A Lawsuit Over Costco Golf Balls Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap (qz.com) 266
Ephrat Livni, writing for Quartz: Unless you're a golfer, you probably don't think about golf balls. But a new US lawsuit about these little-dimpled spheres has an economics lesson for all shoppers, showing why consumers have cause for concern when companies use court for sport. Costco, the wholesale membership club, rocked the golf world in 2016 when it started selling its Kirkland Signature (KS) golf balls at about $15 per dozen, a quarter to a third the price of popular top-ranked balls. Industry insiders called it a "miracle golf ball" for its great performance and low cost, and Costco sold out immediately. It's planning to release more in April. In response to the bargain ball's reception, however, Acushnet -- which makes the popular Titleist balls -- sent the membership club a threatening letter. It accused Costco of infringing on 11 patents and engaging in false advertising for claiming that KS balls meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands.
Where's the news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
It's not like this is anything new.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
Or, you could just as glibly say: those who could, did, and those who couldn't, copied.
I have no idea if that's actually how it went down, just as I presume you have no particular evidence this is a nuisance suit. But if Costco did indeed copy Acushnet's patented features, I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends entirely on whether the invention is the golf ball equivalent of round corners.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.
That really depends on what they "invented"
Knowing the way the patent system is abused, knowing the simplicity of a golf ball, and how old the concepts are that govern their design, I believe any patent claims against a golf ball in *20-fucking-17* should be viewed with a massive fucking grain of salt.
For example, dimples being understood to provide highly improved aerodynamics was pantented back in 1905.
Are that patents here number, shape, and size of the dimples? If so- bullshit patent. But perfectly
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Informative)
Why so? There may be significant R&D which goes into the aerodynamics.
In any case, Costo says they have an "out" on every patent because there's a least one claim which doesn't apply to their ball. The claims seem to be in 3 classes: material hardness, "bounce" (Coefficient of Restitution), and dimple pattern ("profile defined by the revolution of a catenary curve" in 3 patents). Costco also challenges them based on prior art.
In any case, here are the patents, go look them up instead of asking what they're about: 6994638, 8123632, 8444507, 9320944, 8025593, 8257201, 7331878, 6358161, 7887439, 7641572, 7163472.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you could just as glibly say: those who could, did, and those who couldn't, copied.
I have no idea if that's actually how it went down, just as I presume you have no particular evidence this is a nuisance suit. But if Costco did indeed copy Acushnet's patented features, I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.
IIRC, Costco bought up a contract manufacturers overrun (company was hired to make X number of golf balls, but for what ever reason they made Y number). .. versus Acushnet's $45-$60 / dozen.
So the Titleist folks hired a manufacture in China to produce 3 million golf balls. The Chinese company either made 6 million or the contracting company rejected the lot as inferior. Either case the Chinese company now has 3 million golf balls that it doesn't want to lose money on. So they sold the whole lot to Costco. Costco then goes and sells them $15 / dozen
Acushnet sees its gravy train approaching a washed out bridge and files lawsuit to repair it.
So the Chinese manufacturer was contracted to make 3 million balls, "accidentally" made 6 million, sold the original 3 million, then turned around and sold the extra 3 million to Costco?
Sounds true.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like SOP. Acushnet learned a valuable lesson for dealing with Chinese contract manufacturing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, because the Costco statement is general for all of their Kirkland Signature products, not specific to golf balls. It doesn't make any direct comparison between products. It's also not a competitive claim, but offered as a guarantee, Costco will take the product back and refund your money if you don't agree with it. "All Kirkland Signature products are guaranteed to be of equal or better qualit [costco.com]
Nassau Golf Company of South Korea (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Costco sells them cheap is because they deal in volume - instead of making balls in hundreds of thousands, they can make balls by the millions, extracting mass production cost benefits.
And because they were partnered up with another company who designed the balls, they got a good quality ball, made quite cheaply in volumes that out-do the other manufacturers since Costco does stuff in bulk.
