Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

* * * * * 1 votes

Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Titleist


279 replies to this topic

#61 mat562

mat562

    My ex had an irrational phobia of salad cream. Honestly.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,523 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 167
  • Joined: 04/22/2005
  • Location:Worksop, UK
GolfWRX Likes : 324

Posted 21 January 2008 - 06:24 PM

Can anyone post a link to the definitive story of exactly what patents have been infringed?

Or a quick precis would be fine.

I've read a few articles on this subject and have never seen a clearly-explained account of what Titleist are supposed to have 'stolen.'

Thanks in advance. ;)


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#62 scubus

scubus

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 46485
  • Joined: 01/20/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 1

Posted 21 January 2008 - 06:40 PM

View PostRighttoLeft, on Jan 21 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

View Postdrewster, on Jan 21 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

What is a 'Rule 35' golf ball?


The ball that Bridgestone sued Callaway for infringement over.  :cheesy:

http://www.golftoday.../callaway3.html


Yeah, "Callaway Golf: We'll sue you if you steal the intellectual property we stole."  ;)
I don't believe that Bridgestone won that case and Callaway countersued.

In any case, if Callaway did indeed infringe on patents then Callaway was wrong, just like Acushnet.  One doesn't invalidate the other.

2

#63 jwb10

jwb10

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21682
  • Joined: 11/12/2006
  • Location:Mars
  • Handicap:1
GolfWRX Likes : 288

Posted 21 January 2008 - 06:52 PM

;)  :cheesy: Nope. These are subtle , technical issues and the real issue is damages. Callaway has to show that their damage can't ge remedied with money. They can't. This is merely a tactic to raise the ante. I suspect the whole thing will be tossed as these issues are too technical for a jury. But,these boys do play for keeps don't they? BTW, if they get anything out of this it will be the only money Callaway makes from the Top-Flite deal. :cheesy:  :)  :wub:

3

#64 uncc18

uncc18

    Bridgestone!!!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 10775
  • Joined: 01/30/2006
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Ebay ID:uncc18
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 07:22 PM

View PostQueenCityGolfer, on Jan 20 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

The real question is...Would Callaway be pushing this lawsuit if they were the undisputed leader in the industry? Doubt it.

There isn't a company in the world that doesn't look at new products and try to improve on them. Callaway is acting like Titleist stole their recipe or something. How many inovations has Titleist made over the last 50+ years that Callaway benefits from today?

Callaway Golf: A better game by design. If you can't beat em', sue em'.

Judging by what's in your bag, I'd certainly consider you objective.  ;) Welcome to Golfwrx BTW!

4

#65 rexfan

rexfan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 32347
  • Joined: 06/20/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 07:42 PM

Queen,

Have you ever heard of the Big Bertha? That product is responsible for most of Callaway's success as a club manufacturer. I assume you contend the Big Bertha was "stolen" since you hate Callaway so much?


5

#66 QueenCityGolfer

QueenCityGolfer

    Pin Seeker Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 46507
  • Joined: 01/20/2008
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH, USA
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 07:59 PM

My long response was lost to a forum f***kup, so I'll just go back to some key points.

Quote

Titleist's claim that the patents should never have been issued is not valid because a judge and jury said it isn't valid.

A judge and jury also said that OJ Simpson was not guilty of two counts of first degree murder.

Quote

Second, Callaway has the right to seek compensation for the loss in income that the illegal use of their patents cost them. Titleist has admitted in court that there was income generated in other market segments due to the ProV. That income was ill-gained and is income Callaway may have seen had the patents not been infringed.

And there is absolutely no way to determine what percentage of Titleist profits are soley attributed to the introduction of the Pro V1, and what profits are attributed to solid products across the board, and the brand recognition, and popularity the company has enjoyed for decades.

Callaway does incorperate other's ideas and innovations into their products. In the Bridgestone case, there was clearly a question about patent infringement, but in my opinion it's bigger than that. Callaway is apparently ok with profiting off the tweaking of other's investments (patented or not), but when another company happens to make a similar product to one of their own, they cry all the way to the courthouse, seeking damages for "irreparable harm." How is that for hypocrisy?

I have not seen any evidence that Titleist "stole" Callaway technology. All I have gathered thus far, is that both companies were developing similar golf balls, and Callaway just so happened to be the first into the patent office. If Titleist was unaware of Callaway's ball developement at the time of their own ball developement, then it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity to sell their product, or penalize them for it. And depending upon what element of the ball the patent effects, I wouldn't see any problem with Titleist taking a few elements of a Callaway ball, and improving upon it. Callaway does the same thing in their product development. What patent was violated, and how much effect that has on the final product, is key information I have yet to be provided with. If/when I am provided with that information, I'll be able to make a clear, concise, judgement on the matter. Until then, I'm giving Titleist the benefit of the doubt.

