going to have a policy to issue a patent on the re-invention of a product in a unique way, then this is what happens. Someone designs a better mouse trap, so good in fact, they own the mouse trap market until someone can make it even better, whether it takes two years, ten years, or longer.

Acushnet got lazy with their wait and see strategy. They still do it today. Duh, let's see if big 460cc drivers are really what the public wants, and after $100 million worth are sold, maybe we should make one too. Too bad for Acushnet, another team led by Sullivan who they knew was a very busy expert in the golf ball world found a way to make a better mouse trap, he patented it, it's over. I don't see anything wrong with one company, whether that be Spaulding or Callaway buying Spaulding owning the patent to a three-piece ball, that's the way it goes when you take that risk. If it works, you make $100s millions, if not, you wasted a lot of money. Unlike Acushnet which cheated its way to a three-piece ball and it's right there in black and white in Sullivan's notes while working for Acushnet. Ooops, discovery and witnesses sure are a b****.

The irony in all this is not only does Acushnet look cheap and stupid for not buying Spaulding, but the cronies at KKR who clearly know nothing about golf could have had a $1 Billion dollar market had they just sprung for $20 million to ramp up a new Spaulding line as a three-piece ball. $20 million is chump change to those guys. They raped at least 5 times that just out of Spaulding alone. Oh well, I guess they can't screw up all the companies they own and make big piles of money.

[scubus]

[quote name='tulkaz' post='888427' date='Jan 29 2008, 03:56 AM']So have I understood this correctly?

1.People are saying that Acushnet stole something that Callaway invented. Didn't Callaway just buy Spalding to get those patents?[/quote]

So? They purchased something of value.

If I buy a used car, does everyone in the neighborhood get to drive it because I bought it secondhand?

[quote]2.The actual patent violation here is that Acushnet is using multilayer ball construction? How can you patent that kind of construction, isn't that sort of obvious?[/quote]

You'd have to convince a judge & jury that it is obvious. To date, Acushnet hasn't been able to do that. In any case, the patent is deeper than just multilayer. It discusses construction, interaction, hardness etc.

[tulkaz]

[quote name='scubus' post='888680' date='Jan 29 2008, 04:56 PM']If I buy a used car, does everyone in the neighborhood get to drive it because I bought it secondhand?[/quote]
That's terrible analogy! =)

Acushnet still designed&manufactured that actual ball themselves, even though they used construction used also by others.


But it's interesting to see how this is going to turn out.

EDIT: Replaced bad word. invented --> designed&manufactured

[WhiteStripe]

[quote name='tulkaz' post='888701' date='Jan 29 2008, 10:16 AM'][quote name='scubus' post='888680' date='Jan 29 2008, 04:56 PM']If I buy a used car, does everyone in the neighborhood get to drive it because I bought it secondhand?[/quote]
That's terrible analogy! =)

Acushnet still invented that actual ball themselves, even though they used construction used also by others.


But it's interesting to see how this is going to turn out.
[/quote]

What did Acushnet invent again? Not the ball. Where is the patent they own for the technology in the ProV1?
They designed/manufactured a ball based on another invention.

Patent validity may be at issue, but it's not an issue over whether Acushent invented anything revolutionary; they didn't.

[scubus]

[quote name='tulkaz' post='888701' date='Jan 29 2008, 10:16 AM'][quote name='scubus' post='888680' date='Jan 29 2008, 04:56 PM']If I buy a used car, does everyone in the neighborhood get to drive it because I bought it secondhand?[/quote]
That's terrible analogy! =)

Acushnet still invented that actual ball themselves, even though they used construction used also by others.


But it's interesting to see how this is going to turn out.
[/quote]


The construction is not just used by others, it is owned by others.

I suppose you just want to take the engine out of my used car to put in your "new" invention and call it "your" engine.

