Acushnet v/s Callaway

[Redman]

lawsuit info

Here is a link to some information about the trial. Granted it is on Titleist's website, but seems to me that Acushnet got the shaft as well as some very bad publicity being called cheaters, etc.

Lawsuit Info

[alcap26]

How do you think it is going to look for Titleist when the information comes from their site? Do you think they are going to admit wrong doing?

[tbowles411]

How do you think it is going to look for Titleist when the information comes from their site? Do you think they are going to admit wrong doing?

+1

 

Each company is going to spin the lawsuit to its own advantage. That's called protecting the brand. It's all about perception and image now since a Grand Jury decided that Callaway was in the right.

[mat562]

Pretty much as expected, Titleist have put a damage limitation spin on things with lashings of positivity as a little bonus.

 

Hopefully common sense will prevail and the appeal court will arrive at a proper verdict this year. Perhaps even taking into account all the evidence this time - such as the patents in question not actually being valid.

[teedoff]

Here is a link to some information about the trial. Granted it is on Titleist's website, but seems to me that Acushnet got the shaft as well as some very bad publicity being called cheaters, etc.

 

Lawsuit Info

 

In past years, the Titleist representatives alway wore white sport coats at the PGA Show (I did not go this year so I don't know if they are this year), but with TWO JUDGEMENTS AGAINST THEM IN TWO YEARS for violating patents of competitors, Bridgestone then Callaway, can you give a more "politically correct" word for cheaters?

 

If they are wearing white, they sure aren't the good guys anymore.

[philfan316]

Why couldn't Callaway produce the same exact ball since they were the ones who had the patents stolen by Titleist. I think they are mad that Titleist marketed a good product and it ran wild. It's a much better ball in terms of feel off the clubs, distance, performance, etc. The Callaway balls feel hollow and click off the putter face.

 

It's almost like Callaway is the idiot with the graphing calculator and didn't really know how to use it. So Titleist, knowing how to use it, took it and did what Callaway couldn't do. Knowing that Callaway probably wouldn't want to sell it to them, and keep it so they could "pretend" on knowing how to use the calculator, Titleist felt that they would be doing the golfing world justice by stealing it, making a copy, replace it and using it under the noses of Callaway. Thus creating the best golf ball the world has ever seen. A golf ball that Callaway was never going to make in the first place.

[tbowles411]

Why couldn't Callaway produce the same exact ball since they were the ones who had the patents stolen by Titleist. I think they are mad that Titleist marketed a good product and it ran wild. It's a much better ball in terms of feel off the clubs, distance, performance, etc. The Callaway balls feel hollow and click off the putter face.

 

It's almost like Callaway is the idiot with the graphing calculator and didn't really know how to use it. So Titleist, knowing how to use it, took it and did what Callaway couldn't do. Knowing that Callaway probably wouldn't want to sell it to them, and keep it so they could "pretend" on knowing how to use the calculator, Titleist felt that they would be doing the golfing world justice by stealing it, making a copy, replace it and using it under the noses of Callaway. Thus creating the best golf ball the world has ever seen. A golf ball that Callaway was never going to make in the first place.

But that doesn't matter. If the Rule 35 ball was the one where the technology was originated, every idea based from that design is in violation of Patent law. You could have the best marketing team known to man, but it doesn't negate the fact they stole the first technology.

[DemolitionMan]

Why couldn't Callaway produce the same exact ball since they were the ones who had the patents stolen by Titleist. I think they are mad that Titleist marketed a good product and it ran wild. It's a much better ball in terms of feel off the clubs, distance, performance, etc. The Callaway balls feel hollow and click off the putter face.

 

It's almost like Callaway is the idiot with the graphing calculator and didn't really know how to use it. So Titleist, knowing how to use it, took it and did what Callaway couldn't do. Knowing that Callaway probably wouldn't want to sell it to them, and keep it so they could "pretend" on knowing how to use the calculator, Titleist felt that they would be doing the golfing world justice by stealing it, making a copy, replace it and using it under the noses of Callaway. Thus creating the best golf ball the world has ever seen. A golf ball that Callaway was never going to make in the first place.

 

Perhaps you should actually do some research and reading on the lawsuit. JAT.

[fridsdotcom]

Hopefully common sense will prevail and the appeal court will arrive at a proper verdict this year. Perhaps even taking into account all the evidence this time - such as the patents in question not actually being valid.

 

+1

 

 

But that doesn't matter. If the Rule 35 ball was the one where the technology was originated, every idea based from that design is in violation of Patent law. You could have the best marketing team known to man, but it doesn't negate the fact they stole the first technology.

