71–80 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard it is similar to archery. I have never played. I was an archer though. But I dislike most sports that seem contrived (archery is a real skill that became a sport because the skill is not needed, golf is just a made up game as far as I can tell).
Aren't most ball/racquet sports pretty contrived?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming they can. I can't - they don't fix my eyesight. That's actually quite common. Dalies are great if you can have them but they don't fix all conditions.
What about your vision is such that dailies can't correct for it, but other contacts can? Is it that you can't make use of "soft" contacts in general for this, or just (presumably) that making contacts to correct for this would be sufficiently costly for daily disposibles as to be infeasible?
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…
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.
> It is a legitimate tactic; even those who succumb to it don’t really begrudge the approach. Maybe I just haven't given up yet, but what the f*ck? This is not a legitimate tactic, this is LITERALLY everything wrong with our present system.
But in all seriousness, this is just rent seeking via the patent system.
http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm
(Titled "Anti-Copyright Resources", but in fact contains a lot of material relevant to patents, too.)
This shows everything wrong with IP today. There should be no place for legal bullying. Especially when it's as simple as crushing competitors under litigation costs.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about your vision is such that dailies can't correct for it, but other contacts can? Is it that you can't make use of "soft" contacts in general for this, or just (presumably) that making contacts to correct for this would be sufficiently costly for daily disposibles as to be infeasible?
Not the parent, but in my case - mild astigmatism - dailies are too big and floppy and don't stay put on my eye. 14 or 30 day are thicker and easier to put in. I use them rarely - just for skiing, and I end up using the 14 day ones once or twice and then throwing them away. But the daily ones are just mechanically awkward and uncomfortable.
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