[squarre]

[quote name='WhiteStripe' post='888679' date='Jan 29 2008, 09:56 AM']The Titleist response smacks of desperation. You can just see the scene where Wally got on a conference call with the lawyers and jumped up and down screaming, "do something! we are not letting those $&%&$(# get away with this!" And some meek lawyer, says, well the jury is just stupid, they don't get it, let's tell the judge that. Yep, that's right, tell it to the judge. Nothing like adding insult to injury when you get the legal bill for that pathetic strategy.

The Callaway slide set just shows what a huge miscalculation Acushnet made when they did not buy Spaulding. What a bunch of greedy fools. Patents valid or not, they knew darn well when the Sullivan patent was issued they were at a huge risk. At that point they should have set aside $1 from every dozen of Pro V1s sold into a buy Spaulding fund. It was just plain stupid to not buy Spaulding on the cheap in bankruptcy court. At the very least, it would have legitimized their Pro V1 sales. Just plain dumb, like the question Titleist asks in their so called supporting brief that goes something like this, "well, if Spaulding's patents were so great, how come they didn't bring a three-piece ball to market based on their patents?" Uh, how come because Spaulding was beyond broke, they didn't have the $14 million to buy new equipment to manufacture the ball. Remember? The cronies known as KKR ran it into the ground?

To question the validity of the Sullivan patent is to question the validity of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other patents. If you are going to have a policy to issue a patent on the re-invention of a product in a unique way, then this is what happens. Someone designs a better mouse trap, so good in fact, they own the mouse trap market until someone can make it even better, whether it takes two years, ten years, or longer.

Acushnet got lazy with their wait and see strategy. They still do it today. Duh, let's see if big 460cc drivers are really what the public wants, and after $100 million worth are sold, maybe we should make one too. Too bad for Acushnet, another team led by Sullivan who they knew was a very busy expert in the golf ball world found a way to make a better mouse trap, he patented it, it's over. I don't see anything wrong with one company, whether that be Spaulding or Callaway buying Spaulding owning the patent to a three-piece ball, that's the way it goes when you take that risk. If it works, you make $100s millions, if not, you wasted a lot of money. Unlike Acushnet which cheated its way to a three-piece ball and it's right there in black and white in Sullivan's notes while working for Acushnet. Ooops, discovery and witnesses sure are a b****.

The irony in all this is not only does Acushnet look cheap and stupid for not buying Spaulding, but the cronies at KKR who clearly know nothing about golf could have had a $1 Billion dollar market had they just sprung for $20 million to ramp up a new Spaulding line as a three-piece ball. $20 million is chump change to those guys. They raped at least 5 times that just out of Spaulding alone. Oh well, I guess they can't screw up all the companies they own and make big piles of money.[/quote]

I don't know that Acushnet will on its motion for judgment as a matter or law, but it is a very good brief - just like the brief for the permanent injunction filed by Callaway was very good.

There is no "desperation" to the brief. It is a pretty standard request in many cases. There are some very good legal arguments throughout. The factual arguments are there for support, but are not the basis for the request.

[tulkaz]

[quote]What did Acushnet invent again? Not the ball. Where is the patent they own for the technology in the ProV1?
They designed/manufactured a ball based on another invention.

Patent validity may be at issue, but it's not an issue over whether Acushent invented anything revolutionary; they didn't.[/quote]

Edited my original post. Bad word 'invented' to that meaning. Did not mean that Acushnet invented something revolutionary, nor am I defending them anyway. Just trying to understand this whole mess.


[quote post='888818' date='Jan 29 2008, 06:35 PM']I suppose you just want to take the engine out of my used car to put in your "new" invention and call it "your" engine.
[/quote]

Aaargh, stop those!

[sapguy]

[quote name='WhiteStripe' post='888679' date='Jan 29 2008, 09:56 AM']The Titleist response smacks of desperation. You can just see the scene where Wally got on a conference call with the lawyers and jumped up and down screaming, "do something! we are not letting those $&%&$(# get away with this!" And some meek lawyer, says, well the jury is just stupid, they don't get it, let's tell the judge that. Yep, that's right, tell it to the judge. Nothing like adding insult to injury when you get the legal bill for that pathetic strategy.[/quote]

I'd be curious to see the legal bill that Acushnet will have to foot.

