A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

Vermont gas distributors have the highest profit margins in the nation. The gasoline oligopoly here is committed to creating high barriers to entry. This includes buying their competitors just to remove the tanks on premise.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/06/22/la...

Costco decided they were going to distribute gasoline at its Colchester, VT location. They spent years in court battles with Skip Vallee, owner of R.L. Vallee, Inc., eventually went up to the Vermont Supreme Court, which handed out a decision last year that Costco is permitted to build a gas station.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2016/08/05/ve...

I always hear stories about Costco being great to their employees, but now seeing that they're so pro-consumer as well makes me feel even better about shopping there pretty regularly. I'm not even their target market, but it's one of my favorite stores.

WRT prices of contact lenses, I use an ultrasonic contact lens cleaner with plain saline (Ringer's will also work if that is cheaper in your area), then storing the contact lenses in my lens solution to disinfect. Far better comfort profile, for far longer, than I ever obtained following the manufacturer instructions of 20 seconds rubbing on each side, and 5 seconds rinsing on each side. The saline is half as much as the normal lens solution, I use it liberally to rinse the ultrasonic cleaner, I get more use out of my contacts, and I use far less normal lens solution. So far I haven't encountered any drawbacks, YMMV.

It already has. The Acuvue dailies have gone down in price by half since last year, after J&J stopped enforcing the fixed price floor.

While we're on the subject, I'm glad Costco does this.

I was just shopping for new eyeglasses this week, and the difference between going to an in-network shop and going to Costco (out of network) is beyond insane. For something that will cost me under $100 for both frames and lenses after reimbursement from Costco, I estimated that I would have paid almost $300 out of pocket after in-network coverage.

Costco might not do enough volume to drive market cost down, but I certainly appreciate that they provide a sane alternative to crazy markups on eyeglasses in stores.

"Ho hum, we've been driven out of business by legal maneuvering, but it's all in good sport."

You don't often see such a laissez-faire attitude towards one's livelihood amongst small businesses.

The source of commentary for this article is pretty suspect, I mean, how did Quartz find golf-patents.com? It seems like the sort of domain which would be set up by a golf patent troll to support a story about them holding patents.

The whois data for golf-patents.com lean toward this line of reasoning. The domain appears to be registered to an IP law firm. I'm not going to claim that they are a troll or a firm which enables trolls, but it is suspect in itself that they are referenced directly.

Acushnet Company does in fact manufacture, market, and sell golf balls, so it is reasonable that they could bring a patent suit as long as it does not turn out to be frivolous. It would be nice to have a system of laws which makes it fair for genuine victims of infringement to file and try suits without bankrupting competitors before the case is settled.

I was under the impression that filing baseless lawsuits was a tort. Furthermore attorneys are required to make a good-faith investigation of their client's case and refuse to take part in frivolous lawsuits. This may be a pretty low bar, but it sounds like Acushnet's attorneys may be failing to clear it.

I think someone complained to Quartz that their articles were biased, so the writer here decided to represent both angles. ("they're just doing business" vs "they're bullying any competition") In my opinion, one of the most difficult lessons the internet age will have to learn is that the truth isn't always in the middle, and that both sides are not exactly the same.

I suppose that "legitimate" here is used in the literal sense, as in "lawful" or "legal".

Unfortunately, these are the rules of the game. Small players may know this and plan accordingly. So when the inevitable happens, they may not like it but they don't need to hold a grudge to the company that did exactly as planned.

The only solution would be to change the rules.

I found the article quite sympathetic to Costco.

Which part are you commenting on? Is it the use of the word "legitimate"?

Because suing someone for patent infringement is a "legitimate" course of action, i.e. it's a lawful thing to do. In fact (AFAIK IANAL etc etc) it's the only way to ascertain whether a patent is being infringed or not without working with the opposition directly and sharing trade secrets outside the context of a court room with proper protections, something I doubt anyone would be particularly happy about.

If it's the "don't really begrudge the approach" part. I don't know that any of us really have the knowledge from within the golfing industry to know what different companies think of the practice.

Ehh, you can get perfectly serviceable balls for even cheaper than the costco ball.

I bought 10 dozen Top Flite Gamer balls as my winter ball (you tend to lose more balls in the winter due to plugging into the ground, taller rough, etc.) for $9.99/dozen on Christmas sale. I play $48/dozen balls regularly as well, but I'm perfectly content playing the $1 ball.

MSRP-wise, Pinnacle balls have been a perfectly fine ball for beginner to intermediate golfers for decades. (I used to be an advanced level player but dropped the game for a decade, and when I picked it up again I opted to use a Pinnacle ball for a few years for the roi)

The reason the Costco ball is alarming to the premium ball manufacturers isn't because a cheap good ball exists now (they always have existed), but because a cheap great ball (i.e. tour pro level) threatened to destroy their margins. Basically, it would destroy the "money buys you performance" marketing mystique (even though for 99% of players, they don't get the clubface/ball contact to get that performance out of the ball anyways).