6

#67 Night train

Night train

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,791 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 7139
  • Joined: 10/26/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 1781

Posted 21 January 2008 - 08:17 PM

View PostQueenCityGolfer, on Jan 21 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

My long response was lost to a forum f***kup, so I'll just go back to some key points.

Quote

Titleist's claim that the patents should never have been issued is not valid because a judge and jury said it isn't valid.

A judge and jury also said that OJ Simpson was not guilty of two counts of first degree murder.

Quote

Second, Callaway has the right to seek compensation for the loss in income that the illegal use of their patents cost them. Titleist has admitted in court that there was income generated in other market segments due to the ProV. That income was ill-gained and is income Callaway may have seen had the patents not been infringed.

And there is absolutely no way to determine what percentage of Titleist profits are soley attributed to the introduction of the Pro V1, and what profits are attributed to solid products across the board, and the brand recognition, and popularity the company has enjoyed for decades.

Callaway does incorperate other's ideas and innovations into their products. In the Bridgestone case, there was clearly a question about patent infringement, but in my opinion it's bigger than that. Callaway is apparently ok with profiting off the tweaking of other's investments (patented or not), but when another company happens to make a similar product to one of their own, they cry all the way to the courthouse, seeking damages for "irreparable harm." How is that for hypocrisy?

I have not seen any evidence that Titleist "stole" Callaway technology. All I have gathered thus far, is that both companies were developing similar golf balls, and Callaway just so happened to be the first into the patent office. If Titleist was unaware of Callaway's ball developement at the time of their own ball developement, then it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity to sell their product, or penalize them for it. And depending upon what element of the ball the patent effects, I wouldn't see any problem with Titleist taking a few elements of a Callaway ball, and improving upon it. Callaway does the same thing in their product development. What patent was violated, and how much effect that has on the final product, is key information I have yet to be provided with. If/when I am provided with that information, I'll be able to make a clear, concise, judgement on the matter. Until then, I'm giving Titleist the benefit of the doubt.


The jury ruled that Titleist infringed on 8 different patents.........how much evidence do you require?

Give it up.......they were found to have violated the law..........if they appeal and win, then you can tell the world you were right..........until then they have been found guilty......by a jury in a court of law!

7

#68 scubus

scubus

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 46485
  • Joined: 01/20/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 1

Posted 21 January 2008 - 08:25 PM

[quote name='QueenCityGolfer' post='875624' date='Jan 21 2008, 07:59 PM']My long response was lost to a forum f***kup, so I'll just go back to some key points.

[quote]Titleist's claim that the patents should never have been issued is not valid because a judge and jury said it isn't valid.[/quote]

A judge and jury also said that OJ Simpson was not guilty of two counts of first degree murder.

[/quote]

That is true.  So?

Are you suggesting that we free all the convicted felons in jail?

[quote][quote]Second, Callaway has the right to seek compensation for the loss in income that the illegal use of their patents cost them. Titleist has admitted in court that there was income generated in other market segments due to the ProV. That income was ill-gained and is income Callaway may have seen had the patents not been infringed.[/quote]

And there is absolutely no way to determine what percentage of Titleist profits are soley attributed to the introduction of the Pro V1, and what profits are attributed to solid products across the board, and the brand recognition, and popularity the company has enjoyed for decades.
[/quote]

We'll see.  Not having a way to answer the question doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked.  There are all kinds of formulas for calculating damages.  I'll leave this to the experts.  Certainly Callaway could have the ProV's removed from the shelves and demande some percentage of prior sales.

[quote]Callaway does incorperate other's ideas and innovations into their products. In the Bridgestone case, there was clearly a question about patent infringement, but in my opinion it's bigger than that. Callaway is apparently ok with profiting off the tweaking of other's investments (patented or not), but when another company happens to make a similar product to one of their own, they cry all the way to the courthouse, seeking damages for "irreparable harm." How is that for hypocrisy?[/quote]

Every manufacturer incorporates other's ideas and innovations into their products.  All manufacturer's are okay with profiting off of tweaks made to other's investments.  I'm okay with that too.  It's the hijacking of legally patented breakthroughs that are forbidden.

All golfballs are similar.  I don't hear Callaway crying all the way to the courthouse seeking damages for irreparable harm for all of them. Only the ones that have stolen their intellectual property.  I don't see any hypocrisy.

In the Bridgestone case there was a question of patent infringement.  Either Bridgestone lost or they felt their case was weak enough that they were better off settling without a trial.

[quote]I have not seen any evidence that Titleist "stole" Callaway technology. All I have gathered thus far, is that both companies were developing similar golf balls, and Callaway just so happened to be the first into the patent office. If Titleist was unaware of Callaway's ball developement at the time of their own ball developement, then it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity to sell their product, or penalize them for it. And depending upon what element of the ball the patent effects, I wouldn't see any problem with Titleist taking a few elements of a Callaway ball, and improving upon it. Callaway does the same thing in their product development. What patent was violated, and how much effect that has on the final product, is key information I have yet to be provided with. If/when I am provided with that information, I'll be able to make a clear, concise, judgement on the matter. Until then, I'm giving Titleist the benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
The law has always been first to patent earns the patent.  There are remedies for serendipity and parallel development.  Titleist has to prove they were developing the same ideas independently and at the same time.  I surmise they have been unable to do that.  They do have the best attorneys money can buy so if there was an argument there, I suspect it would have been made.