Apparently the golf balls in question are a OEM ball manufactured by Nassau Golf Company (located in South Korea). Nassau has also sold OEM golf balls to TaylorMade (a golf equipment subsidiary of Adidas). Although I suspect nobody knows for sure, the word on the street was it manufacturing over-run which is unlikely to be repeated [newser.com].
The interesting thing that most folks are missing is that Costco is pre-emptively suing Acushnet (the seller of Titleist balls) seeking declartory judgement (yes, Costco is doing the suing) in response to a lawyer letter sent by Acushnet. This is mostly because they need to defend the tag line "meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands" of their Kirkland branded products, not because they want to sell more golf balls (although they probably do, it's not the main reason for their lawsuit). They want to establish a legal precedent that they can use this tag line in the rest of their business to deter future lawsuits on this basis.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. This has been around for ages:
"If you can't innovate, litigate"
As much as I hate LinkedIn one of the pieces is interesting:
* "Don't Innovate, Just Litigate" - No Genuine Inventor Thinks That Way [linkedin.com]
--
* Main Street built America
* Wall Street destroyed America
Re: (Score:2)
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
It's not like this is anything new.
Yeah, except that Acushnet quite well "can". The issue here is more of "those who can make enough money to file lawsuits and prevent others who can from doing". That's problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
The quality of comments on slashdot has really gone downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who can't, sue.
Those who can't what, May?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, this is not about "non-practicing entities" -- aka patent trolls. The companies that are suing actually do sell real physical golf balls incorporating some of the patents into the manufacturing process and design.
Maybe those patents are invalid, IANAPL, but this is definitely not a case of "those who can't, sue".
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Funny)
But she didn't.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like they could, but couldn't sell, then Costco stole and sold on massive scale while providing inventors with nothing. Did I miss anything here?
The inventors of what? The golf ball? Did Acushnet invent it? Seriously though, how can a golf ball have 11 patents on it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Farm Equipment and how patents once worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
I look out the window of my building from my cubicle and see a little sliver of Grant Park on Chicago's lake front to the south. On the other side of Grant Park lies Soldier's Field and McCormick Place.
McCormick Place is named after "Colonel" Robert McCormick, staunch anti FDR Republican and owner of the Chicago Tribune. Colonel McCormick was one of the heirs of the fortune made by Cyrus McCormick selling the McCormick reaper [wikipedia.org].
The reaper was patented [wisconsinhistory.org]. Obed Hussey had patented a reaper as well. They fought in court over the patents, but both were sold for many years under the separate patents [wikipedia.org]. Obed ended up with the "most" ownership of the design, but they were not exactly alike.
Think about the old saying: "Build a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door."
As a matter of fact, Massey Ferguson, John Deere, Alice Chalmers and many others made reapers, harvesters, tillers, bailers and many more patented farm equipment. Each performed the same functions, but each did it in a slightly different way. They each were building better mouse traps, not the same one. The US constitution supports patents in section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The purpose must be to promote, not hinder, the "Progress of Science" and "useful Arts". Temporary, and exclusive, rights "to their respective" creations are granted. Not all creations that perform the same function are protected against, but the ones that do it the way you made it work. If someone else makes a golf ball that is different than your golf ball, they get their patent and you get yours. In this way the 'useful Arts' are promoted. "Build a better golf ball and the golfers will beat a path to your door" has become "and the lawyers will beat a path to the Court."
We have come almost 180 (degrees) in patent law from the simple language of the Constitution. Patents should protect an individual, specific design, and those very close to that specific design. However, they should not hinder novel designs. That would be against what the constitution authorizes. Also they must be time limited, or innovation will be destroyed. Manufacturers often tweak products and file for a new patents, then use the current broad, not specific, reach of patent law to hinder innovative competition.
The current interpretation of patent, and copyright, law clearly is in opposition to the clear language of the constitution. We arrived at where we are through multiple small steps, small interpretations of the law that have us now applying laws that grant broad reaching and almost never ending rights. The current state of the law, as interpreted through the lens of many years of collective case law, hinders innovation, competition and free enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's nothing about a golf ball that makes it unworthy of patents.
