Pro V1 Court Case Update

[gogolfing]

I see The Golf Warehouse is now selling Pro V's for $39.95; not surprising with the new model coming out, but a great deal nonetheless.

[r7 425]

The main aspect of the current situation is the fact that Callaway is trying to exploit Titleist. The patents in golf ball technology are so miniscule that anyone can say this company or this company infringed on those patents. I think we should all know that Titleist is not truly guilty here. Titleist had always had the idea of creating an ultra thin urethane ball. The problem is that golf ball technology is very loosely defined in its patent rights.

[iacas]

The main aspect of the current situation is the fact that Callaway is trying to exploit Titleist. The patents in golf ball technology are so miniscule that anyone can say this company or this company infringed on those patents. I think we should all know that Titleist is not truly guilty here. Titleist had always had the idea of creating an ultra thin urethane ball. The problem is that golf ball technology is very loosely defined in its patent rights.

I believe the (now invalid) patents apply to the PROCESS of creating the ball, not the actual make and construction of the ball itself.

[r7 425]

I believe the (now invalid) patents apply to the PROCESS of creating the ball, not the actual make and construction of the ball itself.

If so-I don't understand how Titleist has been placed in its current situation with the lawsuit. What matters is the final product- not the process of and construction of the ball. Its rather dubious that Titleist has been an innocent victim of an unorthodox patent right. Titleist built the pro v1 off of its Professional line of balls. Im sorry but 3 piece technology has been on titleists mind for quite some time

[iacas]

If so-I don't understand how Titleist has been placed in its current situation with the lawsuit. What matters is the final product- not the process of and construction of the ball.

You seem to have an incredibly limited understanding of how both golf balls are made and how patents work, or at least how the two intertwine here.

If I come up with a unique method of making a golf ball, that process can be patented. Anyone else who uses that process to make a golf ball can be sued. That's basically what has happened here (I believe). Callaway holds patents (now ruled invalid) pertaining to a process. Titleist used to use that process to make their golf balls. Thus, if the patents were valid, Titleist would be in violation of the patents. It's not just the "final product" that matters. Not at all. Bet you didn't know pharmaceutical companies can (and do, routinely) patent processes for creating molecules. They'll also patent the specific molecule they've made, as well, but oftentimes the means of synthesis is the more important patent because a particularly good synthesis solves an incredibly complex question and opens the door to a whole range of synthetic molecules (which may or may not be useful drugs).

[Magnus]

If I recall, didn't Callaway purchase Spalding, and hence the Top Flight brand, which held the patents in question?

So these Callaway supporters who say that "The #1 Ball in Golf was built on Callaway Golf Technology" is a little bit of a convenient argument, no?

Owned by Callaway yes, developed by them....um, no.

[obsessedgolfer]

If I recall, didn't Callaway purchase Spalding, and hence the Top Flight brand, which held the patents in question?

Yeah did you get that email too.