ACUSHNET COMPANY RESPONDS TO PRO V1 COURT RULING

[Gxgolfer]

ACUSHNET COMPANY RESPONDS TO PRO V1 COURT RULING

 

 

Fairhaven, MA (November 10, 2008) -- Acushnet Company, the golf business of Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE: FO), announced that it will file an appeal of today’s ruling in a U.S. District Court in Delaware granting Callaway Golf’s request for an injunction in the long-running dispute with respect to four Callaway patents and Acushnet’s Titleist Pro V1 golf balls. The company also announced that it does not expect the ruling to have a material adverse impact on its results.

 

“We strongly disagree with the judge’s ruling and will file an appeal and seek relief from the injunction,” said Joe Nauman, executive vice president, corporate and legal of Acushnet. “However, it’s important to recognize that this ruling will not have any impact on our ability to supply our customers with Pro V1 golf balls because of the following actions which we have undertaken. In September 2008, we converted production of the existing Pro V1 models so that they are outside of the patents in question; and we have also developed and will be introducing new and improved Titleist Pro V1 products in the first quarter of 2009 that are also outside the scope of the patents in question.

 

“Our Pro V1 golf balls are the product of technology developed and accumulated by the Acushnet Company over the past 20 years,” Nauman continued. “Acushnet is the industry leader in developing golf ball technology and has over 650 active golf ball patents – more than any other manufacturer. Over 65 of these patents are related to the Pro V1 family.

 

“We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously and we fully expect to prevail in having all claims of all four patents at issue determined to be invalid in the appeal process,” Nauman added. “Our confidence is underpinned by the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued final office actions which have determined these patents to be invalid.”

[cardinal]

Does anyone know the patent infringements involved in the lawsuit? This is the first I'm hearing of this so I guess I've been in a closest or not paying attention. From the new release, it seems Callaway, now, has a jury ruling and a US District Court Judge ruling. I know they have one more level, the appeals, before the Supreme Court. This could get interesting.

 

I currently and always have played Titleist. If these rulings make it through the appeals courts, I'll be very discouraged. Bottom line - it's borderline stealing. I know each of these companies test one another's golf balls and dissect them in every aspect. So, they know what they're doing. "In September 2008, we converted production of the existing Pro V1 models so that they are outside of the patents in question..." This is either a great business move or an admission of guilt. "...Outside the patents in question?" So you admit balls were produced inside Callaway's patents? I find this very discouraging. I may be in the minority here but again this is very disappointing.

 

The legal process in our country is one of the greatest in the world. Acushnet was given two chances, one to a jury and one to a federal court judge, to prove their case with no success. In the world of business innovation and creativity, the only thing you have to protect your hard work and ideas is the patent. For someone or some company to use your patent in their product is disgusting. I'm sure Titleist would go to every length possible to protect those 650 golf ball patents if they were infringed upon. Could this be the beginning of the end for their golf ball dominance? I doubt it but only time will tell. For them to have so many current and active patents, why would they need to infringe upon someone else's work? They have so much money to put into r&d, why steal? This doesn't make sense. Do the patents possibly cross one another? Surely, outside engineers testified regarding the patents in question. Am I an idiot, missing something or do you guys agree with my observations? What do you think? :huh:

[tbowles411]

The higher a dispute goes in court, the less likely it gets overturned. I believe from my college days that you have to produce additional evidence that was not previously presented that could change the outcome of the case. I think the bar may get too high. One bridge too far. This sounds like this is a case that is a series of delaying actions. This will probably never get to the Supreme Court. But who knows, they took some cases that I never thought they would take. But I personally believe they'd be better to offer a settlement.

[phelps22]

It sounds more like Titleist is trying to protect the Pro-V name rather than the ball formulation. The only people this injunction will affect would be tour players still using the old balls if what Titleist says is true.

[italian71]

It sounds more like Titleist is trying to protect the Pro-V name rather than the ball formulation. The only people this injunction will affect would be tour players still using the old balls if what Titleist says is true.

