All of the balls named in the Bridgestone suit, Titleist Pro V1, Pro V1x, NXT, NXT Tour, DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle Exception golf balls, have been on the market for years now. Talks have been "going on for months", so most of the balls greatly pre-date the talks -> impending suit. Why all of the sudden is Bridgestone taking the lumber to Wally and Co.??
To me, it seems rather suspicious that Bridgestone is naming basically every ball in the Titleist portfolio as having infringed on their patents. I understand that golf ball manufacturers maintain hundreds of patents. However, is it even remotely possible that Acushnet was either late to trademark their balls or that they are actually so similar in construction to the Bridgestone line, which includes Bridgestone Golf, Precept and TourStage, as to warrant litigation?
I am generally unfamiliar with the balls in the Bridgestone line, and with the exception of Precept, I don't see many people playing them. Possibly this is an underhanded ploy to gain market share? They did buy Boom Boom to shill for them on TV, so is it really out of the scope of possibility?
<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110332877.310690.105340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> All of the balls named in the Bridgestone suit, Titleist Pro V1, Pro> V1x, NXT, NXT Tour, DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle Exception golf balls,> have been on the market for years now. Talks have been "going on for> months", so most of the balls greatly pre-date the talks -> impending> suit. Why all of the sudden is Bridgestone taking the lumber to Wally> and Co.??>
To me, it seems rather suspicious that Bridgestone is naming basically> every ball in the Titleist portfolio as having infringed on their> patents. I understand that golf ball manufacturers maintain hundreds> of patents. However, is it even remotely possible that Acushnet was> either late to trademark their balls or that they are actually so> similar in construction to the Bridgestone line, which includes> Bridgestone Golf, Precept and TourStage, as to warrant litigation?>
I am generally unfamiliar with the balls in the Bridgestone line, and> with the exception of Precept, I don't see many people playing them.> Possibly this is an underhanded ploy to gain market share? They did> buy Boom Boom to shill for them on TV, so is it really out of the scope> of possibility?>
The issue of patent law is complex, and part of the Bridgestone suit is to overturn some patents that have granted to Acushnet because they claim that the patents infringe on pre-existing Bridgestone patents. Likewise, Acushnet thinks that some of the Bridgestone patents should never have granted, so they don't want to pay license fees for ideas that were already in the public domain. These issues are complex, and rarely clear-cut, so lots of legal maneuvering is often the case before a settlement occurs. Of course, some of these cases do go to trial, but the outcome is often in doubt until the end.
Bridgestone (a Japanese company) has a very large market share for golf balls in Japan (about 40%) and probably also large in the rest of the Asia-Pacific region. Suing someone over patent rights doesn't get market share, but it does get revenues for technology licensing without having to sell any products themselves.
I don't understand what Fred Couples has to do with this, since all golf equipment manufacturers pay people to play (and endorse) their equipment. I believe he also plays their clubs.
I don't understand what Fred Couples has to do with this, since all
golf> equipment manufacturers pay people to play (and endorse) their equipment. I> believe he also plays their clubs.
Probably not much, but before his endorsement, I had never seen a television commercial for Bridgestone golf equipment. I was just speculating that their new marketing campaign is coinciding with the lawsuit. Conspiracy theory at its lowest.
The answer here is simple. Bridgestone makes....... NIKE balls! This should explain the whole thing to you.
<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110332877.310690.105340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> All of the balls named in the Bridgestone suit, Titleist Pro V1, Pro> V1x, NXT, NXT Tour, DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle Exception golf balls,> have been on the market for years now. Talks have been "going on for> months", so most of the balls greatly pre-date the talks -> impending> suit. Why all of the sudden is Bridgestone taking the lumber to Wally> and Co.??>
To me, it seems rather suspicious that Bridgestone is naming basically> every ball in the Titleist portfolio as having infringed on their> patents. I understand that golf ball manufacturers maintain hundreds> of patents. However, is it even remotely possible that Acushnet was> either late to trademark their balls or that they are actually so> similar in construction to the Bridgestone line, which includes> Bridgestone Golf, Precept and TourStage, as to warrant litigation?>
I am generally unfamiliar with the balls in the Bridgestone line, and> with the exception of Precept, I don't see many people playing them.> Possibly this is an underhanded ploy to gain market share? They did> buy Boom Boom to shill for them on TV, so is it really out of the scope> of possibility?>
"AmenCorner" <amencorner@jnez2.com> wrote in message news:U7OdnWQOlLYY9LPfRVn-og@adelphia.com...> Bridgestone makes just about every ball on the market!> They are trying to seperate that brand name from the others it has (precept,> nike, etc)> In doing so, they signed Stuart Appleby and Fred Couples to play Bridgestone> clubs and balls.> That is why you see BoomBoom on those commercials.>
Not too bad...Bridgestone already has several tour victories this season> (Tiger, Leonard, Appleby) all play Bridgestone balls.>
Amencorner>
Bridgestone may perform contract manufacturing for other companies such as Nike, but the don't own the Nike brand. I am sure that the Nike balls probably have some differences compared to balls sold under the Bridgestone name.