To file this Motion for Relief and ask for another trial, the Acushnet legal team over at Potter Anderson & Corroon had to bring in the "heavy artillery" by engaging not one but FIVE lawyers from the famed appellate law firm of Howrey LLP, out of Washington DC.

Here is the blurb on Howrey from their website:
Howrey LLP is renowned for its trial and appellate expertise in patent disputes. The firm has particular strengths in complex, multi-patent, multi-district, and multi-party lawsuits. Because of our substantial number of attorneys with advanced degrees and experience in the sciences and engineering, Howrey LLP can quickly staff a first class litigation team with the necessary depth of expertise for cases in virtually any technology.

Obviously, these guys won't be working for cheap, so look for Acushnet to tack on a couple more bucks to each dozen of Pro V balls now

And could someone who is lawyer on this thread clarify if in a lawsuit like this one, the loser has to pay the legal fees for the winner? If that is the case, then Acushnet could be having a very "interesting" legal bill, for Potter Anderson, for Howrey, AND for Fish & Richardson (Callaway's lawyers)

WOW!!! I am sure that this legal bill will not be chump change!

[squarre]

[quote name='sapguy' post='889273' date='Jan 29 2008, 03:42 PM'][quote name='WhiteStripe' post='888679' date='Jan 29 2008, 09:56 AM']The Titleist response smacks of desperation. You can just see the scene where Wally got on a conference call with the lawyers and jumped up and down screaming, "do something! we are not letting those $&%&$(# get away with this!" And some meek lawyer, says, well the jury is just stupid, they don't get it, let's tell the judge that. Yep, that's right, tell it to the judge. Nothing like adding insult to injury when you get the legal bill for that pathetic strategy.[/quote]

I'd be curious to see the legal bill that Acushnet will have to foot.

To file this Motion for Relief and ask for another trial, the Acushnet legal team over at Potter Anderson & Corroon had to bring in the "heavy artillery" by engaging not one but FIVE lawyers from the famed appellate law firm of Howrey LLP, out of Washington DC.

Here is the blurb on Howrey from their website:
Howrey LLP is renowned for its trial and appellate expertise in patent disputes. The firm has particular strengths in complex, multi-patent, multi-district, and multi-party lawsuits. Because of our substantial number of attorneys with advanced degrees and experience in the sciences and engineering, Howrey LLP can quickly staff a first class litigation team with the necessary depth of expertise for cases in virtually any technology.

Obviously, these guys won't be working for cheap, so look for Acushnet to tack on a couple more bucks to each dozen of Pro V balls now

And could someone who is lawyer on this thread clarify if in a lawsuit like this one, the loser has to pay the legal fees for the winner? If that is the case, then Acushnet could be having a very "interesting" legal bill, for Potter Anderson, for Howrey, AND for Fish & Richardson (Callaway's lawyers)

WOW!!! I am sure that this legal bill will not be chump change!
[/quote]

They could ask for attorney fees, but I don't think they are likely to get them.

In general, the court would have to determine that the claim/defense was basically meritless.

In patent law specifically, the court must decide whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the case is "exceptional." This is very rare in general and according to some friends of mine who practice IP law it is even more rare in their field.

Here because Callaway did not win on every issue at trial this seems to be a very remote possibility at best.

[TXgolfer130]

Achusnet loses nothing in them asking for remedy. In fact it seems to be really their only shot left.

They have two hopes that this will be granted:



Very, very, slim and None.



On another topic. Achusnet are already working their R&D on their next ball, as a worst case scenario. There is a reason the guys are wearing the ProV1 on the side of their hats this year. The next ball will be the V2, they just hope they have 2-3 years before they have to bring it to market. I don't think time is on their side.

[cyanid]

I just heard that the Callaway ball tour iX Is delayed on the european market until 1st of june -08. Is it possible that it is somehow related to the topic discussed in this thread? Your guess is as good as mine

[geogolf]

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.

