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

101–110 of 280 posts

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#101

Post by starky »

tedunangst wrote: post #20
metaphor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The following patent numbers cited in this[1]: 6994638 8123632 8444507 9320944 8025593 8257201 7331878 6358161 7887439 7641572 7163472 [1] http://golf-patents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170317-...

> 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…

Do you not think there is a CAD model of that golf ball for making the mold for the cover? It isn't even a 10 minute job for someone to measure the dimple/surface area ratio.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#102

Post by [deleted] »

rincebrain wrote: post #66
abritinthebay wrote: post #62

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?

[deleted]

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#103

Post by NickNameNick »

abritinthebay wrote: post #62
snissn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dude just go to dailies

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.

When I first got contacts, dailies weren't available in my correction (mildly shortsighted with strong astigmatism). By the time I needed a second batch they had become available. Things change, maybe you could get your optometrist to order some samples for you?

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#105

Post by grinich »

xienze wrote: post #100
eps wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A risk of ending up with halos is not worth it.

Or worse. It's the reason I'll never have the surgery... the risk is very small but if something were to happen to my eyesight it would be devastating. Glasses aren't so bad.

The complication risk of modern LASIK is actually nearly identical to wearing contacts every day.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#106

Post by tallanvor »

snissn wrote: post #47
yourapostasy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

dude just go to dailies

Dailies aren't appropriate if you want the option of sleeping with your contacts in. I rarely do it, but I still want the option just in case I end up spending the night somewhere unexpectedly.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#107

Post by lordnacho »

BEEdwards wrote: post #59

> 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.

The writer is conflating "legitimate" with "legal" and "reasonable", the latter two of which it isn't.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#108

Post by bitmapbrother »

Companies that knowingly waste the courts time by filing frivolous lawsuits should be heavily punished. Acushnet is not defending their patents, they're just trying to prevent competition. They're fully aware that no patents were violated because they've already examined the KS balls extensively for infringement. This case will never make it court for the simple reason that their hand has been thoroughly exposed.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#109

Post by paulajohnson »

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!"

I was under the impression that filing baseless lawsuits was a tort. Furthermore attorneys are required to make a good-faith investigation of their client's case and refuse to take part in frivolous lawsuits. This may be a pretty low bar, but it sounds like Acushnet's attorneys may be failing to clear it.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#110

Post by Freak_NL »

xienze wrote: post #100
eps wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A risk of ending up with halos is not worth it.

Or worse. It's the reason I'll never have the surgery... the risk is very small but if something were to happen to my eyesight it would be devastating. Glasses aren't so bad.

It's also just not necessary for most of us four-eyes. The costs of the surgery appear to be about what I would pay for 40 years worth of glasses (I buy a new pair once every four years or so), so it won't safe me money — or not a lot.

I'm so used to glasses that I might not even be more comfortable or live a more convenient life (and glasses are simply part of my identity after nearly 30 years of wearing them).

So there is very little (to no) incentive to actually get surgery to correct my eyesight. But the surgery is not without risks, as small as they may be, so there is a disincentive.

I can imagine that this is different for people who wear lenses because they are slightly more cumbersome.

Post reply on HN