The best defense is a good offense. Acushnet sent a threatening letter. Costco initiated legal action by filing for declaratory relief. I suspect that their other goal was to proactively bring the venue into their district. If Acushnet wants to argue patents, it will now be hard for them to get it tried in East Texas.
"If this was true, then there would be a case because the balls are slightly inferior but otherwise identical."
No, because the Costco statement is general for all of their Kirkland Signature products, not specific to golf balls. It doesn't make any direct comparison between products. It's also not a competitive claim, but offered as a guarantee, Costco will take the product back and refund your money if you don't agree with it. "All Kirkland Signature products are guaranteed to be of equal or better quality than name brands"
And at the very least, it can be considered mere puffery.
"I don't play golf, but I imagine the golfballs designed and produced with methods from before 1997 would be sufficient for most golfers."
You apparently don't know any serious golfers, either. They'll buy entire new sets of clubs every couple of years, just because they think they'll provide some advantage. To believe that a serious golfer would use balls using 20 year old technology is ludicrous. They really do buy into the "new and improved" marketing, aside from any real change in performance. And I'm not talking just about pros, but about the guy down the street who golfs every chance he gets.
"IIRC, Costco bought up a contract manufacturers overrun (company was hired to make X number of golf balls, but for what ever reason they made Y number).
So the Titleist folks hired a manufacture..."
If that is true, and one assumes that Costco's response is based in fact, then those Titleist overruns didn't use the patents in question, and enjoy no patent protection.
"Are that patents here number, shape, and size of the dimples? If so- bullshit patent."
Why so? There may be significant R&D which goes into the aerodynamics.
In any case, Costo says they have an "out" on every patent because there's a least one claim which doesn't apply to their ball. The claims seem to be in 3 classes: material hardness, "bounce" (Coefficient of Restitution), and dimple pattern ("profile defined by the revolution of a catenary curve" in 3 patents). Costco also challenges them based on prior art.
In any case, here are the patents, go look them up instead of asking what they're about: 6994638, 8123632, 8444507, 9320944, 8025593, 8257201, 7331878, 6358161, 7887439, 7641572, 7163472.
Now, instead of cherry picking 2 countries from the 22 which recognize gay rights and marriage, look at it from a truly international perspective, and include the 72 where homosexuality is a crime.
"The purpose of these CAs is to Verify the Identity of the Domain Name for the purpose of establishing TLS connections. They verify DNS domain name Identity, Not Organizational Identity."
Your point? Unless there's a DNS compromise, AND a cert is issued by a widely accepted CA which doesn't verify the actual domain, it's not a real issue. Someone trusting a link to paypall.com isn't an https/cert issue, it's an issue of ignorance. It's not any more serious than a fishing attempt which looks for email responses, or Rachael from Cardholder Services calling and asking for a credit card number and someone believing them. And what if someone does create a real "Organizational Identity" of Paypall? Then the difference between DNS and organizational identity is nil. Ultimately, people have to exercise due diligence,
or they'll get burned. Trying to tell them that there are technical solutions for their naivete is a counterproductive lie, only instilling a false sense of security.
What's really interesting is that the/. cert is also issued by "Let's Encrypt."
It damn well better make the "communicator sound" when you open it!
Didn't hold the Moto MicroTAC back.
Summary:"like every other device out there, but one that is unique in some aspect."
They already have Windows phones which are unique - no one wants them. Form over function is not a way toward getting significant market share. Unique in the current smartphone OS market would be respecting people's privacy, providing timely security updates which don't depend on carrier support, and a firm legal commitment to long term support so people aren't forced into a 2 year upgrade cycle. Add whatever it takes to get developers to support app parity on this new OS, and I'll consider it.
This is "according to a new report by PwC." (why is the "w" lower case?) They're referring to robots handing out Academy Award winner envelopes. And that wasn't a job that took any intelligence.
Blame BeauHD (the new Timothy), not me. I responded to the claim ("FedEx Will Pay You $5 To Install Flash")
I know that many don't read the articles, or even the complete summaries. But when an "editor" posts an inaccurate headline, it's on them, not me. They get paid for posting, the rest of us don't.