 

Dude...completely wrong. COMPLETELY. The patents in question are the Sullivan patents, which originated from Top-Flite in the mid-to-late 90's. These patents have nothing to do with the Rule 35 ball. Top-Flite actually sued Callaway for the exact same thing in the past. As we all know, Callaway purchased Top-Flite and therefore owns the patents. Three years later, they decide to sue Titleist. Maybe this is why Titleist puts a fact sheet out...obviously it's their spin on the situation, but when people are throwing "facts" around like "the technology originated from the Rule 35 ball", can you really blame them? Even Callaway's advertising of the situation is a little over the top in my opinion. So far they've been victorious and there's absolutley nothing wrong with advertising that...but saying "the #1 ball in golf is built on Callaway technology"? C'mon! I'm stealing a quote from a fellow golfwrx'er from another post...this is like the rooster taking credit for the sun coming up.

[philfan316]

Hopefully common sense will prevail and the appeal court will arrive at a proper verdict this year. Perhaps even taking into account all the evidence this time - such as the patents in question not actually being valid.

 

+1

 

 

But that doesn't matter. If the Rule 35 ball was the one where the technology was originated, every idea based from that design is in violation of Patent law. You could have the best marketing team known to man, but it doesn't negate the fact they stole the first technology.

 

Dude...completely wrong. COMPLETELY. The patents in question are the Sullivan patents, which originated from Top-Flite in the mid-to-late 90's. These patents have nothing to do with the Rule 35 ball. Top-Flite actually sued Callaway for the exact same thing in the past. As we all know, Callaway purchased Top-Flite and therefore owns the patents. Three years later, they decide to sue Titleist. Maybe this is why Titleist puts a fact sheet out...obviously it's their spin on the situation, but when people are throwing "facts" around like "the technology originated from the Rule 35 ball", can you really blame them? Even Callaway's advertising of the situation is a little over the top in my opinion. So far they've been victorious and there's absolutley nothing wrong with advertising that...but saying "the #1 ball in golf is built on Callaway technology"? C'mon! I'm stealing a quote from a fellow golfwrx'er from another post...this is like the rooster taking credit for the sun coming up.

 

Right. Isn't this almost like Callaway saying, "The best ball in the world was built with our technology, and that is sad because while Titleist was using it to make the best ball in the world, we could not produce an equivalent ball with this same technology."

 

If not, then I think Callaway has brought this lawsuit because they know that they can't outsell Titleist without bringing in some lawyers. They decided to do whatever they could to bring Titleist down with some extravagant technicalities and they are satisfied in doing so. If Callaway had a ball that was as good as the Pro V1, then people would play it. But they don't so they were the fat kid in the race and they needed a scooter to get ahead and they are trying to catch up.

[DemolitionMan]

Or maybe it's just one company doing an FU to the other because of some bad blood in negotiations??? Think about that.

 

Acushnet and Callaway have other licensing agreements with each other in place as does just about every other ball manufacturer. There are constant negotiations and cross-licensing deals among the OEMs. Except in this particular case, Acushnet claimed to own some patents and Callaway had to pay a license fee, then later it turned out it was Callaway had patents that pre-dated the ones Acushent was claiming, so the licensing should be the other way around. But Acushnet didn't want to pay the very same royalty they thought Callaway should pay. After years of negotiations, Callaway wasn't getting anywhere so they sued.

 

I agree that Callaway's marketing choices are pretty bad. The issues were out of the public eye for many years and Callaway should keep it that way. The gloating in ads is petty and is not fooling anyone. That aside, the commenting in forums that interprets the situation as Callaway being a sore loser and suing because they could not make their own good ball is absurd. Companies don't just run off to the court at the first sign of disagreement looking to get ahead through a judgment. Are people so stupid to believe that this lawsuit is going to make a big difference in Callaway profit? And if you don't believe it will make a difference, then why would Callaway believe it? They are well aware that even if they end up with an award of $200M or more, it's not going to change the ball marketplace. But that doesn't mean they should just walk away from a licensing issue.

 

If Callaway let Acushnet have their way and not pay a license fee, then what does that do for future negotiations? And what are other OEMs supposed to think? Everything else you read in the advertisements and arguments is totally biased on both sides. But right now, Callaway is holding the cards, they have the judgments, now they just need the damages awarded. It could turn out to be a huge miscalculation on Acushnet's part.