It isn't the ball itself, but rather the basic multi-piece solid core golf ball technology itself that is at issue. The patent attorneys will be making a few bucks on this one.
<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110332877.310690.105340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> All of the balls named in the Bridgestone suit, Titleist Pro V1, Pro> V1x, NXT, NXT Tour, DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle Exception golf balls,> have been on the market for years now. Talks have been "going on for> months", so most of the balls greatly pre-date the talks -> impending> suit. Why all of the sudden is Bridgestone taking the lumber to Wally> and Co.??>
To me, it seems rather suspicious that Bridgestone is naming basically> every ball in the Titleist portfolio as having infringed on their> patents. I understand that golf ball manufacturers maintain hundreds> of patents. However, is it even remotely possible that Acushnet was> either late to trademark their balls or that they are actually so> similar in construction to the Bridgestone line, which includes> Bridgestone Golf, Precept and TourStage, as to warrant litigation?>
I am generally unfamiliar with the balls in the Bridgestone line, and> with the exception of Precept, I don't see many people playing them.> Possibly this is an underhanded ploy to gain market share? They did> buy Boom Boom to shill for them on TV, so is it really out of the > scope> of possibility?>
"Dave Clary" <dclary@stx.rr.com> wrote in message news:ijqs211ifd1plc929fj4albs4uosns5nmo@4ax.com...> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:14:00 -0800, "AmenCorner" <amencorner@jnez2.com> > wrote:>
Bridgestone makes just about every ball on the market!>
They also make great mountain bikes, and tires, a God knows what else. > That's> one big corporation!
I am sure that the Nike balls> probably have some differences compared to balls sold under the > Bridgestone> name.>
How can you be SURE? Bridgestone rep told me yesterday that most golfers (not us of course) don't realize the sheer negligible differences in these balls. If you teed up a Pro V, Bstone, Hogan tour deep, and hit them with Driver or putter while blindfolded....you cannot tell the difference.
Hogan Tour Deep is my current favorite. Best Callaway ball around. Out performs the new Titleist.
"AmenCorner" <amencorner@jnez2.com> wrote in message news:BcCdnWmoZ8cLgbLfRVn-> Bridgestone rep told me yesterday that most golfers (not us of course) don't> realize the sheer negligible differences in these balls. If you teed up a> Pro V, Bstone, Hogan tour deep, and hit them with Driver or putter while> blindfolded....you cannot tell the difference.> Amencorner> You probably could not tell the difference between tour blades either. But there usually are small differences.
On 9-Mar-2005, "AmenCorner" <amencorner@jnez2.com> wrote:
Bridgestone rep told me yesterday that most golfers (not us of course) don't> realize the sheer negligible differences in these balls. If you teed up a> Pro V, Bstone, Hogan tour deep, and hit them with Driver or putter while> blindfolded....you cannot tell the difference.
The biggest difference for hackers may be to get a ball that's easy to find. A yellow-green ball may be worth 3 strokes per round for high-handicap players.
But I can't tell the difference between most balls for a majority of my shots. I haven't developed sufficient feel and consistency for that.
Especially when you over simplify. The core problem with> the patent system as it exists is that almost anything can get> patented to some extent. When it works correctly, it gives an> inventor a period of time to get his product on the market and> recoup his investment before having to compete. It rarely> works that way.>
A true invention, something that the others didn't know about,> is best marketed to your competitors. Sell them the rights> at a competitive price, otherwise one way or another they will> try to rip off your invention.>
For a marginal invention, in the sense of just some improvement> to existing designs, a patent can basically be a way of keeping> someone else from patenting something and then charging you> royalties.>
For a joke of an invention, it's a way of implying there is> something unique about the product.>
I know a guy who has something like 30+ patents. One of> them made his company. He was able to keep competitors out> by basically selling them cheaper than most could have> produced it for themselves. It wasn't worth it to even> try to compete with him. The rest of his patents are self> described "premption" patents. Just didn't want anyone else> to patent them, or anything like them. Has never charged> a royalty in any of them.>
That is the case in this situation. Both Bridgestone and Acushnet have some overlapping patents as well as some unique ones, and they could not agree on a settlement (yet).
On 10-Mar-2005, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
Especially when you over simplify. The core problem with> the patent system as it exists is that almost anything can get> patented to some extent. When it works correctly, it gives an> inventor a period of time to get his product on the market and> recoup his investment before having to compete. It rarely> works that way.
It is interesting to look at Speed Cart and Bag Boy.
Speed Cart came out with a nifty design for a 3 wheel golf push-cart. It worked well and they were able to sell carts for a nice premium. Their current model costs about $190.00. I spent that a couple of years ago and like it a lot.
Bag Boy saw this premium and came out with its own model. This only costs $130, and when it tried to duplicate the folding wheel of the Speed Cart, Sun Mountain's lawyers stopped them.
So Bag Boy bought a company that makes folding baby strollers. This company had some patents it wanted, allowing it to make the $200 Bag Boy EZ Fold 12 Push cart that appears to me to be superior to the Speed Cart I own.
