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

231–240 of 280 posts

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#231

Post by giardini »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #53
blhack wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 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).

Arrows are selling for $5-6/each!Of course they were carbon fiber and had steel heads for hunting, but I couldn't help but wonder what happened to the inexpensive arrow.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#232

Post by mcguire »

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…

Between the ages of 12-25 or so, my sight got progressively worse and I needed a new prescription roughly every year. For the next 15 years, my sight stabilized at -8.5. For the last few years, my prescription has decreased slowly (I'm -6.75 now, which is a little inconvenient).

Until I started wearing contacts, I got new lenses for my glasses every year.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#233

Post by amalag »

yourapostasy wrote: post #31
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…

I didn't like ultrasonic cleaners, I found the hydrogen peroxide based cleaners to be amazing.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#234

Post by mcguire »

sk5t wrote: post #28
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!"

"Ho hum, we've been driven out of business by legal maneuvering, but it's all in good sport." You don't often see such a laissez-faire attitude towards one's livelihood amongst small businesses.

You have to admit, the honesty is nice. They'd do it too, if they could.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#235

Post by mcguire »

annnnd wrote: post #98
sirclueless wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason to be so nonchalant would be that the guy did in fact copy someone's patents wholesale, and was just waiting for the day someone would notice. If you know the lawsuit is unwinnable and not frivolous, no point complaining about it.

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.

Honestly, watch what people do, not what they say.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#236

Post by amalag »

jachee wrote: post #202
pc86 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not normal by any means.

As someone with average -13 diopter correction, I've been told by my trusted ophthalmologist that I'm a bad candidate for LASIK, due to the fact that my eyes being so long will just push the correction back out over time. Sounds like your parent comment's doc may not have been 100% accurate with their candidacy, or—the more cynical answer—wasn't 100% honest.

Checkout laserfitlens.com. I am not affiliated, but was considering instead of the PRK that I did. Scleral lenses are can be very useful for high corrections like yours.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#237

Post by amalag »

kale wrote: post #177
ada1981 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I did PRK which is the original procedure before LASIK because the thought of a flap is too scary for me. From what I understand PRK has better long term recovery but short term it takes more time.

People want LASIK for the convenience, almost no recovery time. With PRK I took 1 week off work and the next week was bad too. Then more discomfort for upto 6 months. After that it's great.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#238

Post by massysett »

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.

No way. Too much risk regardless of the reward. My vision is fully correctable. After LASIK, my vision might not be fully correctable. Since I need to see to do my job, this is not a risk I will ever take.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#239

Post by abritinthebay »

NickNameNick wrote: post #103
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.

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?

I'm quite aware but I have a thickness of the cornea issue so it has to be hard lenses.

Mine are fancy and have a soft "skirt" on the edges that make them larger but VERY comfortable.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#240

Post by bmcusick »

hackuser wrote: post #42
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.

What happens if your small business sues Google? Right or wrong, you are betting the business on that case. If you lose, Google's legal costs will consume your entire business. That said, it's hard for your small business to sue Google anyway.

Except that my rule makes it easier to sue Google if you have a good case.

The whole point of "Loser Pays" is to filter out the frivolous, weak, and marginal cases. But it also makes it easier to file the strong and meritorious cases, because you know you're going to win (eventually), and they'll pay for it.

Of course because the strong cases get settled out of Court, the overall effect is that a lot fewer cases will go to Court at all and this is generally a good thing (IMO). The Court system is overburdened, which means it can take months or years for meritorious cases to just get a hearing and trial. Prisoners can languish for years in prison without conviction of guilt, just awaiting trial.

Furthermore you have to think about the unseen costs. All those businesses that are never formed in the first place because of these legal tactics. My guess is that small businesses that are put out business by lawsuits are outnumbered 100:1 or more by potential businesses that never get past the planning stages.

Post reply on HN