"8 out of 9 of Callaway’s patent claims are valid!"

David Dawsey does a superb job breaking down each claim in the Callaway v. Acushnet suit.

Callaway v. Titleist Spin, Round 1

AP's story on Callaway prevailing over Acushnet features quotes from the company flacks:

"We have now established in court that our golf ball patents are valid, and that Titleist Pro V1 golf balls infringe those patents," she said. "We will immediately start the process of requesting an appropriate remedy, including injunctive relief and damages."

And from Fairhaven...

"The jury's mixed decision has created ambiguity that will have to be resolved post-trial," said Joseph Nauman, an Acushnet executive vice president.

Callaway Prevails In Pro V1 Patent Suit

From the wire...

Callaway sued Acushnet last year in a Delaware federal court for patent infringement relating to Callaway's three-layer golf balls. Acushnet acknowledged that its Titleist Pro V1 balls had infringed the Callaway patent, but claimed that those patents were not valid.

Clever!

A jury found that four of Callaway's contested patents were valid, while one was invalid, Bloomberg News reported today. An additional trial is expected to be held to assess damages.

Golf No Longer The Worst Business In Myrtle Beach

Thanks to reader Scott for catching this Alan Blondin story about the end of the course closing trend in Myrtle Beach thanks to overbuilding and now, the housing market meltdown.

Sixteen area courses closed in 2005 and 2006, all with redevelopment plans that included housing developments.

But as the Beachwood and Azalea Sands owners struggled to gain approval of their jointly proposed planned-unit development and annexation into North Myrtle Beach by City Council, the business climate around them changed.

The rash of course closures has remedied a struggling golf market that had been saturated with layouts, and contributed to the flooding of a housing market that has been burdened with increased listings but slower sales over the past two years.

And...

National homebuilders, who swarmed the area seeking large tracts of land and spurred the fire sale of courses, are no longer knocking on clubhouse doors.

"Builders overbuilt in 2006, and they've cut back," said Tom Maeser, president of the Fortune Academy of Real Estate and market analyst for the Coastal Carolinas Association of Realtors. "We're not seeing a lot of land acquisition right now. It's more selling existing inventory. I don't think we'll see the need for these golf courses being converted."

Where there were going to be up to 2,500 residential units, a town center featuring a regional shopping center, a resort hotel, offices and marina at Beachwood and Azalea Sands, there are now increased golf rounds and profits.

Though paid rounds on the Strand are down 215,000 through the first three quarters of the year compared to 2006 - to 2.69 million rounds according to statistics compiled for marketing cooperative Myrtle Beach Golf Holiday - paid rounds per course are at 31,551, which is the highest since 1999.

Demand has increased and Strand course operators have raised rates nearly across the board in the past two years to further increase profitability.

"We're up like we're accustomed to being in years gone by," Elliott said. "Indications are for the courses that remain in play, the profitability factor is much better."

Angry About Bandon

Golf Digest's anonymous "Angry Golfer" isn't very pleased with the service at Bandon Dunes these days.

"The judge marveled at how "crowded" the art of golf ball manufacturing is -- that is, how subtle the differences often are from one patent to the next."

Thanks to reader John for John Paul Newport's Saturday Wall Street Journal column on the recently settled Bridgestone-Titleist suit. I'm sure our Fairhaven readers were tickled by this:

The public filings in these cases, although carefully stripped of trade secrets, are filled with fascinating tidbits, including testy exchanges between lawyers ("Bridgestone is asking for a Mulligan here"). Who knew, for instance, that Titleist got its start when an avid amateur in Massachusetts missed a 3-foot putt to lose a match in 1932? Convinced that his ball had wobbled, he X-rayed it afterward at a friend's dental office and discovered that indeed the core was off-center, and immediately set out to build a better ball.

In one exchange in the Bridgestone suit, the judge marveled at how "crowded" the art of golf ball manufacturing is -- that is, how subtle the differences often are from one patent to the next.

This strikes me as good news for golfers, and helps explain why golf balls, especially at the high end, are virtually indistinguishable for everyone except the very best players.

Which is even better reason that a little rollback won't hurt anyone, right?

Not that this will stop us from wanting to play the Pro V1s of the world. In golf, what you believe about a product is at least as important as what you know.

Bridgestone and Acushnet Settle; World Peace Next?

Susan Decker of Bloomberg reports what sounds like a victory of sorts for Bridgestone:

Acushnet, which makes the Titleist and Pinnacle golf balls, will pay unspecified royalties to Bridgestone, and the companies agreed to cross-license other patents, the companies said in separate statements. The agreement doesn't cover a related suit pending in Japan.

