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

171–180 of 280 posts

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#171

Post by Neliquat »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #153
goldenkey wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Golf is an insufferable sport. The land and resources that go into a golf course and all the equipment are a pure sign of feckless wastelessness. It's not possible to justify. Just be indignant if you like what amounts to 5 steaks a day.

The land use is what I dislike most about it. There are a few golf courses in Sydney in prime locations. All that land that can't really be used for anything else. The worst one is in Little Bay, next to the ocean. Countless balls hit into the ocean.

So more apartments is nicer to you than some grass and trees?

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#172

Post by ballenf »

paulajohnson wrote: post #109
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.

From personal experience defending such suits, the bar is effectively so low to be imperceptibly higher than ground level. In the rare case it would be relevant, it's just as expensive or moreso to make that claim as defend the underlying case.

In this case, based on just reading the article alone, it would be a very hard claim to make against Acushnet. Even if the patents could be invalidated, until they are they have the presumption of enforceability.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#173

Post by driverdan »

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

For some reason daily contacts dried out very fast for me. Often they would be uncomfortable in 8-10 hours. I didn't have this problem with bi-weeklies.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#174

Post by driverdan »

electrum wrote: post #94
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…

Get LASIK. Having perfect eyesight and not having to deal with contacts or glasses is worth every penny.

Myself and many of my former coworkers got LASIK last year. Use or lose HRA = cheap LASIK.

Everyone seemed very happy, myself included. Halos are no worse than with contacts (maybe better). After recovery use of eye drops for dryness is no more frequent than with contacts.

If you live in the northeast US consider getting it done in Canada. I knew a few people who went to Toronto to have it done for half the price.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#175

Post by YCode »

Freak_NL wrote: post #111
annnnd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to article this is not the case here: > “We weren’t infringing. But we couldn’t afford to fight the case,” he says. Instead, his company settled the 2015 claims with Acushnet by agreeing to get out of the golf-ball business altogether; it received no payment from Acushnet, nor did it pay.

That small business' response here is hard to fathom. Either the reporting is bad, or they quietly settled for a nice sum off the record (to prevent other businesses from getting ideas).

It also seems plausible that they simply couldn't afford to pay the requisite legal fees and any associated penalties (e.g. not being able to sell, get new contracts, etc.) to fend off the law suit.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#176

Post by DonaldFisk »

Neliquat wrote: post #171
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The land use is what I dislike most about it. There are a few golf courses in Sydney in prime locations. All that land that can't really be used for anything else. The worst one is in Little Bay, next to the ocean. Countless balls hit into the ocean.

So more apartments is nicer to you than some grass and trees?

It isn't just the view that matters. When you take into account gardens, housing would increase biodiversity.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#177

Post by kale »

ada1981 wrote: post #155
eps wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you get LASEK vs. LASIK halos aren't a problem. I had LASEK done perhaps 8 years ago, and my eyes went from 20/400 to 20/15 overnight. The entire procedure was incredible including an HD prescription profile generated by scanning your entire eye. The process is $4k-$5k but with financing comes down to about the same you spend on glasses or contacts annually. No risk of halos as there is no "flap" cut like with LAS…

So I'm reading that LASEK still cuts a flap, just a thinner one than LASIK. It also appears to have a longer healing time than LASIK[0].

It does appear to have fewer complications with the flap, since it's a thinner one, and less chance of hazing.

[0]http://www.the-lasik-directory.com/lasik_lasek_chart.html

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#178

Post by maxsilver »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #142
jsymolon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went from glasses and astigmatism to LASIK and halos. I would still do it again and recommend it. The quality of life improvement is tremendous and the amount of money saved on not getting the glasses re-done every year offsets the cost of the LASIK. Halos, really only at night, is corrected by wearing a yellow tint "sunglass" aka shooters glasses while driving. Plus my SO really doesn't like my driving, so i chill…

This makes no sense, unless you were a kid why would you have to get your glasses "re-done" every year? I've been wearing the same prescription for a decade and the same plastic frames for seven years. I go to the ophthalmologist every two years to get my optic drusen looked at and my corrected vision is fine. If I didn't go for my drusen I would have no reason to go. If your vision is so unstable that you were getti…

> This makes no sense, unless you were a kid why would you have to get your glasses "re-done" every year?

I don't know about the parent poster above, but my vision is slowly but consistently getting worse every year, for the last five years now. I get my glasses "re-done" each year because my prescription has changed (gotten slightly stronger) each year, and it's cheaper to get new glasses than to re-lens old ones.

If I didn't stare at a screen for 60 hours a week, minor prescription changes might not matter so much. But since I do, wearing a prescription that's only slightly off can still cause some headaches or eye pain.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#179

Post by phil21 »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #142
jsymolon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went from glasses and astigmatism to LASIK and halos. I would still do it again and recommend it. The quality of life improvement is tremendous and the amount of money saved on not getting the glasses re-done every year offsets the cost of the LASIK. Halos, really only at night, is corrected by wearing a yellow tint "sunglass" aka shooters glasses while driving. Plus my SO really doesn't like my driving, so i chill…

This makes no sense, unless you were a kid why would you have to get your glasses "re-done" every year? I've been wearing the same prescription for a decade and the same plastic frames for seven years. I go to the ophthalmologist every two years to get my optic drusen looked at and my corrected vision is fine. If I didn't go for my drusen I would have no reason to go. If your vision is so unstable that you were getti…

I got LASIK, and I had stable vision. It's saved me thousands of dollars now.

Not everyone is as careful and/or inactive as you :)

I've lost more pair of prescription sunglasses at the bottom of the ocean/lakes within a few years than you seem to have owned in total over the course of a decade. Basically glasses to me meant $500/yr in replacements due to breakage or losing them in various situations. Yes, completely my fault and preventable - but just not who I am. After beating myself up about this for years, I just realized I have better things to do with my brain cycles than keep track of glasses.

For me LASIK was an amazing quality of life improvement, and while I didn't do it for the financial benefits it's certainly paid for itself a few times over 6 years later.

Edit: This is also completely ignoring the pita of keeping your glasses clean throughout the day. I know from experience most people aren't bothered by dirty glasses (ugh, this is super distracting in meetings for me) but I cannot stand it. I'll replace cheap sunglasses that get a single scratch on them it's so distracting to me.

Plus stuff like being able to do things like buy 10 pair of knockoff sunglasses for $15 vs. a $200 prescription set. Or being able to actually watch 3D movies that don't completely suck. Or go off-roading and wear a mask comfortably. Or go diving. The list goes on. For those who can't wear contacts, I can't imagine not getting LASIK if it were an option.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#180

Post by Humdeee »

eddieroger wrote: post #157
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…

I always hear stories about Costco being great to their employees, but now seeing that they're so pro-consumer as well makes me feel even better about shopping there pretty regularly. I'm not even their target market, but it's one of my favorite stores.

Costco is very pro-consumer. Management will not stock an item if they feel it's priced too high. Their Kirkland Signature brand is also pretty good quality I've found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco#Sales_model

Post reply on HN