Is the USGA Getting Picky Who Uses Its Handicap Formula?

Greenskeeper.org used to offer a free online service where you could post scores and they would use the USGA handicap formula to calculate your "handicap index". It wasn't an official index, but it showed you what it would be if it you did keep it officially.

Recently they switched away from that and no longer use the CR/SR system because they say that they got a letter from the USGA demanding that they stop using the USGA's proprietary handicap index formula. Now they use a similar but noticably different method. Greenskeeper claims they've heard other that other sites are being approached on this topic as well.

Anyone heard of anything about this? Is the USGA tightening up on who is allowed to use their formula? Do they even have the grounds to do so? Does this have any implications for software like Scorecard?

Does the USGA have some sort of trademark/patent on the formula? If not I guess the only thing they could really do is prevent the usage of the names. I assume they have a trademark on "GHIN", but do they on "handicap"?

PS I really have no knowledge of any of this. Just posing questions.

I'm not a lawyer, but I follow issues like this fairly closely as a layman. In my understanding, there is nothing the USGA can do besides rattle their saber a bit and threaten to sue. There is no direct intellectual property (IP) protection possible for a simple formula: it flat out cannot be protected by copyright or trademark, and could only be protected by a patent under very limited circumstances. They almost surely could not trademark handicap, but they almost certainly do on something along the lines of "USGA handicap." However, a trademark protection on this would be extremely simple to evade: merely adding a prominent statement that "this calculation uses the formula published in X publication but is not verified by nor sanctioned by the USGA" should be more than adequate to avoid any actual infringement on the trademark.

However, for a small website, it's possible that even the threat of a lawsuit from a body the size of the USGA would be sufficient risk to warrant dropping the service. Defending even a "simple" lawsuit could exceed the budgets of an individual or small company.

Another (less onerous) reason a site might choose to respect the demands of the USGA on the matter is if they somehow depend on the USGA's goodwill for other reasons. It might be better not to provide the service than to upset them and lose cooperation in other areas. This might apply if the USGA sponsors or advertises through a site, but I suspect is otherwise unlikely.

Trademarks and Service Marks of the United States Golf Association®

As owner of these well-established trademarks and service marks, the USGA® has the sole right to authorize the use of these marks by others. When used by others, the USGA should be attributed as the owner of these marks.
Course Rating™
Course Rating and Slope Database™
Equitable Stroke Control™
ESC™
eClubhouse™
For the Good of the Game®
GHIN®
GHIN Browse™
GHIN Handicap Allocation Utility™
GHIN Handicap Program™
GHP™
Golf Handicap & Information Network®
Handicap Differential™
Handicap Index®
Home Course Handicap™
PJjr® Rules of Golf Program
Paper Option™
PO™
Short Course Handicap™
Short Course Rating™
SLOPE®
Slope Rating®
Tournament Pairing Program®
TPP®
TPP Clubhouse Viewer™
TPP OnCourse™
TPP RealTime™
Trend Differential™
Trend Handicap™
Trend Handicap Index™
United States Golf Association®
USGA®
USGA Course Rating™
USGA Course Rating Software Program™
USGA Course Rating System™
USGA Handicap Index®
USGA Handicap System™

Cut and pasted from: http://www.ghin.com/copyright.shtml

I know this does not address the formula per se, but with this many Rs and TMs, I don't think I would want to take them on!

I'm not an attorney either, but have a lot of IP experience and I think this is not correct - the development and implementation of a formula as a business practices patent is not only possible but also not uncommon. In fact, I am the inventor for several patents (all assigned to my former employer) using algorithmic approaches for certain satellite communications methods. As with the USGA, there was a fair amount of research done in order to develop these practices, and even though the implmentation into a mathmatical algorithm appears simple on face value, the USPTO considers that they were unique, not immediately obvious to someone knowledgeable in the trade, and had not been previously implemented or had prior art. Thus, patents were granted.

I do not know if the USGA has patented their handicap formula, but the fact that the formula is not intuitively obvious and was created out of a fair amount of statistical research provides a strong basis for such IP protection, and if the USGA had chosen to pursue this I have no doubt they could have secured patent rights in addition to copyright and trademark protection.

They can claim a copyright on the word "slope"?

Not the word itself, but the term as it relates to the numeric representation of a golf course's difficulty etc.

I understand that, I was being sarcastic. I just thought out of the list of copyrighted terms, that one stood out as particularly stupid.

I know Scorecard has always used the "official" numbers, and there are several free programs out there by rogue developers. I used Intelligolf on my blackberry, (until BB went to OS 5 and the software no longer works), and they used their own handicap system that only makes sense if you play other Intelligolf users. The USGA line has been that the system can only be run the way they want it to so that peer review can be insured. That seems like a reasonable argument on the surface but there are other ways to encourage peer review that don't involve giving the USGA a bucket full of money. I really think the USGA is hurting itself and the game with it's obvious greed, this game is elitist enough without discouraging people who are interested.