------------------------------------------

You might be right. If they have another ball outside of the patents in question, why waste the money to defend something you don't need? I wonder what the new balls will be called?

[Ty_Webb]

IMO, it doesn't really matter what it's called. If it's got a stamp on it that says Titleist, a whole lot of people will play it, including me.

[stealthontour]

There has to be more to it.... If the current ProV1 and V1x are outside the 'banned' patents and there is a new ball coming in 2009 then it seems a lot of hassle just to keep the ProV1 name....

 

It must have something to do with a % of ProV sales over the last few years....

[Fore_Man]

how long has the PRO V1 & PRO V1x models been on the market? Is Cally claiim infringement from the get go, or since the model has been modified?

[tbssc76]

my question is, if they "converted production" on the current model in Sept. 08 would that not require a new stamp marking and USGA submission.....more importantly what is the performance like on this current model production change??

 

has anyone noticed a difference in the side stamp of the current Pro V1 reflecting this change?

[DemolitionMan]

Of course Acushnet will appeal, but I don't see them getting relief. They already got relief, the order was signed Nov 10, they have until Jan 1 to comply.

 

On the bright side, we can thank Callaway for getting the new ProV1 to market sooner rather than later. Originally, the new ProV1 was not coming until around February, now we might get it until Christmas.

 

There are still a ton of 'in violation' ProV1s out there in the retail channel. Think of the inventory of every shop you know large and small. Most shops have already ordered for Christmas. Now double that number because Titleist has a ton of them in their own inventory. All of those golf balls have to be removed from the shelves by Jan 1.

 

It takes time to roll out a plan that replaces any existing ProV1 in the channel. It's a pain in the a** for Titleist, but most likely Titleist keeps selling the old Pro V1 until Dec 31 and in the meantime the reps have to get with their accounts and tell them on Jan 1, replace all the old balls on the shelves with the new ones. Maybe not exactly on Dec 31, but around there, and there will have to be some process for accounts to order new balls and get credit on the old. The only incentive Titleist has to replace the balls sooner is that for every dozen they sell from here until the new ones are on the shelf, Callaway is going to get a cut. Cally was already going to get a cut, but now it's more in your face. The monetary damages have not been issued, but it's going to be big.

 

The real winner in the short term is FedEx.

[mat562]

Again, I'm reminded of the fat kid at school who was useless at football and threw a strop, declaring 'I'm going home and taking my ball with me...'

 

Hopefully my use of punctuation doesn't infringe one of Callway's patents.

[SheriffBooth]

Yeah, I don't think it's clear in the first article that GxGolfer posted, but the ruling by the court in Delaware is that Acushnet must cease all sales of the existing line of ProV1 and ProV1x balls, no later than January 1, 2009. This is in addition to whatever cash award Callaway will receive as compensation for Titleist's patent infringement.

 

What I'm interested to see is how Titleist changes the design of the ProV1 to get it outside of the Sullivan solid core patents.

[stealthontour]

It sounds like the post sept 2008 prov1 doesn't infringe on the patents, so it would be a 'simple' renaming of an existing ball....

 

as for current ProV1 in shops....get your credit card's ready because there's gonna be a whole bucket load of cheap balls for sale in the last week of 2008....

[DemolitionMan]

Again, I'm reminded of the fat kid at school who was useless at football and threw a strop, declaring 'I'm going home and taking my ball with me...'

 

Hopefully my use of punctuation doesn't infringe one of Callway's patents.

 

I get your point and want to agree, but it's hard for me to feel sorry for Titleist. If a court says Titleist shortcut their way to $Billions in profits and now has to pay some of that back, then so be it. If a small company had the patent and was getting taken advantage of, then I want justice to prevail.

 

It's not like the ProV1 is going to be stopped and Acushnet sees all the profits disappear. The margin on the ProV1 is ridiculous. It's amazing to have the number one ball in golf and maintain a high price. I don't feel the least bit sorry for them.