Also you can get really good equipment for quite cheap on ebay. It's not like technology has changed much for most of the set. My favorite irons are from 1991. (that being said, unless you know someone who really knows their equipment, bargain hunting on ebay might be difficult due to information overload)

The decline of the game is due to a variety of factors. Most important of these is Tiger Woods' demise, and secondary factors include pace of play at golf courses (rounds should be less than 4 hours, not 5+) as well as the inflated prices at many of these places that happened during the boom years.

Whether that's true or not, I don't think it's enough to rely on the invisible hand to squelch this practice. The truth is, as long as it is advantageous to sue frivolously, companies will do it. And this is bad for the free market, the economy, and consumers.

Policy change should make it much more costly to launch a frivolous lawsuit (as distinct from a claim made in good faith), e.g. by making it much easier for a bullied defendant to counter-sue and win significant damages.

The fact there is a high barrier of entry might be one of the only appeals golf has at all? Playing it is a status symbol. Although, I think maybe that elite status symbols themselves may be on a downswing, maybe because of the growing awareness of wealth inequality?

Super rich people used to ride around in stretch limos and people found it interesting and exciting, now there's a growing perception that's disgusting and super rich people tend to visibly travel in much more inconspicuous vehicles (which are taking them to their private jets).

Just a random thought..

Make use sell or import are all patent infringement. Costco is at least selling, likely importing.

> Unlike the small ball companies they sued

Maybe I'm mis-reading, but I think the article said that Acushnet was the first one to send a threatening letter claiming IP infringement.

She isn't wrong about it being a legitimate tactic. You might not like it, it might make you a piece of shit for doing it, but it is a completely legitimate tactic.

The writer is conflating "legitimate" with "legal" and "reasonable", the latter two of which it isn't.

the tactic is legitimate, sure. But do ALL those people who succumb to the tactic really not begrudge the approach? I highly doubt it. QZ found one guy who was not upset and uses that to justify the prior claim... booo qz booo

Especially the cynical practice of filing known-baseless patent suits as described in the article. That behavior should get the company heavily fined, and land the responsible corporate actors in prison.

I used to work for a law firm as a programmer/analyst, after that DMCA and changes to patent and copyright laws, it is easy to just sue a small company until their court costs and attorney fees exceed their income and they have to settle out of court or reach an out of court settlement.

Disney and other companies like DC and Marvel wanted the Trademark law to keep getting modified so they still owned the rights to their characters and they would not go into public domain as our founding fathers wanted.

Yeah, this is legal bullying, sort of like taking the competitor and roll them in a rug and start beating them with bats until they give up.

For me this only shows the flaws of the law system, doesn't it? The real problem is that defending costs are so high for businesses. If this would be covered by the government or some insurance until the case is resolved, the small companies that got sued could have fought this to the end and only go down if they actually infringed the copyright.

Loser pays makes filing these absurd cases a lot more expensive. If it's destined to lose and it's guaranteed to be paid, finding a lawyer is going to take it on is going to be really easy.

Well what if the balls performance is due to patented innovations that the company wants to protect? We don't know the facts here, just some blogs opinion.

The following patent numbers cited in this[1]: 6994638 8123632 8444507 9320944 8025593 8257201 7331878 6358161 7887439 7641572 7163472

[1] http://golf-patents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170317-...

the author probably understands it's just a quick google away for anyone interested.

probably a pretty lucrative niche, too. golfers spend a FORTUNE on that game.

I think at some point in your life, if you're creating or performing, you'll reach a point where your critics have a significant audience. At that point, you can give yourself a small pat on the back, you've managed to make a splash in the status quo.

I feel like there was a smile that turned into a frown between those two statements as they realized what it meant

You celebrate the small victories even when you know you're about to hit a big setback. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact being able to appreciate the wins despite the losses is partly how you stay resilient.

There's such a thing as funny-sad.

First decent reply. Upvoted.

That sounds great on paper, but in reality, all that does is prevent legitimate cases from advancing. It's already expensive as it is to take legal action against an offending party. You are assuming that every lawsuit is a money grab; it's quite the opposite.

What happens if your small business sues Google? Right or wrong, you are betting the business on that case. If you lose, Google's legal costs will consume your entire business.

That said, it's hard for your small business to sue Google anyway.

Besides what others said, "loser pays" gives incentive to increase total legal costs where people who think they have a strong case where the other will pay could spend absurdly on the suit. And it reinforces sunk cost too. Once you're into the case, you better do everything it takes to win at all costs (since you won't face the burden of any of those costs if you do win).

The feedback loop is poor, even if you ignore biases.

How do consumers know their favourite brand is filing lawsuits, much less know if they're frivolous?

The article goes into why. It doesn't matter if you actually infringe the patents, they will sue you for their entire patent portfolio and bankrupt you trying to dismiss all the frivolous charges.

Probably because 1990's balls sucked, and were expensive to manufacture (wound cores?)

There are plenty of cheap golf balls using modern materials, designs, and manufacturing techniques out there. People just want to play what they see the pro's playing - because its one less thing they can blame their shitty performance on.

Club technology has not significantly changed in the past 10 years, but Golfers are always looking for an edge that does not require more practice...thus the constant new products.