[drgolfaholic]

Here's what I took from reading the article in Titleist website, FWIW

 

1. Titleist used Top-Flite patent, which is now owned by Callaway, without Callaway's permission.

 

Bad move by Titleist

 

2. Titleist claims the patent is not even used by Callaway in making their current Callaway balls.

 

So what? Still illegal no matter how Titleist spins it.

 

3. Callaway claims in ads that Titleist can't make balls without copying Callaway.

 

Huh? So you bought Top Flite, own their patents that you don't use and that makes you a better ball maker?

 

Here's the ultimate question: Will I now use Callaway balls instead of Titleist's? The answer is NO.

[philfan316]

I agree that Callaway's marketing choices are pretty bad. The issues were out of the public eye for many years and Callaway should keep it that way. The gloating in ads is petty and is not fooling anyone. That aside, the commenting in forums that interprets the situation as Callaway being a sore loser and suing because they could not make their own good ball is absurd. Companies don't just run off to the court at the first sign of disagreement looking to get ahead through a judgment. Are people so stupid to believe that this lawsuit is going to make a big difference in Callaway profit? And if you don't believe it will make a difference, then why would Callaway believe it? They are well aware that even if they end up with an award of $200M or more, it's not going to change the ball marketplace. But that doesn't mean they should just walk away from a licensing issue.

 

Great, so they basically saw a profit motive and went ahead and sued. They could care less about creating an equivalent ball, (which I personally feel that they simply can't produce one.) and just are looking for some cash.

 

Callaway is playing a dangerous game with the public because now that they want to bring this stuff to the consumer's eye, the consumer will be more anxious to see the "difference" in balls. Once they see that the Callaway ball isn't really comparable and feels cheaper than the Titleist ball, the consumer will not have a reason to switch balls. Callaway has to produce a better ball if they want to talk the talk.

 

IMO, Callaway should have done this as quietly as possible.

[Redman]

How do you think it is going to look for Titleist when the information comes from their site? Do you think they are going to admit wrong doing?

+1

 

Each company is going to spin the lawsuit to its own advantage. That's called protecting the brand. It's all about perception and image now since a Grand Jury decided that Callaway was in the right.

 

Well obviously I said this was from the Titleist website in my original post. And yes, Titleist is going to spin it one way and Callaway the other. My interest lies within what the US Patent Office says. Aren't things like this why they are around? And if they are saying Callaway's patents arent even valid then why is there a lawsuit. I do find it funny that regardless, they both had similar technology and Titleist made a way better ball with it.

[Ronzo]

A pox on both their houses. Neither Callaway nor Titleist will get a dime in ball revenue from me, and probably no accessory or club dollars from me either. Let their lawyers drown each other in writs, and their arrogant corporate officers who allowed this p--sing match to hit the courts should be drowned in writs as well.

 

Both companies posit themselves as keepers of the game's traditions. I call BS. No different from any other corporate slime, IMO.

 

What ball will I play? TM or Bridgestone. What clubs will I choose when I revise my bag? Anything but Callaway or Titleist that best suits me.

 

I shouldn't be as irritated as I am about this. I'm just a consumer, not a shareholder in either company. But corporate arrogance makes my bile rise. I play golf to escape exactly that.

[teedoff]

Why couldn't Callaway produce the same exact ball since they were the ones who had the patents stolen by Titleist. I think they are mad that Titleist marketed a good product and it ran wild. It's a much better ball in terms of feel off the clubs, distance, performance, etc. The Callaway balls feel hollow and click off the putter face.

 

It's almost like Callaway is the idiot with the graphing calculator and didn't really know how to use it. So Titleist, knowing how to use it, took it and did what Callaway couldn't do. Knowing that Callaway probably wouldn't want to sell it to them, and keep it so they could "pretend" on knowing how to use the calculator, Titleist felt that they would be doing the golfing world justice by stealing it, making a copy, replace it and using it under the noses of Callaway. Thus creating the best golf ball the world has ever seen. A golf ball that Callaway was never going to make in the first place.

But that doesn't matter. If the Rule 35 ball was the one where the technology was originated, every idea based from that design is in violation of Patent law. You could have the best marketing team known to man, but it doesn't negate the fact they stole the first technology.

 

The Rule 35 golf ball produced by Callaway, people conveniently forget, was subject to a lawsuit as soon as it was introduced for violating 4 patents owned by Bridgestone. The case was eventually settled out of court in Bridgestone's favor resulting in financial retribution as well as the licensing of three piece technology by Callaway.

 

So, since 1999, both Titleist and Callaway have been sued and lost to Bridgestone for violating their patented technology. Tlak about throwing stones in a glass house.