Heck, it should be easy to automate spinning up VM's, installing flash on a few different browsers in each, then collecting $5 for each. I'm guessing way more than $100 is possible.
I'll give the OP the benefit of doubt, and say he probably meant to reference conspiracy, which would mean greater penalties than simple disturbing the peace or incitement to riot, etc. charges.
So, you would argue that a person paying millions/year in taxes should receive comparable government benefits in return, and someone living at the poverty line and paying no taxes should receive none. Right?
Bullshit. 2010 (most recent year for which I could find hard figures) Per capita Federal funding: Metro $10,976, Nonmetro $10,293. And those figures include retirement/disability benefits. Not surprising that category has the highest expenditures in rural areas classified as "Retirement Destinations." I submit that category should be excluded - if someone moved between urban and rural areas, those payments would move with them - they're associated with individuals, not location. Excluding that single category, Per capita Federal funding: Metro $8,171, Nonmetro $6,773.
And don't bother with your crap about artificial taxes and subsidies - those are economic and also occur in the industries which support urban incomes. Crop subsidies are skewed one way, defense spending (which is much greater) is skewed the other. All considered, the facts show your claim is wrong.
26.29 rounds to 26, not 27. And, although the wording clearly implies an absolute relationship, the correct relative formula would be 26.3/25.6=1.03 when significant digits are accommodated (which would be a 3% relative increase).
"Lots of people flunk elementary maths... apparently."
Slashdot Mirror
"What the fsck is Snapchat?"
Take a picture of someone, press a button, and make them puke a rainbow. They just went public. They're valued at over $20 billion.
Go figure.
The best defense is a good offense. Acushnet sent a threatening letter. Costco initiated legal action by filing for declaratory relief. I suspect that their other goal was to proactively bring the venue into their district. If Acushnet wants to argue patents, it will now be hard for them to get it tried in East Texas.
"If this was true, then there would be a case because the balls are slightly inferior but otherwise identical."
No, because the Costco statement is general for all of their Kirkland Signature products, not specific to golf balls. It doesn't make any direct comparison between products. It's also not a competitive claim, but offered as a guarantee, Costco will take the product back and refund your money if you don't agree with it. "All Kirkland Signature products are guaranteed to be of equal or better quality than name brands"
And at the very least, it can be considered mere puffery.
"everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of US patent office in 1899 (apocryphal)
"I don't play golf, but I imagine the golfballs designed and produced with methods from before 1997 would be sufficient for most golfers."
You apparently don't know any serious golfers, either. They'll buy entire new sets of clubs every couple of years, just because they think they'll provide some advantage. To believe that a serious golfer would use balls using 20 year old technology is ludicrous. They really do buy into the "new and improved" marketing, aside from any real change in performance. And I'm not talking just about pros, but about the guy down the street who golfs every chance he gets.
"IIRC, Costco bought up a contract manufacturers overrun (company was hired to make X number of golf balls, but for what ever reason they made Y number). So the Titleist folks hired a manufacture..."
If that is true, and one assumes that Costco's response is based in fact, then those Titleist overruns didn't use the patents in question, and enjoy no patent protection.
"Are that patents here number, shape, and size of the dimples? If so- bullshit patent."
Why so? There may be significant R&D which goes into the aerodynamics.
In any case, Costo says they have an "out" on every patent because there's a least one claim which doesn't apply to their ball. The claims seem to be in 3 classes: material hardness, "bounce" (Coefficient of Restitution), and dimple pattern ("profile defined by the revolution of a catenary curve" in 3 patents). Costco also challenges them based on prior art.
In any case, here are the patents, go look them up instead of asking what they're about: 6994638, 8123632, 8444507, 9320944, 8025593, 8257201, 7331878, 6358161, 7887439, 7641572, 7163472.
"Criminal under both left and right governments."
Never mind. You're just defining terms to suit your argument. It's extremely naive to think of politics as a simple linear left-right scale.
No, streaming sites are still illegal. They ruled that providing links to streaming sites is not illegal.
