We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Titleist Suing Golf Ball Companies

I guess I'd have to look at the Monsta Golf Balls I have, but I don't remember the dimple pattern looking anything like a ProV1.

Oh well, when you are big, just bankrupt your competitors in lawsuits.

~Rock
 
interesting topic...something to keep a cursory eye on for results.
 
Interesting, will be see what develops of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
McRock said:
I guess I'd have to look at the Monsta Golf Balls I have, but I don't remember the dimple pattern looking anything like a ProV1.

Oh well, when you are big, just bankrupt your competitors in lawsuits.

~Rock
Click to expand...

Companies spend a lot of money developing new products. Why should others profit from the investments others make?
 
fupresti said:
Companies spend a lot of money developing new products. Why should others profit from the investments others make?
Click to expand...

I don't know, because I'm not a patent lawyer. With what limited knowledge I have, I'm pretty sure you can't patent the number of dimples on a golf ball. So that basically leaves dimple size and pattern (which takes number of dimples into account, but I don't think the number is really what's patented so much as the pattern and size). I'm leaving the office here shortly, and I'll take a side by side picture with the Monsta Golf Ball. I just absolutely do not remember the Monsta dimple pattern looking anything remotely similar to a ProV1.

Is this supposedly a copy cat of the ProV1, or the ProV1X? I think I have a few X's in the bag, and I have plenty of ProV1s.

~Rock
 
McRock said:
I don't know, because I'm not a patent lawyer. With what limited knowledge I have, I'm pretty sure you can't patent the number of dimples on a golf ball. So that basically leaves dimple size and pattern (which takes number of dimples into account, but I don't think the number is really what's patented so much as the pattern and size). I'm leaving the office here shortly, and I'll take a side by side picture with the Monsta Golf Ball. I just absolutely do not remember the Monsta dimple pattern looking anything remotely similar to a ProV1.

Is this supposedly a copy cat of the ProV1, or the ProV1X? I think I have a few X's in the bag, and I have plenty of ProV1s.

~Rock
Click to expand...

Nothing would prevent you from patenting the number of dimples if you could show in your patent application it had a material effect on the performance of the product.
 
fupresti said:
Nothing would prevent you from patenting the number of dimples if you could show in your patent application it had a material effect on the performance of the product.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with that statement as being too simplistic. But it doesn't matter, because I'm not pulling out my Intellectual Property Basics book that's sitting on the bookshelf.

But as a side statement, I'm pretty sure I could make a golf ball with 352 dimples (like the proV1), putting all 352 dimples on one side of the ball, and leaving a big smooth spot on the other side of the ball, and not be running afoul of Titleist's patent. Why? Because my dimples are obviously smaller to only fit on one side of the ball and because they are going to be in a much different pattern than the ProV1 (for starters, they are only present on one side of the ball). In addition, my 352 dimple ball is going to perform far differently than the ProV1. It will perform so differently, that I could patent my golf ball based on dimple size and pattern, and its 352 dimples within that pattern. But when someone comes up with another ball with 352 dimples that has a different pattern than mine and bigger dimples, I don't think I could sue them.

But I've been known to be wrong.

~Rock
 
I just dont see it. Here's Monsta beside a prov1. Looks different to me. But those Acushnet lawyers get paid far more than me to see the similarities to their patent.

605c229b34f0dd5568560ffb14138ee5.jpg


b84e36091d5671e0f0efede4b1dde0fa.jpg


~Rock
 
That's an old Pro V1. It's also not clear which ball they are now using that dimple pattern on that is in dispute.
 
Well that i agree with. For reference, that is a 2013 prov1 i believe. I suppose i could read the petition to get more specifics, but that sounds a lot like work (and very dry work at that).

~Rock
 
Seeing the two side by side, there is only a certain number of dimples and only a few ways to put them. So I do not see the big deal. If they named it similar then maybe they could argue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Orange Hog said:
No surprises here. Titleist/Acushnet will likely win this one and tomorrow another dozen of these turd ball makers will pop up again. Honestly, I'd be happy if they'd just pull the Kick X advertising so I never have to see those commercials again.
Click to expand...

Funny about that OH... yesterday I played with a guy ( a HHC, not a guy who plays much, and no real technique ) He actually had the Kick X balls. He hit 2 pitch shots out of rough, and they literally hopped once and stopped dead. I gotta say I was a bit stunned. I was playing a Callaway chrome soft, and I couldn't get one to check up like that from even a tight lie - but usually I can. Maybe this helps explain that!
 
McRock said:
I just dont see it. Here's Monsta beside a prov1. Looks different to me. But those Acushnet lawyers get paid far more than me to see the similarities to their patent.

605c229b34f0dd5568560ffb14138ee5.jpg


b84e36091d5671e0f0efede4b1dde0fa.jpg


~Rock
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what Titleist is selling. All that matters is what the patent covers. Its Patent vs. Infringing Product, not Patent owner's product v. Infringer's product. I'm going to locate the exact patents involved, the lawsuit, and post details on the case and my opinions on it. (I am a patent attorney btw)
 
I hope this thread never dies. A true testament to how valuable ranking golf balls is for the consumer.
 
Hawk said:
I hope this thread never dies. A true testament to how valuable ranking golf balls is for the consumer.
Click to expand...

I look forward to your rankings #PlayTheBest
 
h0ss66 said:
It doesn't matter what Titleist is selling. All that matters is what the patent covers. Its Patent vs. Infringing Product, not Patent owner's product v. Infringer's product. I'm going to locate the exact patents involved, the lawsuit, and post details on the case and my opinions on it. (I am a patent attorney btw)
Click to expand...
Well then you are far more qualified than me to dive into it, im just a county seat practitioner. Keep us posted. Id be interested to hear about it from someone in the field.

~Rock
 
I want a ball with all the dimples on one side!!! An McRock -1
 
First blush in looking at the patents involved, its no wonder Pro V's are $50 a box. Golf ball tech is incredibly complex.
 
huhhh said:
I want a ball with all the dimples on one side!!! An McRock -1
Click to expand...
No you don't.

[video=youtube;zZsvpw-JOO0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZsvpw-JOO0[/video]
 
Interesting, wonder what expert they are going to get to look at hundreds of golf balls. Doesn't sound like much fun to me
 
Hawk said:
I hope this thread never dies. A true testament to how valuable ranking golf balls is for the consumer.
Click to expand...

Me too. I mean the rankings by the "media" are impressive. :D
 
JB said:
Me too. I mean the rankings by the "media" are impressive. :D
Click to expand...

For my next trick I will rank Anser style putters based on how many putts I make each round and award them my coveted medal of greatness.
 
deuce said:
No you don't.

[video=youtube;zZsvpw-JOO0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZsvpw-JOO0[/video]
Click to expand...

Not that much different from my normal ball flight... sadly.
 
I personally hope they win again all 10 of these thieves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top