[DemolitionMan]

It sounds like the post sept 2008 prov1 doesn't infringe on the patents, so it would be a 'simple' renaming of an existing ball....

 

as for current ProV1 in shops....get your credit card's ready because there's gonna be a whole bucket load of cheap balls for sale in the last week of 2008....

 

The post Sept 2008 ball is not on the shelves, they are sitting in boxes in a warehouse. And get your credit card ready all you want but no way will there be a fire sale on ProV1 golf balls. This is Titleist we are talking about, not Nike.

[stealthontour]

It sounds like the post sept 2008 prov1 doesn't infringe on the patents, so it would be a 'simple' renaming of an existing ball....

 

as for current ProV1 in shops....get your credit card's ready because there's gonna be a whole bucket load of cheap balls for sale in the last week of 2008....

 

The post Sept 2008 ball is not on the shelves, they are sitting in boxes in a warehouse. And get your credit card ready all you want but no way will there be a fire sale on ProV1 golf balls. This is Titleist we are talking about, not Nike.

 

I disagree, because they will have to stop selling any ball called ProV1 as of Jan 2009. Selling off all stock even for a small profit is better than having dealers return 1000's of boxes of balls that can't be sold...

Yes maybe the post Sept2008 balls can be rebranded, but my take on Titleist trying to appeal is to keep the ProV1 name going. They have basically already lost the battle to pay Callaway a % of sales for the infringment, Callaway is now going for the jugular and kill off the ProV1 name which has become probably one of the most recognisable names in golf and a marketing success..

[ikickhiney11]

Does anyone know the patent infringements involved in the lawsuit? This is the first I'm hearing of this so I guess I've been in a closest or not paying attention. From the new release, it seems Callaway, now, has a jury ruling and a US District Court Judge ruling. I know they have one more level, the appeals, before the Supreme Court. This could get interesting.

 

I currently and always have played Titleist. If these rulings make it through the appeals courts, I'll be very discouraged. Bottom line - it's borderline stealing. I know each of these companies test one another's golf balls and dissect them in every aspect. So, they know what they're doing. "In September 2008, we converted production of the existing Pro V1 models so that they are outside of the patents in question..." This is either a great business move or an admission of guilt. "...Outside the patents in question?" So you admit balls were produced inside Callaway's patents? I find this very discouraging. I may be in the minority here but again this is very disappointing.

 

The legal process in our country is one of the greatest in the world. Acushnet was given two chances, one to a jury and one to a federal court judge, to prove their case with no success. In the world of business innovation and creativity, the only thing you have to protect your hard work and ideas is the patent. For someone or some company to use your patent in their product is disgusting. I'm sure Titleist would go to every length possible to protect those 650 golf ball patents if they were infringed upon. Could this be the beginning of the end for their golf ball dominance? I doubt it but only time will tell. For them to have so many current and active patents, why would they need to infringe upon someone else's work? They have so much money to put into r&d, why steal? This doesn't make sense. Do the patents possibly cross one another? Surely, outside engineers testified regarding the patents in question. Am I an idiot, missing something or do you guys agree with my observations? What do you think? :huh:

 

 

Outside the patents in question is not an admission of guilt, they aren't admitting anything. All they are saying is that they are trying to make Callaway happy by modifying the manufacturing process on the ones they are mad about. From what I've heard, this ruling was pretty bogus, and Titleist was extremely surprised the judge ruled in Callaway's favor.

[mat562]

The animosity I have towards Callaway, rightly or wrongly, is based on my own reading of the patents situation and the supposed patented technology that Acushnet 'stole' from them. I'm not a golf ball designer, nor do I possess the wisdom of a senior judge (thank God) so I represent the average man in the street and his understanding of the situation if he has taken the time to read up on the salient facts and gain some understanding of the issues at the crux of it all.

