D
SammmeBee
Journeyman Pro
2 of you......
hovis
Tour Winner
Your splitting hairs abit here mate. Took them to court and settling out of court aren't too dissimilar. They could have gone 10 rounds then decide to settle.
nemicu
Head Pro
I'm afraid you're mistaken - settling out of court is nothing like taking legal action against another company and winning. If Bridgestone or Callaway had indeed won any court action against Titleist, the Pro V line would no longer be able to be produced (as per the terms of the legal action) and Titleist would be in financial ruin. Bridgestone settled some 7 years ago and Callaway finally came to a deal in 2012 out of court. Titleist still produce the Pro V and it's still the most profitable item in golf. It's not splitting hairs at all, simply because the outcome is chalk and cheese to what could have occurred should the parties involved had "won" as many have claimed. I see a lot of reps in the business and frankly most of them would tell you anything to make a sale - this BS being one of them.
Lump
Tour Winner
Internet message boards... Where being a pedent matters.
Why would titleist settle if they had done no wrong??
nemicu
Head Pro
Who said anything about being right or wrong? The simple matter is Titleist settled out court and continue to this day to make the most profitable item in golf.
It wasn't always quite so straightforward and is probably why it prompted Fortune Brands to sell off Acushnet in 2010 for around $1.23 billion to Fila, rather than risk a large chunk of the business in court. Of course, Fila weren't stupid enough to buy into a market where the primary source of income was likely to be cut off by court action and were quite right to stick with the brand knowing the business could prevail.
Bridgestone and Callaway didn't win the cash cow they sought in court and I think they knew really when they settled out of court. Today, they have no rights over the Pro V branding, design, production or sales and Titleist sell more golf balls than both of them combined.
Foxholer
Blackballed
More codswallop!
These might help set you right!
http://blog.hirekogolf.com/2007/12/callaway-wins-lawsuit-against-titleist/
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2325986
They weren't the end of the story by the way!
Michael Sullivan was the 'inventor' of the ProV - a Urethrane cover over a multi-layered core. He was employed by Acushnet after TopFlite went bust. Thus the Callaway action involved 'the Sullivan patents' that Callaway acquired when it bought TopFlite.
While I can't immediately find the details, I have actually seen the document that shows that the Bridgestone suit is about the manufacturing process. Here's a summary of the action. Note that it doesn't just cover ProV1s - so to say it was because Acushnet/Titleist 'stole the design' from Bridgestone is twaddle!
Covington, GA, – On March 7, 2005, Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Bridgestone Golf, Inc., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Acushnet Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Bridgestone Sports is currently the leading golf ball manufacturer in Japan with a 40% share of that market, and Acushnet remains the leader in the U.S. golf ball market.
In the complaint, Bridgestone Sports charges Acushnet with willful infringement of ten United States patents from Bridgestone Sports’ extensive patent portfolio covering multi-piece solid core golf ball technology. Among the Acushnet balls charged with infringement are: Titleist® Pro V1TM, the Titleist® Pro V1xTM, the Titleist® NXTTM, Titleist® NXT Tour, the Titleist® DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle® ExceptionTM golf balls.
Bridgestone Sports is seeking an injunction against Acushnet from infringing upon the company’s patents and for unspecified compensation for damages that have occurred as a result of past infringement. In addition, Bridgestone Sports seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement with respect to four United States patents owned by Acushnet.
“During the course of several months of negotiations with Acushnet, we attempted to settle this dispute; however, when negotiations failed, Acushnet left us with no other course of action, but to file suit,†said Mr. Kawano, President, Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd. “We remain hopeful that this matter can be settled, but in the meantime, we must protect our intellectual property rights. We will do so passionately and we are committed to see this matter to the end, in order to properly remedy the infringement.â€
That was settled in 2007....
