By E. Michael Johnson and Mike Stachura
Illustration By L. Dopa March 2008

Q: Are the two tests the U.S. Golf Association uses for golf-ball performance (the overall distance standard and the initial-velocity test) redundant?

BOMB: I don't know if they're redundant, but they do pretty much the same thing. Of course, knowing how anal Gouge is, I bet he makes a case for doing something twice when doing it once would be sufficient. Seriously, there's zero need for the initial-velocity test. Keep the overall distance standard, and leave it at that. It doesn't matter how fast the ball leaves the clubface as long as it doesn't exceed the distance limit.

GOUGE: The initial-velocity test is old and probably arcane, but it has been part of the USGA's ball-test protocol for decades. And given the fact that many believe today's golf ball flies too far, the USGA probably shouldn't do away with golf-ball tests.

BOMB: You make me laugh. You want to keep a test around because it's the same way it has been done for decades? That kind of thinking would have had someone sticking me with a needle to check out my bum knee instead of using an MRI. But the real reason I want the USGA to do away with the initial-velocity test is that it might be hurting the average golfer. A few ball experts have told me that if the test were eliminated, they could produce a ball that would go farther for slow swingers but not for those with high swing speeds. Even a 43-year-old curmudgeon like you won't complain about helping the average guy out a bit.

GOUGE: Yes, I will. And I'm 44. Why relax a rule to help level the playing field for slow swingers? Isn't it conceivable that instead of helping 85-mile-per-hour swingers, the brilliant R&D types might also find a way to help 105-mph swingers (of which there are more than a few on tour) produce Tiger-like distance? I prefer to think of the initial-velocity test as necessary until something better comes along. Every time we think innovation is over, we're proved wrong. What's to prevent someone from finding a new solution, especially if one of the rules preventing him from doing so gets tossed out?

BOMB: Stop worrying. Have some warm milk. Relax.

PRO V1 DISPUTE NOT OVER

Equipment companies wrangle over patent issues all the time, but rarely do they become big news. The exception is when the most popular ball in golf -- the Titleist Pro V1 -- is found to violate another company's patents.

Nearly two years ago, Callaway Golf sued Acushnet (parent of Titleist) in U.S. District Court in Delaware, claiming the company's Pro V1 infringed on its patented golf-ball technology (patents that Callaway acquired when it purchased Top-Flite in 2003). In December, a jury found in favor of Callaway. Now the company wants monetary damages and an injunction against sales of the Pro V1. The case is intriguing not just because it went to trial and ball category leader Titleist lost. The court's ruling contradicts U.S. Patent and Trademark Office actions, which initially found the disputed patents invalid and during an ongoing review again has found one patent invalid. That process could nullify Callaway's victory.

"I'm sure there's a constitutional law professor scratching his head wondering how this will play out," says David Dawsey, a patent attorney in Columbus, Ohio, and founder of the website golf-patents.com. "Both sides know the risks. It wouldn't surprise me if Callaway discounted what it perceives to be its value in this case by 50 percent [settles the case], knowing the patents could be declared invalid. Acushnet knows it faces the potential for a huge damage award. But there's really no predicting it."

The story above also appeared in the March issue of Golf Digest. The following update was added on Feb. 29, 2008.

Update (2/29/08): The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially found four disputed patents invalid and, in a second review, found one of the patents invalid. The USPTO has now concluded its second review and has found -- as it did in its initial review -- all four patents to be invalid.

The significance of the USPTO's second review is that although the four patents were initially found to be invalid, this information was not permitted to be introduced to the jury at trial. According to Joe Nauman, Acushnet's executive VP, corporate and legal, the upholding of the invalidity of the four patents may now be taken into consideration by the court going forward.

Both Callaway and Acushnet have the opportunity to respond to the USPTO's second office actions, a process that should be completed sometime this Spring. Those responses are another in a lengthy line of legal proceedings that may drag this case out for some time.