 

Callaway, to my mind, are embittered that they have never managed to make a ball that achieves the same standards of performance or market share that Titleist have produced for decades. My take is that they took a cheap shot by claiming that the Titleist balls are a copy of 'their' design - which in itself is a Top Flite design anyway that they acquired through some crafty methods. I'm not convinced that the technologies and designs involved are so similar that there is a case to accuse Titleist of any wrongdoing.

 

I'm not a particular Titleist fan any more than I am a Callaway fan, so my opinion is not motivated by personal preference or brand loyalty. Ultimately, the whole saga of bellyaching by Callaway has left a nasty taste in my mouth and has distinctly turned me off the Callaway brand. Admittedly, they haven't made a club since the old S2H2 woods that I've liked, so I'm hardly leading a revolt; and I'm sure that they'll survive without my custom.

 

I can see some merit in not feeling too sorry for Titleist, and it's true that they do milk the golf ball situation a little with their dominance and their 'generous' mark-up prices, but Callaway are no strangers to a bit of judicious pricing (Tour Authentic anyone?) and a dozen other OEMs can equally be accused of taking liberties with the profit margins on their products.

 

Ultimately, something's only worth what people will pay for it though; and the V1s sell like hot cakes. They fly off the shelves almost as fast as the Callaway HX balls didn't, in fact. Which is odd - since they're supposedly the same thing.

[wedge1]

"We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously and we fully expect to prevail in having all claims of all four patents at issue determined to be invalid in the appeal process," Nauman added. "Our confidence is underpinned by the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued final office actions which have determined these patents to be invalid."

 

This is the interesting part. It implies that the USPTO has closed an appealed rejection (by Callaway) that their patents are invalid (Non-provisional patent ... which is the patent in question). A "Final Office Action" cannot be appealed...it is the result of one or more appeals and the last time an examiner will evaluate. This statement implies that this USPTO information was not used as of yet in this case. If this occurs and is recognized by the appellate court, the case will be dismissed.

 

Don't bet on ProV1 sales being stopped by January 1.

[DemolitionMan]

The animosity I have towards Callaway, rightly or wrongly, is based on my own reading of the patents situation and the supposed patented technology that Acushnet 'stole' from them. I'm not a golf ball designer, nor do I possess the wisdom of a senior judge (thank God) so I represent the average man in the street and his understanding of the situation if he has taken the time to read up on the salient facts and gain some understanding of the issues at the crux of it all.

 

Callaway, to my mind, are embittered that they have never managed to make a ball that achieves the same standards of performance or market share that Titleist have produced for decades. My take is that they took a cheap shot by claiming that the Titleist balls are a copy of 'their' design - which in itself is a Top Flite design anyway that they acquired through some crafty methods. I'm not convinced that the technologies and designs involved are so similar that there is a case to accuse Titleist of any wrongdoing.

 

I'm not a particular Titleist fan any more than I am a Callaway fan, so my opinion is not motivated by personal preference or brand loyalty. Ultimately, the whole saga of bellyaching by Callaway has left a nasty taste in my mouth and has distinctly turned me off the Callaway brand. Admittedly, they haven't made a club since the old S2H2 woods that I've liked, so I'm hardly leading a revolt; and I'm sure that they'll survive without my custom.

 

I can see some merit in not feeling too sorry for Titleist, and it's true that they do milk the golf ball situation a little with their dominance and their 'generous' mark-up prices, but Callaway are no strangers to a bit of judicious pricing (Tour Authentic anyone?) and a dozen other OEMs can equally be accused of taking liberties with the profit margins on their products.

 

Ultimately, something's only worth what people will pay for it though; and the V1s sell like hot cakes. They fly off the shelves almost as fast as the Callaway HX balls didn't, in fact. Which is odd - since they're supposedly the same thing.