This statement is most likely false. Golf is an old well established sport with set rules. The ball itself is a very simple item that's at the center of the game. The idea that there is any "secret sauce" in any sports ball is on it's face absurd. You have a high bar to reach to argue to the contrary.
This is more likely than not a manifestation of the bullshit we see in the parts of the patent system we are intimately familiar with.
Re: (Score:2)
Different dimple patterns give the balls different aerodynamic properties, as do different construction materials and techniques. There is nothing simple about a golf ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Were 20+ year old golf ball designs unusably bad? Not talking about some feather stuffed antique.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't even see why we should be designing better golf balls shouldn't all players be playing with the same golf balls, so we can compare player skill not pocket size.
Seriously if I where to design a perfect golf ball that would fly as far as I needed and with perfect accuracy (guaranteed hole in 1) wouldn't that be just cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
Just another reason to SHORTEN the length of patents for none drug inventions. There is NO reason on earth that a patent on a golf ball needs to be 20 years
Why not? Is the research into the aerodynamic characteristics of a golf ball more or less worthy than the research into the hydrodynamic characteristics of a blood vessel stent? For that matter, someone who keeps active as a golfer is likely to be healthier longer than someone who is sedentary and requires drugs and other medical interventions to live. Certainly you'd agree that the sporting goods companies have done more good for public health than Martin Shkreli ever did as CEO of a drug company.
Resear
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like they could, but couldn't sell, then Costco stole and sold on massive scale while providing inventors with nothing. Did I miss anything here?
The inventors of what? The golf ball? Did Acushnet invent it? Seriously though, how can a golf ball have 11 patents on it?
Well Apple have a patent on balls that have rounded corners. That's one of the 11.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously though, how can a golf ball have 11 patents on it?
Read Costco's reply to the court, in which each patent is listed along with Acushnet's claims and Costco's rebuttal. You can look the patents up online at the USPTO [uspto.gov] web site. Let's look at a few, shall we?
Patent# 6,994,638 - Golf balls comprising highly-neutralized acid polymers.
Abstract
A golf ball comprising a core comprised of a polymer containing an acid group fully-neutralized by an organic acid or a salt, a cation source, or a suitable base thereof, the core having a first Shore D hardness, a compression of no greater than about 90, and a diameter of between about 1.00 inches and about 1.64 inches; and a cover layer comprising ionomeric copolymers and terpolymers, ionomer precursors, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, polybutadiene rubber, balata, grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, non-grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, single-site polymers, high-crystalline acid polymers and their ionomers, or cationic ionomers.
What is claimed is:
1. A golf ball comprising: a core comprising a center and an outer core layer, the center comprising a thermoset polybutadiene rubber composition having a first hardness; and the outer core layer comprising a polymer comprised of an acid group fully-neutralized by an organic acid or a salt of the organic acid, and a cation source or a suitable base of the cation source; and having a second hardness; and an inner cover layer and an outer cover layer comprising ionomeric copolymers and terpolymers, ionomer precursors, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, polybutadiene rubber, balata, grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, non-grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, single-site polymers, high-crystalline acid polymers and their ionomers, polyurethnnes, polyureas, polyurethane-ureas; polyurea-urethanes; or cationic ionomers; wherein the first hardness is from about 50 Shore A to about 55 Shore D and first hardness is less than the second Shore D hardness by at least about 10 points.
Here's Costco's rebuttal:
11. Costco is not infringing any valid claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,994,638 (“the ’638patent”). Acushnet has accused Costco of infringing claim 1 of the 638 patent. Costco’s sales of the KS golf ball do not constitute infringement of claim 1 of the 638 patent, however, because, among other things, the Shore D hardness of the center core of the KS ball is not “at least about 10 points” less than the Shore D hardness of the outer core.