Tokyo, Japan – Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd., a leading manufacturer of golf balls, announced today that it reached a settlement and patent license agreement with The Acushnet Company, the maker of Titleist and Pinnacle golf balls. Under the terms of the agreement, Acushnet will pay Bridgestone a license fee that includes an on-going royalty for a license under certain of Bridgestone’s patents. The parties have also agreed to a non-royalty bearing cross-license of other patents held by each company. The agreement resolves all pending litigation in the United States between them. A related suit in Japan was not a part of this settlement and remains pending.
Commenting on the settlement, Bridgestone Sports’ President Hisashi Kawano said, “We are very pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with Acushnet and to bring the U.S. litigation to an end. This agreement demonstrates the value of our technology and our Intellectual Property."
Much of this, however, is just as illogical!!!
Last edited:
hovis
Tour Winner
Nice one Foxholer. How do you like them apples nemicu?
Dave B
Q-School Graduate
Nemicu, Bridgestone granted Acushnet a licence to manufacture Pro V's, NXT's and DT Solo's as part of the settlement, however Bridgestone receive royalties under the license. The fees and settlement are confidential however the licence allows Acushnet to continue manufacture under the original Bridgestone patents.
As for Brigestone, you've probably never heard of Tour Stage or Super Newing balls both of which are massive in Asia. Titleist may be big in Europe and the States however the market in Asia is huge and Bridgestone have the Asian market cornered.
As for the Pro V being the most profitable item in golf, how do you work that out as I'd be interested to know?
As for Brigestone, you've probably never heard of Tour Stage or Super Newing balls both of which are massive in Asia. Titleist may be big in Europe and the States however the market in Asia is huge and Bridgestone have the Asian market cornered.
As for the Pro V being the most profitable item in golf, how do you work that out as I'd be interested to know?
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Isn't the Pro V the most bought item in golf ? Not sure if that means it's the most profitable though ?
Dave B
Q-School Graduate
Foxholer if you'd posted that a minute earlier you could have saved me 10 minutes of typing and pouring drinks 
I can see how Pro V would be the most bought item, not entirely convinced about the most profitable.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Foxholer if you'd posted that a minute earlier you could have saved me 10 minutes of typing and pouring drinks
:rofl: :rofl:
I think it needed to be 10 mins!
And the comment is mutual! :
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Apologies Lump, I'd forgotten about the lawsuit, I misinterpreted your response as a sarcastic swipe about the quality of the information in the original post, no slight intended. Found this explanation of the lawsuit issue which might clarify things about what happened;
In March of 2005, accusations were made regarding Titleist’s ProV1 and ProV1x golf balls along with some of the other models by the #1 ball in golf. Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Bridgestone Golf, Inc., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Acushnet Company (Titleist’s parent Company) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. It centered on ten United States patents owned by Bridgestone relating to multi-piece solid core golf ball technology. “During the course of several months of negotiations with Acushnet, we attempted to settle this dispute; however, when negotiations failed, Acushnet left us with no other course of action, but to file suit,†said Mr. Kawano, President, Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd in a prepared statement in 2005. In the ensuing complaint, Bridgestone Sports charged Acushnet with willful infringement of ten United States patents. Among the Acushnet balls charged with infringement were: Titleist Pro V1, the Titleist Pro V1x, the Titleist NXT, Titleist NXT Tour, the Titleis DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle Exception golf balls. More than two years later Bridgestone announced it has reached a settlement in its patent dispute with The Acushnet Company. Under the terms of the agreement, Acushnet will pay Bridgestone a license fee that includes an on-going royalty for a license under certain of Bridgestone’s patents. The two parties have also agreed to a non-royalty bearing cross-license of other patents held by each company. The agreement resolves all pending litigation in the United States between them. A related suit in Japan was not a part of this settlement and remains pending, according to Bridgestone. Commenting on the settlement, Bridgestone Sports’ President Hisashi Kawano said, “We are very pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with Acushnet and to bring the U.S. litigation to an end. This agreement demonstrates the value of our technology and our Intellectual Property." Acushnet issued a prepared statement on the subject but declined to accept any questions to gain any further insight into the topic. “The litigation between Acushnet Company and Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd. regarding golf ball patents, which was filed in March, 2005 in the United States District Court in Delaware, has been resolved through mediation. The resolution includes fully paid up cross licenses between the parties for certain patents. The resolution also includes a royalty bearing license from Bridgestone to Acushnet with respect to certain patents. The terms of the agreement are confidential. Acushnet considers this matter to be closed and will have no further comment.â€
Claws are out tonight for sure
Seems like you drew the same wrong conclusion from my post that I did from Lump's post.