 

But the case is not about the HX ball or the fact Callaway has not had a ball as successful as the ProV1. Everyone in the industry knows there is cross licensing going on for golf balls. This is case about Acushnet not paying for the Sullivan patents and the state of the golf ball market just before the ProV1 was launched. Now we don't have a lot of evidence or a crystal ball to tell us what would happen had the ProV1 been delayed for awhile and the Rule 35 ball (or a three piece from Nike or Bridgestone) could have some time to establish a piece of the market. What we do know just prior to ProV1 launch is Titleist dominance was under the biggest threat they have ever had to encounter. They were stuck on a wound ball while the market was going crazy over the new three piece balls. Didn't Mickelson tell Titleist to get him a ball like the Rule 35 or he was out of there? He was not alone in his response to the new technology. Then Acushnet sped up the launch, got ProV1 onto the market before anyone else could really take off, and they crushed everyone. Problem is that ball used technology that was not theirs and they didn't pay for it. We can't fault Callaway for spending $170M to get patents to help them get a new ball going better than what they had before. Many companies have done similar actions or licensed technology. Acushnet could have bought Spalding, owned the patents, and 'retire' the Top-Flite name for good. Ooops.

 

It takes awhile for these issues to get to where they are today, so we can't read the current court findings to be a reflection of today's market, this is about harm done over 5 years ago. We can't really get into what if's or how about's, we can just see that here are the issues, and let the court determine the monetary damage. Maybe the court overshoots what a decent Rule 35 market share would have been worth, maybe they give it little respect, who knows. The funny thing is, Acushnet could have licensed they Sullivan patents for $10 million, or in other words, a healthy week of ProV1 sales. They didn't and now the $10M is going to cost them what? $300M? $500M? More? And the real irony is, they did license other aspects of Callaway owned technology for the ProV1 (and Callaway licensed Acushnet technology). So why did Acushent get a bug up their butt over this particular issue and not license it with everything else? $10M was too much? Ooops again.

[phelps22]

"We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously and we fully expect to prevail in having all claims of all four patents at issue determined to be invalid in the appeal process," Nauman added. "Our confidence is underpinned by the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued final office actions which have determined these patents to be invalid."

 

This is the interesting part. It implies that the USPTO has closed an appealed rejection (by Callaway) that their patents are invalid (Non-provisional patent ... which is the patent in question). A "Final Office Action" cannot be appealed...it is the result of one or more appeals and the last time an examiner will evaluate. This statement implies that this USPTO information was not used as of yet in this case. If this occurs and is recognized by the appellate court, the case will be dismissed.

 

Don't bet on ProV1 sales being stopped by January 1.

 

 

Unless Titleist can win there appeal I would bet on it.

[krustyburger]

The animosity I have towards Callaway, rightly or wrongly, is based on my own reading of the patents situation and the supposed patented technology that Acushnet 'stole' from them. I'm not a golf ball designer, nor do I possess the wisdom of a senior judge (thank God) so I represent the average man in the street and his understanding of the situation if he has taken the time to read up on the salient facts and gain some understanding of the issues at the crux of it all.

 

Callaway, to my mind, are embittered that they have never managed to make a ball that achieves the same standards of performance or market share that Titleist have produced for decades. My take is that they took a cheap shot by claiming that the Titleist balls are a copy of 'their' design - which in itself is a Top Flite design anyway that they acquired through some crafty methods. I'm not convinced that the technologies and designs involved are so similar that there is a case to accuse Titleist of any wrongdoing.

 

I'm not a particular Titleist fan any more than I am a Callaway fan, so my opinion is not motivated by personal preference or brand loyalty. Ultimately, the whole saga of bellyaching by Callaway has left a nasty taste in my mouth and has distinctly turned me off the Callaway brand. Admittedly, they haven't made a club since the old S2H2 woods that I've liked, so I'm hardly leading a revolt; and I'm sure that they'll survive without my custom.

 

I can see some merit in not feeling too sorry for Titleist, and it's true that they do milk the golf ball situation a little with their dominance and their 'generous' mark-up prices, but Callaway are no strangers to a bit of judicious pricing (Tour Authentic anyone?) and a dozen other OEMs can equally be accused of taking liberties with the profit margins on their products.