I still so not see the sense in the argument "I'll wait to see what patent was violated and how much of an effect that has on the final product."  A patent either is or isn't infringed... kind of like being pregnant.  You are or you aren't.  You really aren't just a little bit pregnant.  I surmise it has some bearing on the finished product or it would already have been removed.  That makes it valuable, and that makes Titleist liable to compensate the patent holder.

You continue to confuse improving on ideas that are covered by patent and those that aren't.  If patents were not available and enforceable companies would hesitate to invest millions on research.

8

#69 QueenCityGolfer

QueenCityGolfer

    Pin Seeker Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 46507
  • Joined: 01/20/2008
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH, USA
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 08:41 PM

Quote

The jury ruled that Titleist infringed on 8 different patents.........how much evidence do you require?

I'd like to know what patents they were, and whether Titleist "stole" them outright, took inspiration from an idea or two, completely copied a feature or two, or simply created a ball that was unintentionally similar to that of the Callaway. Without these facts, I cannot come to an educated conclusion.

I'd like to know what these violations were, specifically, so that I can make a personal determination as to whether it's something I personally find to be important.

If Titleist stole the: dimple pattern, the combination of materials inside the ball, the density of the core, the density of the crust, the order in which they are configured, the cover material of the ball, the density of the cover, etc etc etc etc, then I might have an issue with that, and question playing their clubs. If it's a matter of, they coppied the pfrouyrithanegranitepolimerisotopiancrystal that Callaway puts in one of the layers, I don't care. It's a material. Who can own a material? That's not theft. If it improves the product, that's a smart business decision.

Edited by QueenCityGolfer, 21 January 2008 - 08:44 PM.


9

#70 QueenCityGolfer

QueenCityGolfer

    Pin Seeker Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 46507
  • Joined: 01/20/2008
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH, USA
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 09:02 PM

Quote

scubus[/b]

Are you suggesting that we free all the convicted felons in jail?

No, I'm simply illustrating the point that the jury is not always right.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#71 StaffBag

StaffBag

    Titleist is... and always will be... #1

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 2637
  • Joined: 07/14/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 09:10 PM

View Postkemau, on Jan 21 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

View PostStaffBag, on Jan 21 2008, 02:00 AM, said:

Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah!!

Let's take a little step back and take a reality check with this. If Callaway wins this case, (and they might), I would bet that it won't matter much anyway.

The ProV1 first came out around 2000. That makes this ball (and all of it's variations on the same theme) an EIGHT year old piece of technology. Yes, I know that it has been tweaked about every year or two since it first came out, but I'm sure that Titleist has been working feverishly on a replacement to this line of balls. They have already done major overhauls on the NXT line and it's offshoots of Tour and Extreme as of 2008. I would bet that there will soon be a "new" super high-end ball coming out. One that is extremely resistant to shearing, is even more stable in the wind, and will be soft as butter for feel.

I don't know, but IF Titleist did "steal" the technology from Callaway, then the cycle has probably now run it's course and a new ball will soon be coming out for 2009!

I have no inside information. This is just a hunch.




But I would bet that it will come to pass and be true!

Of course, we all know that Callaway sues Titleist... then Titleist sues Callaway.... and the cycle continues. The only money that is changing hands is with the lawyers. And all of the golfing public will be paying a rediculous amount for thier premium "rocks" in the future by 2010!

:cheesy:

Callaway has already won their case......this is now the penalty phase as to how Titleist should be held accountable. if Titleist has been working on a "replacement to this line of balls" then where is it??? does it take 8 years to come out with it or do we see they've been stealing from Callaway & Bridgestone so long they forgot to continue innovating to come out with their OWN breakthrough golf ball technology???

this isn't a matter of "IF Titleist did steal the technology" as two lawsuits have proven it to be fact. and i doubt the cycle of patent use has run its course as there has been ample opportunity to say "the patents are no longer in our production runs and we have since developed something unique." hence i see it to mean they're still using it as the proposed motions applies to "the infringement of the Relevant Patent Claims.....with regard to, any of the Pro V1 line of golf balls including the Pro V1, Pro V1x, Pro V1*, or any variations thereof...."

it'll be interesting to see how Titleist responds


Callaway won thier case.  Ok, true.  Now is the penalty phase... which means that this will keep going like the Energizer Bunny with each side suing and resuing the other, doing nothing except making lawyers richer, and driving the price of the golf balls higher and higher!  ;)

Callaway, like everyone else, is useing "borrowed" technology in thier equipment!  They were just smart enought to put a patent on some of these ideas first.  I'm sort of surprised that Top Flite didn't sue EVERYONE back in the day since they were the ones who first brought this multilayer concept to market with a premium ball.  I suppose they just didn't have the deep pockets to handle an extended legal battle with someone like Callaway.  