12. The 638 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 and/or 112. The claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, for example, in light of U.S. Patent No. 6,468,169 and other prior art publications and activities
Clearly, a lot of chemistry work went into this patent to make the balls have a certain elasticity. Costco says that their balls do not have the same properties, therefore they did not infringe upon this claim.
Here's another:
Patent# 8,123,632 - Multi-layer golf ball
Abstract
Golf balls consisting of a dual core and a dual cover are disclosed. The dual core consists of an inner core layer formed from a rubber composition and an outer core layer formed from a highly neutralized polymer composition.
Here's the claim in question:
"17. A golf ball consisting essentially of: an inner core layer formed from a rubber composition and having a diameter of from 1.100 inches to 1.400 inches, a center hardness (H.sub.center) of 50 Shore C or greater, and an outer surface hardness of 65 Shore C or greater; an outer core layer formed from a highly neutralized polymer composition and having an outer surface hardness (H.sub.outer core) of 75 Shore C or greater; an inner cover layer formed from a thermoplastic composition and having a material hardness (H.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like Titleist has 44 patents [titleist.com] on their Pro V1 golf balls. These patents range from design to materials to manufacturing.
For example, the first patent in the list, 6013330 [google.com], relates to UV curable inks and their application onto spherical surfaces such as golf balls. Reading the first page of the patent may give you a sense of the complexity of high-speed, production printing on a curved surface in a durable manner.
If you look at the patents you will notice that many of them are related to manufacturing processes. 9174088 [google.ch], for example, is a process for cleaning the seam created when the golf ball is molded in a way that allows the dimple pattern to be consistent across the seam.
There are a ton of BS patents out there and some of Titleist's may fall into that category. But it's not hard to imagine a lot of complexity goes into designing and manufacturing a golf ball. The company started in 1932 because of a golfer's frustration with the then state-of-the-art golf balls [titleist.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't play golf, but I imagine the golfballs designed and produced with methods from before 1997 would be sufficient for most golfers.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a decent golfer, about a 9 handicap, and I can tell you that for an amateur like me the newer golf balls make a significant difference. I probably can't tell the difference between a Titleist Pro V1 and a Kirkland Signature but I can most definitely tell a difference between a 2017 ball and one from 1997.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't play golf, but I imagine the golfballs designed and produced with methods from before 1997 would be sufficient for most golfers.
I don't play golf either, but almost universally across every sport I do play on an amateur level the sports themselves have changed so significantly over the past 20 years as a result of subtle changes in various parts of the equipment.
I have no doubt there is great difference in modern golf balls compared to those from 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Rubber center with plastic over mold. Most are literally just 2 components. The secret sauce is in the rubber center and quality control to make consistent balls. My wild guess is that the patents are in relation to either rubber composition, or manufacturing methods.
Still, the bigger point raised is that something so simple that has been around for ages and ages really should be a commodity item that competes on price and performance, not in the court of law.
We are well past the optimum point to s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pick any industry and someone is designing something for it. One could have the same opinion for keyboards, mice, or the little stick on a PS3 controller.
How about designing a knob for a radio in a car? You think that's glamorous? A button on the steering wheel perhaps? Just because you don't think it's anything worthy of doing doesn't mean someone else doesn't enjoy doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are already a number of golf ball designs that are 'too good' and don't comply with the rules (same as clubs). Hacks play them in casual games (for long drive bragging rights).
It's a game. Nobody wants to build all new courses because the balls fly 20% further.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Competition is great. It's the cornerstone of free-market capitalism. It brings innovation, better products, and cheaper prices...
Re:Where's the news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. Hence the new American dream: Win the lottery or get run over by someone rich and sue.
Once people realized that "hard work" ain't gonna cut it anymore, that's basically what's left.
"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. This is actual, physical "stuff" which has been invented, not gauzy ideas.
If these balls actually violate the 11 Acushnet patents (and they're in force), then it's right and good for Acushnet to ban Costco from selling them.