 

Ultimately, something's only worth what people will pay for it though; and the V1s sell like hot cakes. They fly off the shelves almost as fast as the Callaway HX balls didn't, in fact. Which is odd - since they're supposedly the same thing.

 

How exactly is purchasing another company "crafty"? When you buy a company, you get all of the intellectual property that comes with it. To imply that Callaway did something shady by purchasing Spalding is ridiculous, those patents had value that they were willing to pay for. Patents don't suddenly become invalid when a company is sold.

 

And the HX balls were never supposed to be the same as the ProV1. Where did you ever read that?

[DemolitionMan]

It sounds like the post sept 2008 prov1 doesn't infringe on the patents, so it would be a 'simple' renaming of an existing ball....

 

as for current ProV1 in shops....get your credit card's ready because there's gonna be a whole bucket load of cheap balls for sale in the last week of 2008....

 

The post Sept 2008 ball is not on the shelves, they are sitting in boxes in a warehouse. And get your credit card ready all you want but no way will there be a fire sale on ProV1 golf balls. This is Titleist we are talking about, not Nike.

 

I disagree, because they will have to stop selling any ball called ProV1 as of Jan 2009. Selling off all stock even for a small profit is better than having dealers return 1000's of boxes of balls that can't be sold...

Yes maybe the post Sept2008 balls can be rebranded, but my take on Titleist trying to appeal is to keep the ProV1 name going. They have basically already lost the battle to pay Callaway a % of sales for the infringment, Callaway is now going for the jugular and kill off the ProV1 name which has become probably one of the most recognisable names in golf and a marketing success..

 

I hope you are right, but I just don't see it happening. Maybe Titleist can have GolfWRX do a contest for them....name our new golf ball!

[jaskanski]

I can see both sides of the coin. I'm dissappointed that Callaway feels the need to try to get kudos on the back of someones elses success. But Titleist must take some blame for allowing themselves to be compromised in this way in the first place. I bet someone in Achusnet's legal department has a limp from having his butt kicked so hard.

At the end of the day, any ball with Titleist branding on it will sell - their market prescence is that big. And Callaway know it.

[PurePursuit]

Midas they could easily argue that without stealing the intellectual property owned by Callaway they would have never been able to build up the Pro V name.

[stealthontour]

from another thread that was closed.....

 

Callaway Golf Wins Post Trial Motions in Lawsuit Against Acushnet

Federal Court Enjoins Sales of Pro V1 Effective January 1, 2009

CARLSBAD, Calif., Nov 10, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Callaway Golf (NYSE: ELY) today announced that the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, has granted Callaway Golf's request for a permanent injunction to stop sales of Acushnet's current line of Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls, effective no later than January 1, 2009. At Callaway Golf's request, professional golfers will be allowed to play Pro V1 golf balls through the end of this calendar year.

 

In its ruling today, the Court also rejected Acushnet's request to overturn the jury's December 2007 verdict which found that Callaway Golf's golf ball patents were valid and infringed by Acushnet's Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls.

 

"Callaway Golf has invested millions of dollars in Research and Development to create innovative products for millions of golfers around the world, and has protected those products with one of the broadest patent portfolios in golf," said Steve McCracken, Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, Callaway Golf. "We are very pleased with today's decision which will stop the sale of these infringing Pro V1 golf balls."

[mat562]

'Crafty' and 'shady' aren't interchangable. The former implies a degree of artful manoeuvering and pretty much describes Callaway's purchase of those patented technologies when they acquired Spalding/Top Flite; the latter implies some measure of impropriety or dishonesty which is entirely different and not insinuated in this case.

 

When I referred to the HX ball I was simply picking the current premium line of Callaway golf balls. The latest ones that don't sell as well as the premium model Titleists, that is. Whether the most similar ball to the supposedly stolen technology that's in the Pro V1 is the Rule 35 or the Warbird is pretty immaterial.