 

Actually Not really close. Unless logic would be that if someone stole your car that you own, you are at fault for owning it. "Eye for an Eye" doesn't stand up in court.

 

Interesting how no one will bash Bridgestone- when they sued Acushnet as well. And settled. Just a little too biased on some folks parts, almost like they were being paid by that brand lol

 

Fact: Bridgestone Licenced Patents to Callaway after Callaway Countersued. They did not buy those. So the argument that they are suing Acushnet for patents they "Stole" doesn't fly. Totally different argument that was settled.

 

That is Case closed. The courts know a bit more in detail than us.

 

http://www.smithhopen.com/news_briefs_display.asp?ID=245

 

http://www.golfbiz.net/data/issue.asp?issue=20051226

[505]

Fact: Bridgestone Licenced Patents to Callaway after Callaway Countersued. They did not buy those. So the argument that they are suing Acushnet for patents they "Stole" doesn't fly.

 

Callaway is using the SULLIVAN (Spalding) patents to sue Acushnet, and they infringed on those just like Titleist did. Bridgestone settled, but that is not the point... Callaway isn't using the Bridgestone patents as their basis in court. They are, in the end, suing Titleist for the same thing that they themselves were guilty of before buying Top Flight. That is shady.

 

Had THEY come up with the ideas in the Sullivan patents, then I would say they truly are the victims here and the injunction should be considered. However, buying something that they stole and then using it against another company 8 years later is just wrong, I don't care who it is.

[xxio]

Fact: Bridgestone Licenced Patents to Callaway after Callaway Countersued. They did not buy those. So the argument that they are suing Acushnet for patents they "Stole" doesn't fly.

 

Callaway is using the SULLIVAN (Spalding) patents to sue Acushnet, and they infringed on those just like Titleist did. Bridgestone settled, but that is not the point... Callaway isn't using the Bridgestone patents as their basis in court. They are, in the end, suing Titleist for the same thing that they themselves were guilty of before buying Top Flight. That is shady.

 

Had THEY come up with the ideas in the Sullivan patents, then I would say they truly are the victims here and the injunction should be considered. However, buying something that they stole and then using it against another company 8 years later is just wrong, I don't care who it is.

 

 

Just to ask, so if Titleist/Acushnet bought Callaway to make this go away in your eyes "it still wouldn't make this right" because they never came up with the idea?

 

It has to have closure some how.

 

They bought the patents, it made their problems with Topflight go away. It may not sound good, but it is a fact and was a good decision.

[505]

Just to ask, so if Titleist/Acushnet bought Callaway to make this go away in your eyes "it still wouldn't make this right" because they never came up with the idea?

 

It has to have closure some how.

 

They bought the patents, it made their problems with Topflight go away. It may not sound good, but it is a fact and was a good decision.

 

Oh I agree it was a good decision for Callaway to make the purchase that they did. I still think it is shady for them to now 8 years later sue Titleist, crying that their ball business never did what "it could have".

 

They are trying to litigate their way to the top spot in premium golf balls, and I don't like it.

 

I am not saying Titleist is the angel here, I don't play either ball anymore and played both equally in the past. But an injunction that pulls the PROV1 is ridiculous. Callaway should get a handsome license deal for making a key purchase, and that's it.

[drpino]

I just heard that the Callaway ball tour iX Is delayed on the european market until 1st of june -08. Is it possible that it is somehow related to the topic discussed in this thread? Your guess is as good as mine :)

 

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

 

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

[bambooluv]

Just noticed yesterday at my local golfsmith that the pice of the v1 went back up from 39.99 to 45.99.

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

Pete

[StaffBag]

Just noticed yesterday at my local golfsmith that the pice of the v1 went back up from 39.99 to 45.99.

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

Pete

 

 

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

 

This thread is getting almost UNBELIEVABLE!!! ;)

 

:)

[Metalhead]

The Titleist response smacks of desperation. You can just see the scene where Wally got on a conference call with the lawyers and jumped up and down screaming, "do something! we are not letting those $&%&$(# get away with this!" And some meek lawyer, says, well the jury is just stupid, they don't get it, let's tell the judge that. Yep, that's right, tell it to the judge. Nothing like adding insult to injury when you get the legal bill for that pathetic strategy.