Difference is I'll be a long time waiting for you to admit you've made a mistake.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Apologies Lump, I'd forgotten about the lawsuit, I misinterpreted your response as a sarcastic swipe about the quality of the information in the original post, no slight intended. Found this explanation of the lawsuit issue which might clarify things about what happened;
In March of 2005, accusations were made regarding Titleist’s ProV1 and ProV1x golf balls along with some of the other models by the #1 ball in golf. Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Bridgestone Golf, Inc., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Acushnet Company (Titleist’s parent Company) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. It centered on ten United States patents owned by Bridgestone relating to multi-piece solid core golf ball technology. “During the course of several months of negotiations with Acushnet, we attempted to settle this dispute; however, when negotiations failed, Acushnet left us with no other course of action, but to file suit,†said Mr. Kawano, President, Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd in a prepared statement in 2005. In the ensuing complaint, Bridgestone Sports charged Acushnet with willful infringement of ten United States patents. Among the Acushnet balls charged with infringement were: Titleist Pro V1, the Titleist Pro V1x, the Titleist NXT, Titleist NXT Tour, the Titleis DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle Exception golf balls. More than two years later Bridgestone announced it has reached a settlement in its patent dispute with The Acushnet Company. Under the terms of the agreement, Acushnet will pay Bridgestone a license fee that includes an on-going royalty for a license under certain of Bridgestone’s patents. The two parties have also agreed to a non-royalty bearing cross-license of other patents held by each company. The agreement resolves all pending litigation in the United States between them. A related suit in Japan was not a part of this settlement and remains pending, according to Bridgestone. Commenting on the settlement, Bridgestone Sports’ President Hisashi Kawano said, “We are very pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with Acushnet and to bring the U.S. litigation to an end. This agreement demonstrates the value of our technology and our Intellectual Property." Acushnet issued a prepared statement on the subject but declined to accept any questions to gain any further insight into the topic. “The litigation between Acushnet Company and Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd. regarding golf ball patents, which was filed in March, 2005 in the United States District Court in Delaware, has been resolved through mediation. The resolution includes fully paid up cross licenses between the parties for certain patents. The resolution also includes a royalty bearing license from Bridgestone to Acushnet with respect to certain patents. The terms of the agreement are confidential. Acushnet considers this matter to be closed and will have no further comment.â€
Seems like you drew the same wrong conclusion from my post that I did from Lump's post.
So your post wasn't adding to what you thought was a sarcastic swipe at my OP
If not then apologies.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Btw. In the course of my checks, I came across an article that noted that Bridgestone did make balls for Nike - including those played by Woods. There was nothing about Bridgestone making Srixon balls
However all this was in 2007 or earlier, so lots may have changed - though I am extremely doubtful that such a long time ball manufacturer would stop manufacturing them and get a competitor to manufacture them instead! And all without any reference to it in the WWW too!
So still calling B/S, until proven otherwise, on the 'Bridgestone makes Srixon's balls' statement.
However all this was in 2007 or earlier, so lots may have changed - though I am extremely doubtful that such a long time ball manufacturer would stop manufacturing them and get a competitor to manufacture them instead! And all without any reference to it in the WWW too!
So still calling B/S, until proven otherwise, on the 'Bridgestone makes Srixon's balls' statement.
Dave B
Q-School Graduate
Foxholer just for you, the history of Srixon
1930
Golf Ball manufacture begins in Japan, for Dunlop UK.