(And that's ignoring whether or not the claims of false advertising, which would mean that they wouldn't be nice in the first place.)
Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the utter crap that's been given patents combined with the mechanical complexity of a golf ball, from club strike to landing, how likely are existing golf ball patents to be really bogus claims and drawings of dimples?
In any given 2-3 year time span, there's like what, maybe a dozen professional golfers so skilled that they are able to hit the ball on a predictable basis? The remaining pros vary wildly and the amateurs are all over the map, so assessing the claims and technology of golf balls is pretty difficult.
And the amateurs will do/buy anything to improve their game. I do some work at a country club and the schlock on sale to golfers makes global warming skeptics look like Einstein.
And it also wouldn't surprise me if the markup on golf balls was stratospheric, representing the general affluence of many golfers, so there's lots of profit being protected here.
Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:5, Funny)
So, Titleist are the Monster Cables of the golfing/country club set....?
Re: (Score:3)
I was guessing the same thing.
I"m not sure who makes all of the Costco Kirkland booze...but it sure is good.
Their gin I"m currently trying out is very well made IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS.
You just can't make a ball "too good". Any sport is highly regulated. Screwing around with the elements too much will be viewed as a rules violation. There just isn't that much to invent here.
This is just more of the usual "patents run amok" that we see in our own domain. It should not surprise anyone that it happens with "physical stuff" too.
Re: (Score:2)
In any given 2-3 year time span, there's like what, maybe a dozen professional golfers so skilled that they are able to hit the ball on a predictable basis? The remaining pros vary wildly and the amateurs are all over the map, so assessing the claims and technology of golf balls is pretty difficult.
Robots are regularly used to compare golf equipment for that reason. Google "Iron Byron" for details.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! Orange balls! I'll have a box of those. Give me a box of those naked lady tees, and gimme two of those, gimme six of those...
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably they use robotic arms you test the golf balls.
Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:5, Informative)
If you read TFA you will see that "why we can't have nice things for cheap" refers to the tactic employed by large companies of threatening legal action against small competitors that those competitors can't afford to defend against, even if they are likely to win. It's a tactic that Acushnet has used before.
Re: (Score:2)
What's their market cap vs CostCo?
Sounds like they've picked on the wrong company.
Lesson 1 for patent trolls: Don't sue very deep pockets with staff shysters.
Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:5, Informative)
By both revenue and market cap, Costco is roughly 70-80x the size of the golf company. Costco's net income alone is higher than both Acushnet's revenue and their market cap. Costco has essentially unlimited resources available to fight any litigation, meaning this case will be decided on the merits if Costco wants it to be.
Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:5, Funny)
By both revenue and market cap, Costco is roughly 70-80x the size of the golf company. Costco's net income alone is higher than both Acushnet's revenue and their market cap. Costco has essentially unlimited resources available to fight any litigation, meaning this case will be decided on the merits if Costco wants it to be.
I saw a documentary about 10 years ago. Apparently Costco has it's own law-school too.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read TFA you will see that "why we can't have nice things for cheap" refers to the tactic employed by large companies of threatening legal action against small competitors that those competitors can't afford to defend against
Yeah, that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Costco -- an itty-bitty company that can't afford to defend itself.
Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:4, Insightful)
Costco is actually a very lean operation. They make very little profit on anything they sell, all the profit comes from membership fees. Basically the cost of any product at Costco is their wholesale cost plus about 10% to cover the overhead costs. They typically make anywhere from -0.5% to 0.5% profit on individual items. The cost of a patent battle are large, they could probably afford it but the patent holder is betting they won't want to spend the money.
Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you read the article? It will never be known if Acushnet's patents are being violated, because they can use their legal might to force everyone else out of the golf ball business under threat of being forced out of business entirely.
Acushnet doesn't own 11 golf ball patents, it owns the high-end golf ball business. The free market can't solve this, because patents have eliminated the free market for golf balls. And that's why we can't have nice things for cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
However, you left out if these balls actually are NOT violate all 11 Acushnet patents, what would happen? This is a part of business tactic when a company is using patents to force others out of its way of monopoly. If it is the case, this is a kind of patent troll tactic and I don't support it...