Also, keep in mind that there are NO MORE ORIGINAL IDEAS out there any more!  It's just about all been done and if one company does come up with something then in a short time EVERYONE has their version of it.  It's just a big fight for market share.

As for Titleist, if they are going to be replacing thier ball (which I believe to be possible) do you really think that they would be letting this information out until they were ready with a product launch?!  Wouldn't this "potentially new technology" be "stolen" by someone else if they did let the cat out of the bag before it was time?  The golf industry is changing so fast right now everyone has to keep thier technology improvements a sectret to keep a competitive edge.  That is just how it works.

I'm under the impression that you are a strong Callaway supporter?  True?!

I'm not hiding who my loyalties lie with as it can easliy be seen!


We'll just see where this goes!  I'm sure it will be in the courts for a looooong time to come.


I'm not picking a fight here either, but some of these threads get out of hand.  It'd be interresting to see what would really happen if there were to be no more ProV1's avaiable for sale!  I would guess that there would be a backlash in the golf industry like we have never seen before!  (I would guess it would be against Callaway, too!)  I'm not talking legal.... I'm talking market driven by consumers!  I can see a significantly overpriced ball in the future, if Cally wins this case to remove the ProV1 from the land... which is not what the game needs right now with it's stagnant growth!

Just a thought.

11

#72 kemau

kemau

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,135 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 2773
  • Joined: 07/15/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 1750

Posted 21 January 2008 - 09:11 PM

View Postmat562, on Jan 21 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

Can anyone post a link to the definitive story of exactly what patents have been infringed?

Or a quick precis would be fine.

I've read a few articles on this subject and have never seen a clearly-explained account of what Titleist are supposed to have 'stolen.'

Thanks in advance. ;)

Callaway vs. Acushnet Verdict
9* Synchron Revolver
14* Dynacraft Avatar
2-PW Titleist 690MB
56* & 60* Nike SV
Bobby Grace DCT Sunset
Innovex V Motion Tour

12

#73 kemau

kemau

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,135 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 2773
  • Joined: 07/15/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 1750

Posted 21 January 2008 - 09:14 PM

View PostQueenCityGolfer, on Jan 21 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

Quote

The jury ruled that Titleist infringed on 8 different patents.........how much evidence do you require?

I'd like to know what patents they were, and whether Titleist "stole" them outright, took inspiration from an idea or two, completely copied a feature or two, or simply created a ball that was unintentionally similar to that of the Callaway. Without these facts, I cannot come to an educated conclusion.

I'd like to know what these violations were, specifically, so that I can make a personal determination as to whether it's something I personally find to be important.

If Titleist stole the: dimple pattern, the combination of materials inside the ball, the density of the core, the density of the crust, the order in which they are configured, the cover material of the ball, the density of the cover, etc etc etc etc, then I might have an issue with that, and question playing their clubs. If it's a matter of, they coppied the pfrouyrithanegranitepolimerisotopiancrystal that Callaway puts in one of the layers, I don't care. It's a material. Who can own a material? That's not theft. If it improves the product, that's a smart business decision.

Callaway vs. Acushnet Verdict

the facts are all there for you....
9* Synchron Revolver
14* Dynacraft Avatar
2-PW Titleist 690MB
56* & 60* Nike SV
Bobby Grace DCT Sunset
Innovex V Motion Tour

13

#74 scubus

scubus

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 46485
  • Joined: 01/20/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 1

Posted 21 January 2008 - 09:15 PM

View PostQueenCityGolfer, on Jan 21 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

Quote

scubus[/b]

Are you suggesting that we free all the convicted felons in jail?

No, I'm simply illustrating the point that the jury is not always right.
But the assumption has to be that they are right once they reach a decision.  And remember, the system is designed to find guilty parties not guilty more often than to find innocent parties guilty.  OJ Simpson is a symptom of a system designed to protect innocent parties from unjust punishment.  

Think what that means when a jury finds a party guilty...

[edit:]

the word is "than" not "then"...

Edited by scubus, 21 January 2008 - 09:20 PM.


14

#75 QueenCityGolfer

QueenCityGolfer

    Pin Seeker Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 46507
  • Joined: 01/20/2008
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH, USA
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 09:58 PM

I'll be the first to admit that I'm clueless as to what the verdict sheet actually means. Are we talking about the development of the multi-layer golf ball here? Callaway was actually granted a patent on the multi-layer golf ball?

Somebody please enlighten me, and tell me there is more to the case than that. I was under the impression that the charge was that Titleist stole the recipe of an existing ball. The "crime" is that Titleist simply built a 3 piece golf ball with a polyurethane cover?