 

The Callaway slide set just shows what a huge miscalculation Acushnet made when they did not buy Spaulding. What a bunch of greedy fools. Patents valid or not, they knew darn well when the Sullivan patent was issued they were at a huge risk. At that point they should have set aside $1 from every dozen of Pro V1s sold into a buy Spaulding fund. It was just plain stupid to not buy Spaulding on the cheap in bankruptcy court. At the very least, it would have legitimized their Pro V1 sales. Just plain dumb, like the question Titleist asks in their so called supporting brief that goes something like this, "well, if Spaulding's patents were so great, how come they didn't bring a three-piece ball to market based on their patents?" Uh, how come because Spaulding was beyond broke, they didn't have the $14 million to buy new equipment to manufacture the ball. Remember? The cronies known as KKR ran it into the ground?

 

To question the validity of the Sullivan patent is to question the validity of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other patents. If you are going to have a policy to issue a patent on the re-invention of a product in a unique way, then this is what happens. Someone designs a better mouse trap, so good in fact, they own the mouse trap market until someone can make it even better, whether it takes two years, ten years, or longer.

 

Acushnet got lazy with their wait and see strategy. They still do it today. Duh, let's see if big 460cc drivers are really what the public wants, and after $100 million worth are sold, maybe we should make one too. Too bad for Acushnet, another team led by Sullivan who they knew was a very busy expert in the golf ball world found a way to make a better mouse trap, he patented it, it's over. I don't see anything wrong with one company, whether that be Spaulding or Callaway buying Spaulding owning the patent to a three-piece ball, that's the way it goes when you take that risk. If it works, you make $100s millions, if not, you wasted a lot of money. Unlike Acushnet which cheated its way to a three-piece ball and it's right there in black and white in Sullivan's notes while working for Acushnet. Ooops, discovery and witnesses sure are a b****.

 

The irony in all this is not only does Acushnet look cheap and stupid for not buying Spaulding, but the cronies at KKR who clearly know nothing about golf could have had a $1 Billion dollar market had they just sprung for $20 million to ramp up a new Spaulding line as a three-piece ball. $20 million is chump change to those guys. They raped at least 5 times that just out of Spaulding alone. Oh well, I guess they can't screw up all the companies they own and make big piles of money.

 

 

Well said!...I will add that the term "business" and "golf" might mix well on the course...but time and time again I've witnessed fatal errors of common business sense within the "Golf Industry".

[bambooluv]

Just noticed yesterday at my local golfsmith that the pice of the v1 went back up from 39.99 to 45.99.

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

Pete

 

 

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

 

This thread is getting almost UNBELIEVABLE!!! ;)

 

:)

 

 

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

 

Pete

 

 

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

[xxio]

Just to ask, so if Titleist/Acushnet bought Callaway to make this go away in your eyes "it still wouldn't make this right" because they never came up with the idea?

 

It has to have closure some how.

 

They bought the patents, it made their problems with Topflight go away. It may not sound good, but it is a fact and was a good decision.

 

Oh I agree it was a good decision for Callaway to make the purchase that they did. I still think it is shady for them to now 8 years later sue Titleist, crying that their ball business never did what "it could have".

 

They are trying to litigate their way to the top spot in premium golf balls, and I don't like it.

 

I am not saying Titleist is the angel here, I don't play either ball anymore and played both equally in the past. But an injunction that pulls the PROV1 is ridiculous. Callaway should get a handsome license deal for making a key purchase, and that's it.

 

 

The patents came with the buy out. So now they shouldn't exercise their rights. If they don't exercise it then when, when the ProV isn't the number1 ball anymore? It was probably when Bridgestone sued them that they realized they could sue Titleist as well.

 

The relief is up to them to decide. They may feel with the Bridgestone royalties, there may not be enough leftover for them. We all know lawyers will ask for the world, just so they can bargain later.