Bridgestone Sports, based in Tokyo, and its Bridgestone Golf unit sued Acushnet in 2005 in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware. The company's patented technology relates to ways of making balls so they fly farther, spin better and last longer. One patent is designed to increase a ball's distance when struck by a No. 5 iron or sand wedge.

``We are very pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with Acushnet and to bring the U.S. litigation to an end,'' Bridgestone Sports President Hisashi Kawano said in that company's statement. ``This agreement demonstrates the value of our technology and our intellectual property.''

Acushnet Golf, based in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, confirmed reaching a settlement. ``Acushnet considers this matter to be closed and will have no further comment,'' the company said in a statement. Fortune Brands, based in Deerfield, Illinois, also makes Jim Beam bourbon and Moen faucets.

"Choking freaking dogs!"

From a reader, one of six rising up early enough to catch The Golf Channel's Solheim Cup morning play.

The first morning match sees the Europeans get back to all square at the 18th when Sherrie Steinhauer, with the U.S. dormie, misses from inside three feet. Europe makes the putt and gets the half point. Golf Channel goes to commercial and the music rolls but the commercial doesn't kick in. And in that moment of silence Dottie screams "Choking freaking dogs!"

Our observant reader also noted that at the next commercial break, "they cut out so fast that Brian Hammond almost didn't complete his sentence!"

Nearly makes me want to rise early tomorrow just to watch. Nearly. 

So Nice To See John Cleese Working...

When the script resorts to gently spoofing the CEO, I suppose that's refreshing. Or a signal that it's time to pull the plug on John Cleese's steadiest check in decades.

Stupples Ditched For Pursuing Radical Heterosexual Lifestyle

Remember the good old days when sponsors would love to have a pregnant LPGA golfer on staff? Not anymore, reports Lewine Mair:

Karen Stupples, the former British Women's Open champion, claims that she was ditched by two sponsors because she became pregnant.

Stupples, 34, whose son, Logan, was born in April, says she is still owed £20,000 by Hi-Tec, the sports shoe manufacturer.

According to Stupples, Hi-Tec were meant to give her a cheque for £10,000 in January and another cheque for £10,000 this month but have not done so.

Stupples also claims that another of her sponsors, the Dalhousie Golf Club in Cape Girdeau, Missouri, wanted to cut her annual fee of $40,000 in half, on the grounds that she would be playing less than in a normal year.

"I felt so hurt because I considered these people to be friends," said Stupples, who claims she turned down more lucrative deals to stay loyal to her sponsorship partners after she became British champion in 2004.

No one at Hi-Tec was available for comment yesterday but they have told her managers, IMG, that they are concentrating their resources on Padraig Harrington and Ian Woosnam.

Ian Woosnam? He still plays?

"It's one of the most irrelevant rules ever proposed in golf."

Thanks to reader Sean for catching John Davis's excellent story on the U-groove rule change proposed by the USGA.

In a joint proposal with the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, U-grooves wouldn't be banned, but clubs would have specifications so they performed like V-shaped grooves, which were the standard before U-grooves were approved.

"Does that mean I would have to buy new clubs?" Kevin Largent of Scottsdale said before a golf round last week. "I just got these."

The answer is yes, although not right away. If adopted, the rules would take effect for high-level competition in 2009 and for all new equipment in 2010. Recreational golfers would have a 10-year grace period in which they can use clubs that currently conform.

I wonder how many golfers actually know this?

Tour pros have had mixed reaction to the proposal, but most club manufacturers are strongly opposed, saying it not only would cost them millions of dollars to meet the specifications but also would be costly for golfers.

Oh come on.

"More than 100 million clubs that are being played around the world would be non-conforming. That's a lot of clubs," said John A. Solheim, president and CEO of Ping. "I'm totally opposed to this thing."

An open comment period runs through Aug. 1, during which anyone can send comments to the USGA about the proposal. In recent years, equipment proposals have been "tweaked," but the end result has been a new rule in each case.

If approved, it would mark the first rollback in equipment since the move to a lighter ball in 1931.

And why is it again the ball can't be rolled back? That's easier to replace than a set of irons.

Benoit Vincent, chief technical officer for TaylorMade, thinks the proposal is "disconnected."

"Their point is that golfers aren't concerned about driving accuracy," Vincent said. "How do they control that? By regulating the spin of the ball on shots out of the rough?

"The probability that this rule is going to solve the problem is very low."

Vincent thinks it unfair that clubmakers and regular golfers would pay a steep price simply because of shots being executed by highly skilled tour pros. He estimates that golfers would pay 10 percent more for the new clubs.

