proV1 to be taken off sale?

Just reading this after someone mentioned it the other day to me.

May effect anyone who uses them in the future!

http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1868684,00.html

I believe that Acushnet (Titleist's owner) have already developed an alternative that doesn't infringe the ruling and is due to be on sale from around March 09.  They have also 'converted' the existing production so that they are no longer producing the balls in question.  This means you can still get pro V1's but supplies may be limited.  In the meantime, I'll have to be very careful not to lose too many!

will they be as good though... ?

There will be no shortage in the UK the sales ban only applies to the US.

Good point Dave.  Given the current dollar rate I don't think it's worth buying them in the US anymore anyway. 

With regards to them still being as good Stephen, do you really think they would dare compromise the performance of the most popular ball on tour with the great strides that TaylorMade and Nike have made with their balls recently?

If they can do that, why infringe on Callaway's patents in the first place?

I believe they stole  Bridgestones design once too.

All Callaways patents have been handed down to them from manufacturers that the majority now dismiss. Spalding own the patents for Callaway golf balls. Callaway is, in golfing terms, a relatively newcomer on the block when compared to the old companies that were around long before the name of Callaway was invented.

will they be as good though... ?

Apparently not tour players are walking.....Vijay has dropped them is now using srixon,Toms switched to TM there are also others I have read about .

John is right about Callaway they set out to hurt the competition on very weak grounds butthe judgement went in their favour,Bridgestone was more of a just cause and IMO a better ball but I am biased

John is quite right that the Callaway patents have been inherited from Spalding.  The comment about infringing on a Bridgestone design is linked as these were too part of a Spalding patent (if I remember correctly). 

Acushnet's argument is that the patents that they are supposed to be infringing are actually invalid and should have been rejected at submittal becuase they infringed on patents previously filed.  They also claim that the US Patent Office backs this claim and admits that the patent should not have been allowed to be registered. 

With regards to 'why didn't they do it in the first place', Acushnet developed the Pro V1 in, we can assume, good faith in an attempt to produce a good golf ball.  They succeeded in doing so (the number of pro's using it is evidence to that) and they filed patents appropriately.  Since the lawsuit was filed, they have worked to find an alternative way to get the same performance in a way that doesn't infringe the Callaway patents.  Compare it to driving to a destination you take regularly.  There's more than one way to get there and you always take the most direct, but if there are roadworks appear you will take a different route but still get there. 

I'm using Bridgestone tour b330S balls at the min - very good so far!

I can play the same rubbish with a cheap ball as I can with an expensive ball.

I had some reconditioned pro V1's prior to these and i can tell a difference for the better

Reconditioned balls are not worth the paint job.  They are either lake balls that have been reconditioned (painted and varnished) because they have been in the water so long it's discoloured the paint, or they've been so heavily used that the paint is coming off.  In either case, the ball is not worth having in the bag anymore.  It's like taking an old, knackered car and giving it a respray; it'll look shiny but the engine will still be knackered. 

"I'm using Bridgestone tour b330S balls at the min - very good so far!!

That will explain the long drives then Stephen.

My drives are less now as I am swinging within myself, slowed it down to 96 - 100 and changed my driver too, lost 40 or 50 yds but hit 40% more fairways!

apparently the one's in the black box are further than these in the blue box, but i like the softer feel

I had a dz of their latest ball the RX  just given me they are designed for that swing speed . I like them alot they are not due over here till late March/April any US visits coming up Mr Perry?

Sorry Dave, nothing planned as yet.  Think I'll be taking orders and a spare suitcase next time I go!

Callaway have only owned Spalding since 2003 and were nearly beaten to it by Addidas.Just  a company buying expertise and then marketing products better. They are all the same.

I've just tried some B330S's, interesting step from the Srixon AD333's.  Feel and sound like a much harder ball to me, but am now getting genuine backspin on them and they seem to be going straighter - although that's probably because of the way I'm hitting them.  Not so sure about putting with them as yet.

Tim your findings are not wrong the two balls i would play was Pro v1x and B330s IMO played very similar apart from the fact i would lose the1x's quicker than the briddgy's. I came to the conclusion that there was much more spin on the titties.  I just sourced 10 dz B330's for £16 a dz Happy days.

Ps still waiting for the proto photo.

David, pm me your e-mail address and send you a couple of piccies of the 231 skeleton body.

dave i can see your a fan of the bridgestone balls by your comments

which of the models would you recomend for me i have a  swing speed of about

90 mph.

looking at different ball options and heard alot about this make thought i would give them ago but not sure which model would be best

   cheers neil

Dave,

Did you just say you got 120 b330s for £16???

They're £28 a dozen in american golf! - I was happy with £18 for a dozen!

No Stephen £16/ dozen  and there are limited supplies left B330 and b330s.

Neil ,the ideal ball from the info I can find for your ball speed is the Theo Soft model can't find a supplier as yet , I have been using the Precept d force ball its made by BS through the winter £11 or cheaper  and have been very pleased with the performance long off the tee and good feel around the greens. If you are familiar with the Titliest balls the easiest comparison is

Nxt = BS e5 e6  Pro v1 = BS B330  Pro v1x = BB B330s

I know Bridgestone are going all out this year promoting their ball range with demo fitting days at golf ranges around the UK as they have done across the US. I have just phoned my range for the dates but nothing has been confirmed as yet, Searched the Web but no info. I will email them today to see when they are in mine and your area.

American Golf are selling them £18 a dozen and some are on 3 for 2 ontop of that Dave.

I quite like the ball, why are they stopping it?

cheers dave will have a try with some

neil

After reading so much about Dunlop Loco balls on this site i purchased a box of 24 at the weekend, original price was £26 , reduced to £8-o9. tried them out yesterday. did'nt score too well mainly because of two bad ( really bad ) holes but having said that i really liked the feel of them, seemed to get a better flight on drives and approach shots and my chipping seemed much better. got through the whole round with one ball as well. if i can just cut out those bad holes i might start to get my handicap down.

I've just been watching the Bob Hope Classic on Setanta and the President of Titleist was on showing off the new Pro V1's and Pro V1x's.

If they are on tv in America showing off these golf balls then I would say they are not too concerned about this, or they have changed them enough so that the injunction doesn't matter any more.

Russ

To conform to the injunction will mean that the ball is completely different, not that us mere mortals would know it anyway.

The new ball was planned for launch in March, so this was probably some advertising for the benefit of the US market. 

Acushnet have a pretty good case as the US Patents office have admitted that the patents they are alleged to have violated are invalid and should not have been accepted.  The injunction stood after appeal because due to a quirk in US law they could not take new evidence into account when hearing the appeal against the injunction and the US Patents office had not previously admitted their mistake. 

Reading the detail and knowing a little about corporate law and contracts, my feeling is that Acushnet will win a reduced liability with no compensation due to Callaway, and the US Patents office will be held liable for Callaway's costs (as they have acted in good faith on the information available to them).  But given that the same legal system found OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson not guilty, who knows!