1963
Sumitomo Rubber Industries (SRI) assumes management of Dunlop UK in Japan.
1983
SRI begins the supply of golf balls to Dunlop Slazenger, for the global market.
1994
SRI golf science centre is opened.
1996
Ichijima golf ball factory begins operation and the 'Srixon Project' is launched in South East Asia.
2000
SRI launches the Srixon 'Hi-Spin' golf ball and establishes sales in 27 countries worldwide. Srixon becomes the producer of the number one ball, club and driver in Japan.
2001
International professional golfers sign full staff agreements to endorse Srixon on the Mens and Womens PGA tours.
2002
The XXIO golf clubs are marketed and the 'Hi-Brid Tour' golf ball is introduced. Start of Srixon Sports Europe subsidiary.
2003
XXIO Hot driver voted "Worlds Longest Driver" in independent tests in Golf World Magazine.
2004
Introduction of revolutionary HRX-333 and AD333 golf balls, with major international tour victories.
No mention of Bridgestone
Note the XXIO clubs mentioned were one of the best clubs I've seen when I worked in Korea but they were very expensive
1930
Golf Ball manufacture begins in Japan, for Dunlop UK.
1963
Sumitomo Rubber Industries (SRI) assumes management of Dunlop UK in Japan.
1983
SRI begins the supply of golf balls to Dunlop Slazenger, for the global market.
1994
SRI golf science centre is opened.
1996
Ichijima golf ball factory begins operation and the 'Srixon Project' is launched in South East Asia.
2000
SRI launches the Srixon 'Hi-Spin' golf ball and establishes sales in 27 countries worldwide. Srixon becomes the producer of the number one ball, club and driver in Japan.
2001
International professional golfers sign full staff agreements to endorse Srixon on the Mens and Womens PGA tours.
2002
The XXIO golf clubs are marketed and the 'Hi-Brid Tour' golf ball is introduced. Start of Srixon Sports Europe subsidiary.
2003
XXIO Hot driver voted "Worlds Longest Driver" in independent tests in Golf World Magazine.
2004
Introduction of revolutionary HRX-333 and AD333 golf balls, with major international tour victories.
No mention of Bridgestone
Note the XXIO clubs mentioned were one of the best clubs I've seen when I worked in Korea but they were very expensive
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
Not required for me!
I read it off their site eons ago!
http://www.srixon.co.uk/srixon-history/
And I believe you have a slightly wrong emphasis about the use of Bridgestone's patent - or at least the wording suggests that.
It's not that Bridgestone allowed to manufacture ProVs under the original Bridgestone patents, so much as they were allowed to use the patented techniques that they breached previously. The patents were for such things as the technique to make the cover seamless and other manufacturing processes. Nothing to do with the design of the ball itself!
If you look at my sig, you might notice some Bridgestone kit there as well!
I nearly bought a 435 XXIO w Diamana off a mate for £50, but the Cleveland (an SRI brand!) was an even better bargain - at £26! No Acushnet kit, but was wearing some Icons (another bargain at a fiver!) today, and my 'standard' shoes are MyJoy Teaching ones!
I read it off their site eons ago!
http://www.srixon.co.uk/srixon-history/
And I believe you have a slightly wrong emphasis about the use of Bridgestone's patent - or at least the wording suggests that.
It's not that Bridgestone allowed to manufacture ProVs under the original Bridgestone patents, so much as they were allowed to use the patented techniques that they breached previously. The patents were for such things as the technique to make the cover seamless and other manufacturing processes. Nothing to do with the design of the ball itself!
If you look at my sig, you might notice some Bridgestone kit there as well!
I nearly bought a 435 XXIO w Diamana off a mate for £50, but the Cleveland (an SRI brand!) was an even better bargain - at £26! No Acushnet kit, but was wearing some Icons (another bargain at a fiver!) today, and my 'standard' shoes are MyJoy Teaching ones!
Last edited:
Hammertoe
Assistant Pro
After reading all this I am glad I use Wilson Staff balls.