Also, from what I read TFA, Acushnet is trying to force "meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands" as Costco advertisement of their balls (#7 in the Complaint [golf-patents.com]). However, if you really look at
Re: (Score:2)
However, you left out if these balls actually are NOT violate all 11 Acushnet patents, what would happen?
That's irrelevant to my point (which is that -- surprise, surprise -- the article title is utter bullshit).
Re: (Score:2)
I love the way this looks on paper:
Patent infringement:
"You totally copied all of our best secrets for making awesome golf balls!"
False advertising:
"Your golf balls are shyte Costco!"
Which is it? Did they take your awesome patented ideas or are the golf balls nothing more than under-performing over-hyped sales gimmicks?
Or, maybe they both are...
Re: (Score:2)
Which is it? Did they take your awesome patented ideas or are the golf balls nothing more than under-performing over-hyped sales gimmicks?
Option #3: You stole our ideas but implemented them like crap.
(NB: I don't know nor care which is the truth.)
And this is news how? (Score:2)
Costco put some cards on the table (Score:5, Informative)
They published why they don't infringe.
http://golf-patents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170317-Complaint-Costco-v-Acushnet.pdf
That should give the other side pretty good visability as to what their options are.
Will be interesting to see what they do next.
If Costco did their homework, then maybe the dreaded golf ball triopoly is dad.
Oh, it's sooo exciting just can't wait to see what happens next.
Re:Costco put some cards on the table (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nor sure what you're saying here. Costco is selling their golf balls under their own label. They're claiming they are as good as the three labels names. "good" here is undefined. They are not saying they are made the same or even to the same specifications. They are not passing them off as balls made by Acushnet.
Re:Costco put some cards on the table (Score:5, Interesting)
They want to stop Acushnet to make any accusations of patent infringement, because (a) in all 11 cases the Costco balls are not made in the way that the patent claims, and (b) in all 11 cases the Acushnet patent is invalid because of prior art. For example, one patent claim is for balls "where dimples cover more than 80% of the surface", and Costco says with their balls, dimples _don't_ cover that much surface.
Acushnet also accuses Costco of "false advertising" because they are saying "their products are as good or better than top brands". And there Costco's argument is that (a) they never directly compared to Acushnet, and (b) reviewers and players have repeatedly said that their golf balls are at least as good as Acushnet.
I think someone at Acushnet is in trouble now for sending threatening letters.
Re: (Score:2)
I think someone at Acushnet is in trouble now for sending threatening letters.
Surely not. This has been an extremely successful tactic to crush competition up to now. The ridiculous margin they are making on their balls surely covers the modest cost of a lawyer who writes threaten letters (and the legal department that is "innovating" by writing up new patents to file).
Re:Costco put some cards on the table (Score:5, Insightful)
This being /. lots of people are speculating about what the patents might be, rather than simply following the link and then looking them up and actually knowing.
Here are links to four of the patents mentioned (there are eleven of them I don't have time to create markup links for all of them): US6994638 [google.com.na], US8123632 [google.com.na], US8444507 [google.com.na], US9320944 [google.com.na]. The other patents are: US8025593, US 8257201, US 7331878, US6358161, US7887439, US 7641572, and US7163472. You can Google them like I did.
Looking over Costco's response, and looking at the patents themselves, I have a strong feeling of deja vu. Acushnet is not a patent troll, since they actually sell a product and are using the patent system to crush competition with litigation threats, but to my eye the patents are written in the finest patent troll tradition. They are all highly complex grab bags of a whole lot of claims written very broadly, a rich shopping list for lawyers to turn into legal accusations. Literally hundreds of separate claims are made in these patents, in a densely cross referenced fashion. They aren't patents of any identifiable invention, they are simply a wall of claims on every possible aspect of a golf ball so that something can be carved out to attack any competitor.