"In order to meet those specifications would cost millions of dollars," he said. "This rule is insignificant to the vast majority of golfers in the world except that they would have to change their equipment. It's one of the most irrelevant rules ever proposed in golf."

This argument looks particularly silly after Oakmont:

Rugge doubts that the proposed changes would have much change on the tour's money list. "Tiger Woods is still going to be the best," he said. "We would expect to see some changes, but these guys are so good, they would adapt their games perhaps to focus more on staying in the fairway."

Right, because they are aiming at the rough. Kind of hard not to when the fairways are 22 yards wide. 

"Increasing brand awareness and consideration while activating our golf platform on a national scale"

Wouldn't you just love to be in on the meetings that conjured up reasons 1-6 why the Colonial will be must TiVo and fast forward viewing?

Oh, the six reasons being those lame, Man-law wannabe ads for Crown Plaza. What's more tortuous, the press release or the actual ads? Let's start with the release...

Unscripted Meeting of Golf Greats and Celebrities Lends Humor to a 'Good Walk Spoiled'

ATLANTA, April 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Two professional golfers, two golf journalists, one Latino comic and a heavy metal rocker arrive at a meeting room ... the set-up for a comedy skit? Nope, it's the setting for Crowne Plaza(R) Hotels & Resorts' first national television advertising campaign. Slated to debut April 12, the multi-million dollar TV and online campaign features national golf commentator/journalist David Feherty attempting to moderate an entirely unscripted conversation amongst TV personality and golf fanatic George Lopez, shock-rocker and avid golfer Alice Cooper,
golf-great Lee Trevino, LPGA star Natalie Gulbis, and outspoken golf scribe Dan Jenkins.

Branded as "The Place to Meet," Crowne Plaza assembled these six seemingly disparate personalities in a Crowne Plaza meeting room to showcase the brand's new golf affinity marketing program, the cornerstone of which is the title sponsorship of the Crowne Plaza Invitational at Colonial PGA TOUR golf tournament.

Somehow I never thought I'd associate Lee Trevino or Dan Jenkins with a "golf affinity marketing program."

"Golf has long served as the informal 'place to meet,' so developing a golf platform was a natural way to further align our meetings focus with our customers' interests and hobbies," said Kevin Kowalski, vice president, brand management, Crowne Plaza Hotels & Resorts.

"Our new ad campaign further emphasizes our focus as 'The Place the Meet,' increasing brand awareness and consideration while activating our golf platform on a national scale," Kowalski added. "By showcasing highly entertaining dialogue among some of golf's most unique personalities in a Crowne Plaza setting, we'll entertain our core target - who share a love of golf - and bring to life our meeting room experience in a bold, new way."

And just one of these lovely spots...

Did Nike Golf Borrow Someone Else's Idea?

David Dawsey on his Golf Patent blog looks at a possible case of theft by Nike Golf.

“You’ll see some interesting creative in that regard in the next several weeks.”

The "IMG World Congress of Sports" included a Wednesday panel gathering that featured USGA CMO Barry Hyde, The Golf Channel's GOLF CHANNEL's Dave Manougian, Golf World's Geoff Russell and the PGA Tour's Ty Votaw. Oh, IMG's Mark Steinberg was also listed as a participant at The Pierre, but he's not included in this snippet of topics, intros and highlights (we've been mercifully spared the full transcript.) Instead a suit from FedEx named Bill Margaritas filled in (no, this is not an excerpt from Dan Jenkins' next novel).

Anyway, brace yourselves. Lots of product and growth references in "Growing The Business of Golf in the Years Ahead."

The issue: What is the state of golf?

The skinny: In an audience poll on the health of golf, only 14 percent said golf is healthier now than it ever has been; 28 percent said it was healthier than in 2000. Votaw: “All indices (prize money, sponsorship, TV partnerships) are up.”

Yes, he said indices. It's not coterminous, but it's pretty good!

Russell: “I half agree with what Ty said. The business of golf is pretty healthy, but it’s always a challenge to keep it going. That success is going to be hard to maintain.”

Most panelists agreed that fan interest in the game is up. Manougian: “We think the sport’s in great shape.” Russell: “It is for you, you’ve got the (cable) contract now.”

You know these writer types Dave, always ready with a pithy comeback to taint the brand.

Manougian later added, “We must take the necessary steps to becoming a true, fan-friendly sport.”

Margaritas expressed excitement about the changing demographics of fans and top players in regards to sex, nationalily and diversity.

Top players are changing sex? I mean, I know about Mianne Bagger, but who else?

Greatest hit: Votaw: “I’m not sure it’s healhier than ever, but I think it’s certainly healthier than it was in 2000.”