 

As I said, I'm no expert, but from what I've seen and read I'm not buying into the idea that the Titleist technology is so similar to the Callaway technology that it infringes those valuable patents or that there's been some sort of industrial espionage going on. Ultimately,when you look at both sets of products, they're both round, white and have dimples. Yes, there are a few similarities over and above that, but not enough toconvince me that Titleist owe Callaway (or Top Flite) anything that is in the same league as this riduculous 'damages' award.

 

I still subscribe to the theory that Callaway's legal shenanegans have more to do with jealousy and a realisation than they can rake in a few bucks by playing the system than it does with any genuine outrage over what would amount to the deliberate theft of any intellectual property. Ultimately, they haven't been able to shift as many golf balls, or maintain such stable and loyal set of consumers as Titleist - and I think it ruffled a few feathers in Callaway Towers badly enough that someone started mulling over the possible merits of playing a low baller..

 

Everyone has their own opinion on this issue and that's mine. The whole saga has devalued Callaway as a brand in my eyes and it's definitely made me respect the company less and be less likely to give their products the time of day when it comes to buying golf equipment.

[Fore_Man]

I have 3 dozen ProV1's at home, new in box... any body want to buy them? LOL i'm kidding....

 

Hey you know... if when Cally aquired Top Flite, Titleist was already infringing on their copy rights, then Callaway owes it to themselves (and Top Flite) to protect what they bought/own..... Maybe Top Flite didn't have the $ to go after Titleist and/or feared doing so...

 

I guess we'll soon see if Titleist is the #1 ball in golf, or the #1 name barnd of golf balls.

[krustyburger]

'Crafty' and 'shady' aren't interchangable. The former implies a degree of artful manoeuvering and pretty much describes Callaway's purchase of those patented technologies when they acquired Spalding/Top Flite; the latter implies some measure of impropriety or dishonesty which is entirely different and not insinuated in this case.

 

When I referred to the HX ball I was simply picking the current premium line of Callaway golf balls. The latest ones that don't sell as well as the premium model Titleists, that is. Whether the most similar ball to the supposedly stolen technology that's in the Pro V1 is the Rule 35 or the Warbird is pretty immaterial.

 

As I said, I'm no expert, but from what I've seen and read I'm not buying into the idea that the Titleist technology is so similar to the Callaway technology that it infringes those valuable patents or that there's been some sort of industrial espionage going on. Ultimately,when you look at both sets of products, they're both round, white and have dimples. Yes, there are a few similarities over and above that, but not enough toconvince me that Titleist owe Callaway (or Top Flite) anything that is in the same league as this riduculous 'damages' award.

 

I still subscribe to the theory that Callaway's legal shenanegans have more to do with jealousy and a realisation than they can rake in a few bucks by playing the system than it does with any genuine outrage over what would amount to the deliberate theft of any intellectual property. Ultimately, they haven't been able to shift as many golf balls, or maintain such stable and loyal set of consumers as Titleist - and I think it ruffled a few feathers in Callaway Towers badly enough that someone started mulling over the possible merits of playing a low baller..

 

Everyone has their own opinion on this issue and that's mine. The whole saga has devalued Callaway as a brand in my eyes and it's definitely made me respect the company less and be less likely to give their products the time of day when it comes to buying golf equipment.

 

And how do you define "shenanigans"? Is that somewhere between "crafty" and "shady"? Your use of words clearly shows you think Callaway did something suspect. In any case, there was no "artful maneuvering". They purchased another company plain and simple, it happens every day in business. Acushnet could have acquired Spalding and avoided this whole mess, but they apparently didn't have the business acumen to see this coming, while Callaway did and made a shrewd business move.

 

Callaway presented their case to a judge and jury, and they won. What you consider crafty and shenanigans is in fact great business on Callaway's part.

[mat562]

And how do you define "shenanigans"?

 

'An unseemly series of legal challenges, born out of corporate jealousy and based upon flawed reasoning, the final exorbitant costs of which will ultimately be passed on to the consumer' would probably just about cover it.

 

The fact that a court has delivered a verdict doesn't make their reasoning beyond criticism; and my layman's opinion is the one that I'm going with.