15

#76 kemau

kemau

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,135 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 2773
  • Joined: 07/15/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 1750

Posted 21 January 2008 - 10:05 PM

View PostStaffBag, on Jan 21 2008, 09:10 PM, said:

Callaway won thier case.  Ok, true.  Now is the penalty phase... which means that this will keep going like the Energizer Bunny with each side suing and resuing the other, doing nothing except making lawyers richer, and driving the price of the golf balls higher and higher!  ;)

Callaway, like everyone else, is useing "borrowed" technology in thier equipment!  They were just smart enought to put a patent on some of these ideas first.  I'm sort of surprised that Top Flite didn't sue EVERYONE back in the day since they were the ones who first brought this multilayer concept to market with a premium ball.  I suppose they just didn't have the deep pockets to handle an extended legal battle with someone like Callaway.  

Also, keep in mind that there are NO MORE ORIGINAL IDEAS out there any more!  It's just about all been done and if one company does come up with something then in a short time EVERYONE has their version of it.  It's just a big fight for market share.

As for Titleist, if they are going to be replacing thier ball (which I believe to be possible) do you really think that they would be letting this information out until they were ready with a product launch?!  Wouldn't this "potentially new technology" be "stolen" by someone else if they did let the cat out of the bag before it was time?  The golf industry is changing so fast right now everyone has to keep thier technology improvements a sectret to keep a competitive edge.  That is just how it works.

I'm under the impression that you are a strong Callaway supporter?  True?!

I'm not hiding who my loyalties lie with as it can easliy be seen!


We'll just see where this goes!  I'm sure it will be in the courts for a looooong time to come.


I'm not picking a fight here either, but some of these threads get out of hand.  It'd be interresting to see what would really happen if there were to be no more ProV1's avaiable for sale!  I would guess that there would be a backlash in the golf industry like we have never seen before!  (I would guess it would be against Callaway, too!)  I'm not talking legal.... I'm talking market driven by consumers!  I can see a significantly overpriced ball in the future, if Cally wins this case to remove the ProV1 from the land... which is not what the game needs right now with it's stagnant growth!

Just a thought.

my friend i posted this information and continue to respond because i believed this would bring about an interesting discussion.....and don't worry about me getting out of line as i'm all about a good exchange of opinions.  although my WITB shows a Cally driver and deuce (handed down from pops but only the deuce will remain when the bag gets an overhaul), i'm not a strong supporter of them as i find their club prices to be ridiculous.  i've never played a Cally stamped ball but i'll snatch up the Top Flite TL Tour for as long as i can find them.  i do have a Titleist 690mb set that was given to me (not even a thought to say "no thanks" to those) so i'm not a hater either.  all i'm saying is Titleist is on the ropes and their cash cow is in danger.  

sure there are plenty of companies using borrowed technology.  but they did it the right way by entering into partnerships and paying an appropriate amount to share!!! Titleist and their supporters have an elitist attitude IMO (and it appears i can find some of that on full display by checking some of the posts) so i see what's happening as a good bit of humble pie that is exposing a lot of skeletons in the closet
9* Synchron Revolver
14* Dynacraft Avatar
2-PW Titleist 690MB
56* & 60* Nike SV
Bobby Grace DCT Sunset
Innovex V Motion Tour

16

#77 Milo

Milo

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,576 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 19165
  • Joined: 09/09/2006
  • Location:London
GolfWRX Likes : 16

Posted 21 January 2008 - 10:18 PM

View Postmarkheardjr, on Jan 22 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

Titleist should parade up every golfer out there that uses a PRO V1 and let us tell them how much different their ball is from any Callaway offered.  It is a completely different ball, feel wise I mean.  I think the patent office gave too much to Callaway.  There isn't another ball close to the ProV1 except from the Bridgestone/Tourstage camps.  

Just my .02


I'm with you there. IMHO Cally balls are totally different in feel to Titty balls and universally inferior.
Get some real golfers up there to explain that having a patent should mean jack unless you can make something decent with it. If not, let someone who knows what the heck they're doing use it, keep quiet and share the profits.

17

#78 kemau

kemau

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,135 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 2773
  • Joined: 07/15/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 1750

Posted 21 January 2008 - 10:58 PM

View PostMilo, on Jan 21 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

View Postmarkheardjr, on Jan 22 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

Titleist should parade up every golfer out there that uses a PRO V1 and let us tell them how much different their ball is from any Callaway offered.  It is a completely different ball, feel wise I mean.  I think the patent office gave too much to Callaway.  There isn't another ball close to the ProV1 except from the Bridgestone/Tourstage camps.  