In 2000, did they have to scramble to find sponsors and fill spots on the schedule to replace tournaments that died? Help me, my memory is just not what it used to be.

The issue: Tiger Woods’ effect on the PGA Tour.

The skinny: Russell: “If you’re a sponsor of a PGA Tour event and you look down the road and you know you’re not going to get Tiger Woods you’ve got a real marketing problem. You’ve got to come up with another way to make your tournament interesting.”

Votaw grimaced during some of Russell’s comments, then said, “There are a lot of dymanics about whether sponsors sign with tournaments, and that’s beyond Tiger.”

Ah, the MBA's answer to squirming out of a tricky topic: dynamics. There are many dynamics involved and all you idiots just don't understand them! 

The issue: Measuring the success of the new FedEx Cup playoff format.

The skinny: Margaritas: “I think its going to be good with or without Tiger. It’s going to cast the spotlight on some other players.”

Are we already conceding that Tiger is not going to be a full time participant in the playoffs?

Russell: “I’m waiting for Tiger Woods to say, ‘This is fantastic, I’ll be at all four events and I can’t wait to win the FedEx Cup.’ I don’t remember him saying that.”

Votaw: “You’ll see some interesting creative in that regard in the next several weeks.”

Some interesting creative. Oh goodie, more lame PSA's!

Russell: “I think when we do it once it will be interesting. But if Tiger doesn’t play then you’ve got a problem.”

Votaw: “If he does play every event are you going to write what an unqualified success it is?”

Russell: “You’ll probably see more positive words about it than if he didn’t show up.”

An audience poll found 45 percent of believe some top players won’t play more events this season.

Manougian: “When we get into the playoffs I don’t think there’s any question there will be more excitement about (those events) than ever before. People will debate the degree of success.”

Greatest hit: Russell: “For this thing to work you have to have those top players play.”

Glad we settled that.

The issue: The Tour as a TV product.

The skinny: Votaw addressed the type of the demographics of viewers watching Tour telecasts, saying, “I think you can say old is unnattractive, but you can say rich is very attractive. …The afflueunce, educational and income levels and executive levels make golf very attractive. We wouldn’t be fully sponsored or have the number of broadcast hours.”

And why is it again that you are consumed with youth and pandering to the 18-34 year olds? 

Hyde said, “When you’re talking to media buyers they’re saying they love golf because it’s the corporate office plus the high end consumer audience.”

Votaw said of the new cable TV deal with Golf Channel, “We’re not going to making short-term assessments or adjustments based on what’s a long-term deal. That’s why we made a 15-year deal.”

Oh that makes sense. A 15-year experiment to see how it works. 

The issue: Michelle Wie’s future in golf.

The skinny: An audience poll found 67 percent believe Wie should no longer play in men’s events. Most panelists agreed that she needs to find success on the LGPA [sp.] before attempting to cross over.

Russell said, “Being in the business of covering her, I don’t think it’s in her or our best interests when she doesn’t play well. It’s tough not to start to get jaded as a journalist to watch her withdraw from tournaments. … We’re in the business of being critical of people when they play like that.” Votaw said, “If that happens and you continue to be critical of her, the marketplace will catch up to that at some point and it will no longer be a compelling situation to have her in the field. The market will ultimately determine whether or not she should or should not play on the PGA Tour.”

Ah those market forces. And here I thought it was a matter of her breaking par.

And believe it or not there was one good suggestion on the panel.

Panelists where asked what they would do as LPGA or PGA Tour commissioner for a day.

Hyde said, “Create more difference week to week. Some alternative formats and work hard at creating a personality for every tournament.”

You see Barry, alternative formats require thought and for players to adapt. Same with varied course setups. Very dangerous ground we'd be on here. You risk engaging platforms that are very complicated like the Stableford scoring or match play. That distinct variety impacts the indices and delivers too many dynamics that might engender consumer confusion.

Manougian said, “Making the brand relevant to Gen Y.”

Greatest hit: Votaw said, “There’s no upside for me to answer that question, really.”

And on that note...

"I pray that it doesn't come to that."

There have been several stories like this Mark Gillespie piece that quote Ping Golf Chairman and CEO John Solheim complaining about the USGA's proposed groove rule change.

"It's straight back to where we were before," Solheim said.

And... 

 "Will the average player get the same enjoyment they get out of shots now?" Solheim asked. "The average golfer likes to see a little spin on the green and feel they've accomplished something."

Solheim said Ping will submit comments to the USGA and will weigh its options.

Asked if that could mean more litigation, Solheim said, "I pray that it doesn't come to that."

What am I missing here?

Won't this rule change be a Godsend for equipment manufacturers, who can now sell new irons to all those wannabe "elite golfers" by 2009?