Note that Acushnet has never had to defend any of these claims in court! With the deeply broken patent system we have today, in which its stated purpose (to encourage innovation for the public good) has been turned on its head as a way of suppressing actual innovation and protecting established corporations, a patent cannot be assumed to have any validity until it has actually been litigated. The courts are called on to do the job of the patent examiners.
I doubt Costco is going to lose this case.
Dimpled (Score:4, Funny)
I got your dimpled balls right here.
Re:Dimpled (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but I suspect you are not willing to let the Anonymous Cowards swing a 9-iron at them.
Is it just branding or is it a real patent issue? (Score:2)
These days, almost every single small consumer product is made in China or similar countries. Factories turn out the same electronics for Apple, Lenovo, Dell, etc. and the only differentiation is the case and branding. It wouldn't surprise me if there were one or two massive golf ball factories turning out millions of balls a month, and just slapping the Titleist or Nike or Kirkland Signature logo on a slightly differentiated design. This happens a lot in electronics too -- Cisco's contract manufacturers se
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually surprised that there's a market for cheap golf balls given how much disposable income you need to have to play golf these days. You need to belong to a country club, buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment
Not really: you can buy relatively good clubs (non-pro of course) for a few hundred dollars, and there are plenty of golf courses that don't require club membership. You can play a round for less than $50 on some decent courses. They're not quite PGA-level, but then again if you aren't going to spend a ton of money you probably aren't at the skill level that would require.
Re: (Score:2)
My town has a city-owned golf course (not uncommon). This course was a private course that was struggling and the city purchased it a couple of decades ago.
Greens fees are about $20.
Re: (Score:2)
In my area it's the exact opposite. They use tax dollars to build something, mismanage it horribly, then sell it for pennies on the dollar to their buddies because it is "failing". It's a great way for politicians to transfer public money to their friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising costs money (Score:2)
Costco is the one suing (Score:5, Interesting)
This won't be like before, when the manufacturer sent threatening letters and forced smaller manufacturers to either go to court of get out of the business entirely. Costco is suing, and now Acushnet Holdings has to either prove their claims or fold. Same as IBM and Novell when SCO made similar bad noises about patent infringement, the big boys can't afford to let someone slander them.
Any bets that another patent troll is going to get a kick in the balls?
Re: (Score:3)
Poking the dragon (Score:2)
Leading National Brand (Score:2)
Technicality question on advertising and legalities around their verbiage. It's been a while, but I thought when somebody uses the phrase "Leading National Brand" it means absolutely nothing in court. In other words, they can always say they are better than the leading national brand, because there is no definite requirement for who is "leading". Leading might mean their 5 year old son who sells golf balls he found in the ditch outside.
Some other gotchas I remember are "Best", "Number 1", and crap like that
Re: (Score:2)
While you're mostly right, it's not quite that straightforward.
"leading brands" doesn't necessarily mean any specific one, but it wouldn't mean a brand nobody has ever heard of, it would have to be one of the top ones, but not necessarily "the" top one, and it can be "top" by various different metrics (they didn't specify) so it could be be top by sales volume, or profit, or most used by professionals, or by amateurs, most well recognized brand, or any of a number of other qualifications.
Additionally "bette
What a world.... (Score:2)
If this is a "legitimate tactic", the so-called Free Market is seriously fubar'd.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also no such thing as a free market when there is no regulation and monopolies and cartels and control the markets.
"Free market" is a political buzz phrase with no real meaning in economics (look it up).
Can't have nice things? (Score:2)
It is not that we can not have nice things, it's we can't have nice things and not pay for it. Plus there is that pesky thing called a patent to take into account.
Re:Costco can hold their own (Score:5, Insightful)
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
Re:Costco can hold their own (Score:5, Funny)
it is the grass that suffers.
Well, to be fair, every golfer should know to repair their divots.