Maybe you should check your facts before you rant. The USGA is a

not for profit organization. What income they don't ultimately spend on maintaining the organization is released through charitable outlets... some $63 million in the last 13 years. The bulk is spent on rules and handicap maintenance, equipment testing, turf and course environment research, conducting its 13 championships and generally promoting the game, and on necessary internal salaries and expenses. Last time I checked, only $25 of my $110 Men's Club annual membership dues went to the USGA for handicap maintenance - doesn't seem that greedy to me... certainly isn't a "bucket of money".

Yeah, it is possible that it's patented, but what you describe are what I referred to as " very limited circumstances." Given that they don't mention the patents (as far as I can tell) in the Handicap Guide, I think it's unlikely they've got one, and the methods seem pretty unlikely to rise to the novelty needed for an algorithm patent. The formula simply isn't very novel in any sense. The methods for measuring/assigning the parameters might be, but protecting those numbers after they're determined would be even harder than protecting the handicap formula.

Plus, how long has the handicap formula been in use? Even if it were protected, it's been out there well longer than patent protection would last. Finally, the trademark list is pretty amusing. Some of those seem legitimate (ESC, GHIN, USGA, etc) but I don't buy for an instant that e.g. "Course Rating" would hold up to scrutiny, it's just too descriptive a term. Regardless, I don't think those trademarks would prevent someone from using the terms without approval. The purpose of trademarks is to avoid confusion, so you can generally avoid them by making it clear who the owner is, that you are not representing the owner, etc. It's all USGA bluster.

According to the post by Greenskeeper, the issue was with their use of the Slope and Course Ratings. If SR and CR are registered/trademarked, then I guess the USGA was denying them the ability to use trademarked ratings in a patented(?) formula for the public. I suppose it sounds legally justified, although somewhat of a pointless move, but I have little make that guess based on.

This sounds right to me. I've heard of numeric algorithms for fast numerical computation being patented. I'd guess this would be similar.

Off topic: I forget, you work(ed) for ViaSat, right?

All the legal chit chat aside, I don't see why the USGA would want to prevent GreensKeeper from using the USGA formula as long as it was clear this wasn't a USGA approved site or USGA approved handicap index. Since they are non-profit what they are trying to protect escapes me.

That's where I keep my cap information (24 ish i think)and it pissed me off when they changed it. Now it's up to you to assign a rating for the course. Im going to have to join somewhere that uses an official system and just put all my old scores in. I mean I rated the last course I played a 73 based on the actual rating 71.6 and how many beers I had. So that's not going to be even close to accurate.

I also use greenskeeper to track my handicap and stats and wasn't thrilled when this happened. Instead of assigning my Greenskeeper "CDF" to a course, I calculate my own differentials using the USGA slopes and ratings . I just have to do a little math first:

A score differential is calculated as follows: ((ESC Score - Rating) X 113) / Slope BTW, I do have a GHIN membership but I like Greenskeeper stat tracking functions.

After re-reading my post your right it does sound like a rant, I apologize, I didn't mean it to come off quite that coarse. Lets say that in my opinion the USGA like any other non-profit, charity-centric organization is anxious about protecting its revenue streams, the dues from members of golf clubs being one of those.

I believe the USGA wants to encourage people who want to know where they stand in relation to other players to only be able to gain that knowledge legally by joining a golf club and thus paying money. I think that discourages people from becoming more involved in joining local tournaments and in the idea of becoming club members, ultimately harming the game. And back to the OP's question: Yes, I think it appears that the USGA is becoming more aggressive with rogue users of its slope and rate system.

I'm only speculating here, but looking at the USGA from a business perspective it seems they "touch" the golfing market primarily through their handicapping system; conducting significant tournaments such as the US Open, US Amateur, etc.; their work in establishing rules; and their support of research efforts in turf grass, etc. Probably a lot of people really don't equate the USGA with things like the US Open, and their rules and research are largely behind the scenes and only really felt with the equipment we play and grass to hit off. So the biggest touchpoint the USGA has with the golfing population is really the handicap system, and if they lost control of this and thus lost the extensive and direct involvement with the millions of individual golfers, then their ability to contribute as an organization or perhaps even to exist is largely diminished.

As part of this control, the USGA's defense of its many service marks is critical in that if they similarly lost control of the marks there is no method of distinguishing their handicaping system from others that may try to compete. Similar to any other business, the USGA has established their handicap system as a fairly strong brand, with strongly recognizeable terms such as Handicap Index, Slope System, Home Course Handicap, Equiptable Slope Control, etc. (all service marks of the USGA). Protect the marks to protect the brand, which protects the market relationship with their customer base.

This is a bad move by the USGA--another example of making golf less accessable, more restrictive, and more exclusive. The website I use to maintain my H.I. has changed twice over the past year. It used to be free, now its not. Just checked this morning, and now you need to play three rounds per year with another member to maintain a H.I. at the site.