Just my .02


I'm with you there. IMHO Cally balls are totally different in feel to Titty balls and universally inferior.
Get some real golfers up there to explain that having a patent should mean jack unless you can make something decent with it. If not, let someone who knows what the heck they're doing use it, keep quiet and share the profits.

apparently Titleist didn't know what they were doing as they had to steal from two companies to make the ProV1......and as i'm also sure you know what we came to find when p. mickelson testified against acushnet.  i'll ask that you pay attention to the statements from mr. bellis on page 2 where he does quite a bit of damage as to whom is inferior.  a comment such as "The ProV1ís success was attributable not to its technology, but to Acushnetís advertising, developments in club design, and more athletic players." isn't exactly a resounding endorsement

Titleist was in trouble as they had nothing to offer when the new wave of golf balls came out (first bullet point on page 2) so their haste to catch up now finds them in a position of being guilty

http://golf-patents....f_Mickelson.pdf
9* Synchron Revolver
14* Dynacraft Avatar
2-PW Titleist 690MB
56* & 60* Nike SV
Bobby Grace DCT Sunset
Innovex V Motion Tour

18

#79 Milo

Milo

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,576 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 19165
  • Joined: 09/09/2006
  • Location:London
GolfWRX Likes : 16

Posted 21 January 2008 - 11:26 PM

View Postkemau, on Jan 22 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

View PostMilo, on Jan 21 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

View Postmarkheardjr, on Jan 22 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

Titleist should parade up every golfer out there that uses a PRO V1 and let us tell them how much different their ball is from any Callaway offered.  It is a completely different ball, feel wise I mean.  I think the patent office gave too much to Callaway.  There isn't another ball close to the ProV1 except from the Bridgestone/Tourstage camps.  

Just my .02


I'm with you there. IMHO Cally balls are totally different in feel to Titty balls and universally inferior.
Get some real golfers up there to explain that having a patent should mean jack unless you can make something decent with it. If not, let someone who knows what the heck they're doing use it, keep quiet and share the profits.

apparently Titleist didn't know what they were doing as they had to steal from two companies to make the ProV1......and as i'm also sure you know what we came to find when p. mickelson testified against acushnet.  i'll ask that you pay attention to the statements from mr. bellis on page 2 where he does quite a bit of damage as to whom is inferior.  a comment such as "The ProV1ís success was attributable not to its technology, but to Acushnetís advertising, developments in club design, and more athletic players." isn't exactly a resounding endorsement

Titleist was in trouble as they had nothing to offer when the new wave of golf balls came out (first bullet point on page 2) so their haste to catch up now finds them in a position of being guilty

http://golf-patents....f_Mickelson.pdf

Fair enough. I accept Titty have been found guilty as accused but that does not mean they don't make a better ball than Callaway. The latter should be embarrassed at having the proprietary technology and not being able to make a better ball than the guys who had to hurriedly steal it.

Bellis is wrong. I buy my own balls and over here a dozen ProV1s cost almost twice what a box of HXTour/56 will cost.  I, and many others, buy them not because they're on TV or VJ uses them, or drivers are now 460cc but because they perform better on grown up golf courses.

I hope they sort this one out and no one gets too badly damaged.

19

#80 sapguy

sapguy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 19968
  • Joined: 09/28/2006
  • Location:Collegeville, PA
  • Ebay ID:philly_sapguy
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 11:28 PM

View Postjkloster, on Jan 21 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

I'm all for a strong defense of patents, but the docs make it pretty clear that Cally is is swinging for a grad slam when all they really have is a ground-rule double.

LOL, let me change the metaphor from baseball to boxing :cheesy:

Callaway "appears" to already have the unanimous decision from the judges, but it's going for the KO of Titleist, just to be emphatic about it  ;)

I just read the postings over at golf-patents.com, and while I am sure that Titleist will be filing an appeal, I think that it will lose once again (caveat: I am no lawyer, judge, or crystal ball reader).

So, let us be prepared to play with the Callaway Pro V2  :) :wub: :) :cheesy:

Fortune Brands will look at the toll that the lawsuit has been having on Acushnet, and it will find a way to settle with Callaway, and perhaps the way out is to sell 51% (or more, but not 100%) of Acushnet to Callaway as "reparation" while still retaining a small revenue stream on the Pro V1.

As many of noted on this thread, Acushnet is so severely weaken by the double blow from Bridgestone and Callaway that it would not surprise anyone if Callaway or someone else will simply swallow Titleist or even all of Acushnet (which includes FootJoy, Cobra, and all the rest) especially since Callaway has the cash and Titleist's reputation has been damaged by this entire sad episode.

Edited by sapguy, 21 January 2008 - 11:31 PM.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#81 teedoff

teedoff

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 8766
  • Joined: 12/15/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 11:45 PM

View Postbambooluv, on Jan 20 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

View PostAce In The Hole, on Jan 20 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

Pro-V's will not be taken off the shelf ever, but I can tell you that Callaway will have there hands in the pocket of Acushnet for a large percentage of sales till the end of time, the Pro-v1 name is to big for Callaway to take off the market it would be in their best interest to settle out of court to get a percentage of the Acushnet sales from the Pro-v1 Callaway may hold the patent on the Tech but Titleist holds all rights on the name. Just my two cents, me thinks the consumer will never know/see the difference.


