These lawsuits to me seem silly because any special advantage a company might claim to have protected by a patent can't really be that significant, since the performance of all these golf balls is so similar. I know they're not silly, they're actually very serious from a legal and business standpoint, but in some ways it's arguing how many angels can dance on the tip of a tee.

You have brought up a very interesting twist to this, Erik. Where does this ruling apply?

Thank you for your input and feedback...Greatly appreciated!

According to Golf Town in Canada

This ruling applies to the U.S. only. Last I checked, we hadn't taken over Canada.

Ernest Reed said on November 14, 2008:

All Acushnet has done is to declare a statement of dissatisfaction over a ruling, which the last I checked, is not an actual appeal itself.

I would imagine that if they said they've filed or intend to file an appeal, they will. I would also guess that a significant portion of their appeal is based on the fact that the patents were ruled invalid.

In response to your statement "I don't believe a retailer is barred from selling product even if it's from March". Actually, they must abide by any rulings from the courts that are considered final and resultant of a case that is closed. Failure to comply, either on their own or through instruction of the offending party, will result in legal and criminal penalties.

My questions to you were related to a "pending" appeal from Acushnet. A court order has been released in favour of Callaway Golf. Only an accepted appeal on behalf of Acushnet can prevent the declared date of cessation of sales from taking place. All Acushnet has done is to declare a statement of dissatisfaction over a ruling, which the last I checked, is not an actual appeal itself.

Also, I don't believe a retailer is barred from selling product even if it's from March. The injunction, if I understand correctly, simply bars Titleist from selling the balls.

IANAL and all that, but that's how I read it.

Think about the statement that the new balls show "no discernible difference in performance" and ask yourself why such energy (and of course, expense that is passed on to customers) is devoted to incremental new patents for the most minute of changes with no discernible change.

The current Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls are still conforming and will continue to be allowed to be played beyond January 1, 2009. They are not "banned" for play. Titleist just can't ship or sell them.

It is also important to note that there will not be a disruption in the sale of Pro V1s. Current Pro V1s will be available in shops from now through the end of the year and beyond. Additionally, as noted in paragraph two of Titleist's response, they have "converted" the current Pro V1 and there is no discernible performance or quality difference. Those balls will be available in shops until the new 2009 Pro V1 and Pro V1x are available in the first quarter of 2009.