Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 280 posts

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#31

Post by yourapostasy »

aluminussoma wrote: post #11

Costco sued J&J Vision Care a few years ago over anti-consumer behavior in the contact lenses industry (I characterize it as anti-consumer. The Vision Care industry characterizes it as pro-consumer). They dropped the lawsuit in 2016, probably because Johnson and Johnson discontinued the practice: https://www.law360.com/articles/800034/costco-drops-antitrus... Costco did support a different lawsuit by state of Utah ag…

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.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#32

Post by blhack »

vhold wrote: post #23
finaliteration wrote: post #3

Ironically, anti-competitive moves like this are only going to accelerate the game of golf's steady decline[0]. I get needing to protect your market as a large player, but when you are the main player and your product is too expensive to buy and the perception is growing that the sport you specialize in is a waste of time and money, what good does it do to push out someone making a cheaper product that may allow begi…

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…

>The fact there is a high barrier of entry might be one of the only appeals golf has at all?

This is ridiculous. Golf is a sport that you can play from when you first start walking, until nearly the day you die. That's the appeal.

It requires extreme concentration in a way that I've never experienced in any other sport I've ever played.

I would highly, highly recommend that people learn to play golf. I wish it didn't have the stigma that it does with some people.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#33

Post by bluedevil2k »

vhold wrote: post #23
finaliteration wrote: post #3

Ironically, anti-competitive moves like this are only going to accelerate the game of golf's steady decline[0]. I get needing to protect your market as a large player, but when you are the main player and your product is too expensive to buy and the perception is growing that the sport you specialize in is a waste of time and money, what good does it do to push out someone making a cheaper product that may allow begi…

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…

Only appeal?? I play golf regularly and I play because I love it. My friends play cause they love it. What a feeling to stand on a tee box looking out over a wide fairway, driver in hand.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#34

Post by bmcusick »

korzun wrote: post #19
bmcusick wrote: post #13

American courts should have a "Loser pays" rule, and stricter standards for determining what is a frivolous lawsuit warranting additional penalties for the filer. American jurisprudence has always favored making sure "everyone gets their day in Court" to the point where trolls and professional litigants are ruining things.

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.

And … this is why we get strategic lawsuits.

I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm an attorney and understand the tradeoffs and I think society would be better off if these sorts of cases didn't waste everyone's time.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#35

Post by tedunangst »

setr wrote: post #27
tedunangst wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because, at the least, dimples on the KS golf ball do not cover more than 80% of the outer surface. Haha. Do I believe that? Even the legal filing is short on facts, just assertions. Like who counted the dimples and how many are there in reality? Thanks for the link. I think I fall somewhere between "willing to believe what I'm told" and "willing to do extensive research". "Willing to not particularly care" is abou…

>Like who counted the dimples and how many are there in reality? Assuming the dimples and placement of them is uniform across the ball, and across all manufactured balls, Then it shouls be pretty simple to get the size of a ball, the size of a dimple, and the spacing between two dimples, and then extrapolate the actual coverage

Yeah, sure, it's pretty simple. But why won't anybody tell me what those numbers are? I'm not going out to Costco to buy a set of balls they no longer sell to find out. It seems so obvious that the easiest way to convince me X != Y is to tell me X and Y. Is that weird?

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#36

Post by gervase »

setr wrote: post #27
tedunangst wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because, at the least, dimples on the KS golf ball do not cover more than 80% of the outer surface. Haha. Do I believe that? Even the legal filing is short on facts, just assertions. Like who counted the dimples and how many are there in reality? Thanks for the link. I think I fall somewhere between "willing to believe what I'm told" and "willing to do extensive research". "Willing to not particularly care" is abou…

>Like who counted the dimples and how many are there in reality? Assuming the dimples and placement of them is uniform across the ball, and across all manufactured balls, Then it shouls be pretty simple to get the size of a ball, the size of a dimple, and the spacing between two dimples, and then extrapolate the actual coverage

Give 5 interns 5 balls each, and a black sharpie. Have them count the dimples on each ball by putting a dot in the ones they have counted. If there were more than 500 per ball I would be shocked - the group could be done in under an hour.

Not sure how many you'd have to do to get a legally-valid "representative sample", but I imagine as a supportive factor to other methods of determination, it's not the worst option. It also has the advantage of being dead-simple to explain.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#37

Post by clubm8 »

blhack wrote: post #32
vhold wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The fact there is a high barrier of entry might be one of the only appeals golf has at all? This is ridiculous. Golf is a sport that you can play from when you first start walking, until nearly the day you die. That's the appeal. It requires extreme concentration in a way that I've never experienced in any other sport I've ever played. I would highly, highly recommend that people learn to play golf. I wish it didn't…

>I would highly, highly recommend that people learn to play golf. I wish it didn't have the stigma that it does with some people.

Golf is like animé - it's the fans that make it insufferable.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#38

Post by kuschku »

blhack wrote: post #32
vhold wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The fact there is a high barrier of entry might be one of the only appeals golf has at all? This is ridiculous. Golf is a sport that you can play from when you first start walking, until nearly the day you die. That's the appeal. It requires extreme concentration in a way that I've never experienced in any other sport I've ever played. I would highly, highly recommend that people learn to play golf. I wish it didn't…

> This is ridiculous. Golf is a sport that you can play from when you first start walking, until nearly the day you die.

You’ve never considered that Golf has an actual price to it, while most poorer kids just play soccer with a single leather ball on the street, costing less than a dollar for dozens of kids?

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#40

Post by arfar »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #9

> Companies with deep pockets lock down the market by making it too expensive for competitors to operate and to offer lower-priced yet quality products. It is a legitimate tactic; even those who succumb to it don’t really begrudge the approach. Who the hell wrote this article, the CEO of Acushnet? "Don't get the wrong idea, small businesses love being sued over frivolous patents they never infringed upon!"

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.

Post reply on HN