Good point, but coming off the heels of the bridgestone loss ( which no one really knows how much bridgestone is getting) this will be the deciding hit on them.

Keep in mind. Bridgestone and Titleist have not yet settled their lawsuit in Japan over the same patent infringements that Bridgestone won in their out of court settlemant in the US. Bottom line, Titleist is not out of the woods yet!

21

#82 teedoff

teedoff

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 8766
  • Joined: 12/15/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 11:48 PM

View Postsapguy, on Jan 21 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

View Postjkloster, on Jan 21 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

I'm all for a strong defense of patents, but the docs make it pretty clear that Cally is is swinging for a grad slam when all they really have is a ground-rule double.

LOL, let me change the metaphor from baseball to boxing :cheesy:

Callaway "appears" to already have the unanimous decision from the judges, but it's going for the KO of Titleist, just to be emphatic about it  ;)

I just read the postings over at golf-patents.com, and while I am sure that Titleist will be filing an appeal, I think that it will lose once again (caveat: I am no lawyer, judge, or crystal ball reader).

So, let us be prepared to play with the Callaway Pro V2  :) :wub: :) :cheesy:

Fortune Brands will look at the toll that the lawsuit has been having on Acushnet, and it will find a way to settle with Callaway, and perhaps the way out is to sell 51% (or more, but not 100%) of Acushnet to Callaway as "reparation" while still retaining a small revenue stream on the Pro V1.

As many of noted on this thread, Acushnet is so severely weaken by the double blow from Bridgestone and Callaway that it would not surprise anyone if Callaway or someone else will simply swallow Titleist or even all of Acushnet (which includes FootJoy, Cobra, and all the rest) especially since Callaway has the cash and Titleist's reputation has been damaged by this entire sad episode.

It's not a secret in the industry that Fortune Brands is weighing their options with Titleist. We've heard this from several sources.

22

#83 ifixclubs

ifixclubs

    "you want me to stick what,where?!"

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,728 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 7719
  • Joined: 11/12/2005
  • Location:l.a. area
GolfWRX Likes : 39

Posted 22 January 2008 - 12:21 AM

i heard toyota was looking into acquiring titleist...any titleist insiders heard of this?
TM M2 10.5* tour w/ust mamiya elements gold proto 7f5
TM M2 3hl deep face w/ust mamiya elements gold proto 8f5
TM M1 19* hybrid w/ust mamiya recoil 809f5
Miura CB-57 3-pw w/DG AMT tour x100
Miura 53* y grind & 57* c grind w/ DG tour x100
Bettinardi rjb 360 series
Miura Stand Bag

23

#84 teedoff

teedoff

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 8766
  • Joined: 12/15/2005
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 22 January 2008 - 12:27 AM

View PostMilo, on Jan 21 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

View Postmarkheardjr, on Jan 22 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

Titleist should parade up every golfer out there that uses a PRO V1 and let us tell them how much different their ball is from any Callaway offered.  It is a completely different ball, feel wise I mean.  I think the patent office gave too much to Callaway.  There isn't another ball close to the ProV1 except from the Bridgestone/Tourstage camps.  

Just my .02


I'm with you there. IMHO Cally balls are totally different in feel to Titty balls and universally inferior.
Get some real golfers up there to explain that having a patent should mean jack unless you can make something decent with it. If not, let someone who knows what the heck they're doing use it, keep quiet and share the profits.

In 28 years in the golf business as both a PGA Professional and as a manufacturer's sales representative, I don't think I've heard two statements more profoundly off the wall than these. These are issues relating to research and development. Protecting their intellectual investments. Time and capital investments by the companies. "parade every golfer up there that uses the PRO V1 and let them tell them how much different their ball is from any Callaway offered" has nothing to do with reality. Take the Tour player that is part of the parade. What do the courts do when one of the individual in the parade switch companies due to new contracts?

Bottom line, every ball reacts differently with everyone's swing characteristics and equipment specifications. Saying the one ball is better than another is not possible to determine. It is possible to determine which ball is right for AN INDIVIDUAL.  

In many instances that I've witnessed over the years teaching individuals and fitting players as a rep, ego plays to big a part of the equation. Problem is, there wasn't enough talent in most cases to support the ego. And when the talent was present, I didn't hear too often that they had to play a specific product because everyone knows it's the best!

24

#85 mr ice

mr ice

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 14694
  • Joined: 05/11/2006
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 22 January 2008 - 03:18 AM

View PostQueenCityGolfer, on Jan 22 2008, 03:58 AM, said:

I'll be the first to admit that I'm clueless as to what the verdict sheet actually means. Are we talking about the development of the multi-layer golf ball here? Callaway was actually granted a patent on the multi-layer golf ball?

Somebody please enlighten me, and tell me there is more to the case than that. I was under the impression that the charge was that Titleist stole the recipe of an existing ball. The "crime" is that Titleist simply built a 3 piece golf ball with a polyurethane cover?