Re: (Score:2)
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
And, checking recent events, apparently, US health insurance law. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
Yeah, nice saying, but the reality is that it often takes an elephant to stop another elephant. Acushnet has been suing smaller competitors to put them out of business, perhaps Costco can put a stop to it.
On a side note, am I the only one who can't type a comment without the text box losing focus repeatedly?
Re: (Score:3)
Costco's products tend to be cheap because they have policies on limiting markup (Kirkland products have a 15% markup, third party products are 8-10%). They can afford to do this because their membership fees cover their corporate overhead.
Re: The Real Question (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it can be a crime. There's a whole concept of Dumping. It usually applies in the case of international trade, but can apply domestically as well. Generally it's used to drive competition out of business when they can't sustain the lower price.
Dumping [wikipedia.org]
Re: The Real Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Except when there is industry collusion to keep prices inflated. The golf industry is ABSOLUTELY big on that. Golf balls are incredibly cheap to make and Titleist knows their balls are not worth what they sell them for.
Re: (Score:2)
sure they are. if they got a state-enforced monopoly on their production and importation then, for the duration of that granted monopoly, they're worth (in that state) whatever they can sell them for.
Re: The Real Question (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this is a case of "Waaah, Costco pushed us off the gravy train!"
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it can be a crime. There's a whole concept of Dumping. It usually applies in the case of international trade, but can apply domestically as well. Generally it's used to drive competition out of business when they can't sustain the lower price.
Dumping [wikipedia.org]
He said being stupid isn't a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because of techniques to manufacture the raw materials for the core, techniques to wind the core, techniques to develop the material for the casing, techniques to actual extrude or cast that casing, and the design that went into the the dimple pattern itself.
Now, I'm not saying that all of these kinds of patents should be valid, but I can see how work went into each of these steps, and how a company that has spent the time and money developing these steps would want to do what they could to protect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I score my golf game by my best hole and the number of balls I lose.
A par and 2 is a _great_ round of golf.
I usually find more balls than I lose, hunting for mine in the rough, but those don't count in the score. I never buy balls.
Also: Even # holes = bowl hole, Odd # holes = beer hole. Have to designate a driver, even for 9.
Re: (Score:3)
I score my golf game by my best hole and the number of balls I lose.
A par and 2 is a _great_ round of golf.
Take your score and divide by the number of balls lost. As long as you are under par (or got a beer cart girl's number) you've had a good day.
Re: (Score:2)
Divide by number of balls lost + 1. Handle the admittedly very unlikely edge case better.
Cart girls aren't reliable enough for my odd/even schedule. Carry beers in the bag.
Re: (Score:2)
The produced balls will remain identical.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that after 19 years the company re-files the same patent with a minor tweak, and because nobody examines patents it will be approved.
Do you really think that there is anything that is still patentable about a golf ball that wouldn't be easy to work around if you wanted to? Golf balls have been around forever, and patents are time limited. If you create your golf balls based on how they were made over 20 years ago there's no way you could be infringing a valid patent (any patent you are found to be vi
Re: (Score:2)
So, patents do expire, right? Companies can't do this forever, right? Eventually after the 20 year time expires we can get nice things for cheap, right? Somebody...
Take a look at the patents (I posted a list and some direct links up-page).
The set of them are enormous grab-bags of literally hundreds of claims over every aspect of golf ball design and construction. You can paste-up Googled polymer chemistry terms, reworded descriptions of geometry, revised lists of hardness scores, etc. etc. to create new tossed-salads of claims until the end of time. This is "patent engineering" - creating dense obscure far reaching webs of claims for lawyers to file, there is not actu
Re: (Score:3)
Another point to ponder. There is no way that Titleist's actual balls conform to many of the claims in these patents. But they don't have to. These are just claims made by patent lawyers and don't need to be reflected in any actual product. But no doubt some features of Titleist balls match the patents, there are so many of them (hundreds) and are so varied and broadly phrased they would have to. But that is also true of any other golf ball made by anybody.
Therein lies the secret of corporate abuse of the p