Now, instead of cherry picking 2 countries from the 22 which recognize gay rights and marriage, look at it from a truly international perspective, and include the 72 where homosexuality is a crime.
"The purpose of these CAs is to Verify the Identity of the Domain Name for the purpose of establishing TLS connections. They verify DNS domain name Identity, Not Organizational Identity."
/. cert is also issued by "Let's Encrypt."
Your point? Unless there's a DNS compromise, AND a cert is issued by a widely accepted CA which doesn't verify the actual domain, it's not a real issue. Someone trusting a link to paypall.com isn't an https/cert issue, it's an issue of ignorance. It's not any more serious than a fishing attempt which looks for email responses, or Rachael from Cardholder Services calling and asking for a credit card number and someone believing them. And what if someone does create a real "Organizational Identity" of Paypall? Then the difference between DNS and organizational identity is nil. Ultimately, people have to exercise due diligence, or they'll get burned. Trying to tell them that there are technical solutions for their naivete is a counterproductive lie, only instilling a false sense of security.
What's really interesting is that the
Didn't hold the Moto MicroTAC back.
Summary:"like every other device out there, but one that is unique in some aspect."
They already have Windows phones which are unique - no one wants them. Form over function is not a way toward getting significant market share. Unique in the current smartphone OS market would be respecting people's privacy, providing timely security updates which don't depend on carrier support, and a firm legal commitment to long term support so people aren't forced into a 2 year upgrade cycle. Add whatever it takes to get developers to support app parity on this new OS, and I'll consider it.
"All she's done is bleed investors of their money."
They needed to get the blood for testing from somewhere. Since investors have dried up, they're now working on squeezing blood from a stone.
"there is no man-in-the-middle or DNS hijack or proxy etc. It is not to verify the identity "
If the identity of the endpoint can't be verified, exactly how is it that MITM is prevented? Are MITM sites required to set the Evil Bit?
This is "according to a new report by PwC." (why is the "w" lower case?) They're referring to robots handing out Academy Award winner envelopes. And that wasn't a job that took any intelligence.
Blame BeauHD (the new Timothy), not me. I responded to the claim ("FedEx Will Pay You $5 To Install Flash")
I know that many don't read the articles, or even the complete summaries. But when an "editor" posts an inaccurate headline, it's on them, not me. They get paid for posting, the rest of us don't.
Yep. eBay doesn't sell anything other than a service. They just provide that service to connect buyers and sellers.
Heck, it should be easy to automate spinning up VM's, installing flash on a few different browsers in each, then collecting $5 for each. I'm guessing way more than $100 is possible.
I'll give the OP the benefit of doubt, and say he probably meant to reference conspiracy, which would mean greater penalties than simple disturbing the peace or incitement to riot, etc. charges.
So, you would argue that a person paying millions/year in taxes should receive comparable government benefits in return, and someone living at the poverty line and paying no taxes should receive none. Right?
Bullshit. 2010 (most recent year for which I could find hard figures) Per capita Federal funding: Metro $10,976, Nonmetro $10,293. And those figures include retirement/disability benefits. Not surprising that category has the highest expenditures in rural areas classified as "Retirement Destinations." I submit that category should be excluded - if someone moved between urban and rural areas, those payments would move with them - they're associated with individuals, not location. Excluding that single category, Per capita Federal funding: Metro $8,171, Nonmetro $6,773.
And don't bother with your crap about artificial taxes and subsidies - those are economic and also occur in the industries which support urban incomes. Crop subsidies are skewed one way, defense spending (which is much greater) is skewed the other. All considered, the facts show your claim is wrong.
Your unstated and unsupported assumption is that the installed cost per watt is the same for cells of increased efficiency..
Sorry, no "do overs." You failed.
26.29 rounds to 26, not 27. And, although the wording clearly implies an absolute relationship, the correct relative formula would be 26.3/25.6=1.03 when significant digits are accommodated (which would be a 3% relative increase).
"Lots of people flunk elementary maths... apparently."
Well, at least you're in good company.
"26.3 percent, breaking the previous record of 25.6 percent. Although it's just a 2.7 percent increase"
Uh, what? Someone flunked elementary school math.