I can understand that you don't understand the verdict. I can understand that you don't understand the specifics of the patents involved here. I can understand that you may have strong feelings for Titleist.

However I can't understand that you look at this with the idea that it's not that bad or even considering that in your eyes Callaway did something you didn't like so why should Titleist be charged with this? Titleist got caught, it's as simple as that, they might appeal and win but as of now they are caught and you know what they say, "only the stupid ones get caught". It will be interesting to see how this mess turns out.

I'm glad I'm playing the Tx4, inferior or not;)


25

#86 505

505

    out on the 19th hole

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 33263
  • Joined: 06/29/2007
  • Location:New Mexico
  • Handicap:1.8
GolfWRX Likes : 266

Posted 22 January 2008 - 04:07 AM

Pretty crazy stuff, and I can't say that I fully understand what is going on, so please correct me if I am wrong here anyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by 505, 22 January 2008 - 04:13 AM.

Krank FormulaX 9* Diamana Ahina 60X
TaylorMade M1 15* Diamana B70X

TaylorMade M1 21* Kuro Kage 80X
TaylorMade PSi Tour 4-P TI X100
Cleveland RTX-3 52/56/60 DG
Ping Sigma G B60 32"

26

#87 Swoosh216

Swoosh216

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 45684
  • Joined: 01/11/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 22 January 2008 - 08:40 AM

View PostQueenCityGolfer, on Jan 21 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

Callaway specifically says in that document that they seek to "level the playing field." They further state that the Pro V1 golf ball has boosted the sales of other Titleist equipment, and seem to suggest that compensation/penalties of some kind is just for that as well, because it has caused Callaway "irreparable harm." Callaway believes that Titleist is not entitled of any of their success in any area (clubs, apparel, Footjoy shoes/gloves) because of one semi-similar golf ball, despite the fact that Titleist was the leader in the industry long before the Pro V1, or even Callaway Golf itself came along. So they are basically saying, anything Titleist has earned since the Pro V was released, is partially Callaway's. Sorry, but that argument is absurd.

It's especially absurd because is comes from Callaway, the same company which has produced countless non-conforming metal woods over the last decade, which have definitely boosted their position in the marketplace. The public was/is largely unaware of that. People just gravitated to these clubs because balls flew off these clubs like rockets. People didn't know, or care why. Should Titleist be able to seek damages for that? Callaway woods out-sell Titleist woods like 3-1 don't they? Why? Did glowing reviews, recommendations, praise and awards for the non-conforming Callaway products from every major golf media outlet in the world, result in mass profit, and subsequent industry domination for Callaway? I would say it played a hell of a big part, yeah. And has the perception/assumption of their products performance charactaristics changed in the minds of consumers? Absolutely not. So what's the difference here? Callaway broke rules/laws/a code of ethics, to attain an unfair advantage in the marketplace, which is exactly the same thing they accuse Titleist of doing. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for Callaway. They are equally as guilty as Titleist if we are talking about fairness and "infringement."

Now if they just sought to have the Pro V in it's current form, pulled from production, I might, and it's a strong "might", see some legitimacy in their argument, but what they are seemingly seeking is absurd.

I think your MISSING THE POINT...Titleist stole technology from Callaway and tried to repackage the patent and claim it as theirs???  They lost 8 of 9 parts of the lawsuit which means they stole from Callaway and they should have to pay money or stop making that product. Titleist has been known to be a reactionary company not a innovative company in the eyes of many people in golf.  You must work for Titleist becuase your lack of logic and reasoning on this issue is amazing. Bridgestone and Callaway accuse Titleist and WON in Court that they were stealing ball patents from these 2 companies..What more evidence do you need!

27

#88 wildwilly911

wildwilly911

    Major Winner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,709 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21429
  • Joined: 11/06/2006
  • Location:wisconsin
GolfWRX Likes : 1

Posted 22 January 2008 - 08:55 AM

View Post505, on Jan 22 2008, 05:07 AM, said:

Pretty crazy stuff, and I can't say that I fully understand what is going on, so please correct me if I am wrong here anyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28

#89 RNF

RNF

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21561
  • Joined: 11/08/2006
GolfWRX Likes : 1

Posted 22 January 2008 - 09:13 AM

The sad thing is Titleist's bread & butter is the ProV1; top seller BY FAR and a large percentage of their profits. For a golf shop it's a loss leader.

29

#90 mat562

mat562

    My ex had an irrational phobia of salad cream. Honestly.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,523 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 167
  • Joined: 04/22/2005
  • Location:Worksop, UK
GolfWRX Likes : 324

Posted 22 January 2008 - 09:16 AM

Thanks kemau! ;)

A very informative link. I'm picturing Greg Norman rifling through the boxes in the bottom of the closet to find all that paperwork...

Edited by mat562, 22 January 2008 - 09:30 AM.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors