GOUGE: As noted in Local Knowledge (and ruining my holiday preparations, thank you very much), Callaway scored another victory in its patent infringement case against Titleist's Pro V1 ball. The latest decision is a refusal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to grant a stay in the injunction banning sales of the patent-infringing models of the Pro V1. We've been on this story for the last three years, and it shows no signs of stopping (Titleist is continuing its appeal), but the upshot is that if there are any old versions of the Pro V1 (in other words any models that do not have an identifying mark on the packaging), retailers are expected to return those to Titleist for replacement with non-infringing models, starting Jan. 1, 2009. The ruling also confirms that tour players cannot play infringing versions of the Pro V1 (or V1x) starting with the first U.S. tournament of the year, next month's Mercedes Championship. (In Europe, players can apparently do whatever they want for the time being, but who really gives a rip what ball Richard Sterne is playing?) Callaway says Titleist is lying and proudly points to several court decisions that confirm that position. Titleist says Callaway is lying and points to several decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that confirm that decision. Interestingly, no court system has been all that jazzed about Titleist's position, the latest being the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, whose order reads in part: "In denying the stay, the court is influenced by the failure of the appellant (Titleist) to propose any schedule for expediting this appeal or to take any visible steps to achieve expedition." In other words, Titleist really didn't want to do anything here but hope the Court of Appeals tossed this whole thing out after a cursory review. Not bloody likely. There is no easy answer when reasonable people disagree, and there is definitely not going to be an easy answer when corporate entities start accusing each other of the sort of mendacity that makes Rod Blagojevich look like Tiny Tim. Somewhere in all of this is a man who knows all the answers. His name is Mike Sullivan. He works for Titleist, but he used to work for Top Flite when he created the patents in question in this whole mess. I'd love some honesty, but by the time we get some in this case, the Pro V1 may be as forgotten as the Spalding Dot.

BOMB: Yeah--and a Merry Christmas to you, too, my friend. Sorry for being late chiming in on thins, but things such as wrapping gifts, helping my son track Santa on Norad's website and going to Mass took precedence over this tedious legal quibbling. But hey, it keeps us gainfully employed, right? The bad news for Titleist in this is that they have gotten smacked by the court in just about every phase of this case. That said, why the court chooses to basically ignore what the Patent Office has to say is somewhat confusing to this reporter. But hey, I stopped taking law classes some 25 years ago. Short of some mega-million-dollar judgment down the road I don't see this having much of an effect on, well, anything. Titleist has been deemed by the court to infringe a patent that Callaway owns, but didn't actually create. It bought it in a bankruptcy auction. I just can't get jacked up about that. But ti should be interesting to see what the tour players have to say. Some were playing the 2003, 2005 and quite a few the 2007 version of the Pro V1/V1x last year and now it looks like all of them will have to play the new, reconfigured model. Pros are picky so we shall see. Still, how much different can it be? The USGA deemed the changes so insignicifcant that they didn't even require Acushnet to resubmit the ball for conformance. But a couple of pros apparently won't have to worry about it. Word on the street is that both Vijay Singh and Boo Weekley (who used Titleist balls this past season) will be going with Srixon's new tour ball in the coming season.

GOUGE: The good news? Santa's coming. And he's only interested in 15-ball packs. Season's best to all, no matter which side you're on.

GOUGE: I've been too busy to care about the news of the world (did Obama win the election?), but over the weekend I got copies of the USGA's latest notice to manufacturers on a couple issues. One is really cool, as far as I'm concerned. The Notice, dated today, suggests the USGA will be conducting  "research on high-lofted wedges. This research is being conducted to determine if high-lofted wedges (for example, 60 degrees of loft and higher) can reduce the challenge of the game for shots near the green." I have heard recently that players at this year's U.S. Amateur attacked the bowl-shaped greens at Pinehurst No. 2 with a fleet of high-lofted wedges. Not exactly what Donald Ross had envisioned, I believe. Let's get rid of those wedges. The only people who really know how to use them are good players anyway. Allowing a club to further help a good player more than an average player is unnecessary at this stage, moreover letting a good player not have to develop the skill of manipulating a lower-lofted wedge to hit a particular shot is encouraging a leveling of the playing field that strikes at the heart of what golf competition should be.

The second announcement is not as exciting, just a series of clarifications of what the word "manufactured" means as it applies to the new groove rule. Apparently, manufacturers were questioning how long they can keep selling old-groove clubs and still have them be conforming. Those not playing along might not remember that the new groove rule goes into effect starting Jan. 1, 2010 as a condition of competition for elite events and as a requirement for clubs manufactured from that date. The new Notice allows those clubs to be shipped and/or sold until Jan. 1, 2011. This seems more a case of the USGA being fair about distribution, which I don't have a problem with.

But I can't say enough how much I love the anti-60-degree wedge Notice. This would make the game even more fun and just the right amount of frightening, no?

BOMB: I'm all in the on research on wedges. And it would be nice if they didn't stop at 64 degrees. In my mind 58 degrees should be max.

Back in 2002, Charles Howell III carried a Cleveland 588 64-degree wedge, saying that although the club was effective, it didn't get much call. "I rarely use the 64-degree club--maybe two times a tournament," he said. "But it's perfect when I short-side a green or if there's long rough and hard, fast greens. Then it's almost like cheating--the ball stops wherever it lands."

Whenever you hear a player say, "it's almost like cheating," then it's time to look into things. So we're in agreement on that. As far as the "clarification" on the groove rule goes, not so much. You say the USGA is being fair about distribution. I say they're seeking to close a loophole they didn't realize they had left open.

I use as Exhibit A a Sept. 23 article written by the USGA's Scott Smith and posted on the USGA's website. The article, titled, "The New Grooves Rules Explained" contained the following passage:

Clubs manufactured prior to Jan. 1, 2010 that conform to current regulations will continue to be considered conforming to the USGA Rules of Golf until at least 2024. This includes clubs purchased after that date from manufacturers’ existing model ranges. (According to the Darrell Survey of consumer golf equipment only 2 percent of irons in use are older than 15 years.) So long as these clubs continue to be conforming they may be used for establishment and maintenance of a USGA Handicap Index.

Do you see any mention of 2011 in there? Didn’t think so. The article continues . . .

"Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that the path forward was to get the top-level professional tours under the new groove regulations as soon as possible and to phase in the next level of amateur competition four years later, in 2014," said Rains. "This means that clubs you own today will still be conforming for top-level amateur competition for another 5 1/2 years and, for other competitions, conforming until at least 2024, if not indefinitely."

No mention of 2011 there, either.

But more to my thinking is the silliness of even trying to close this loophole. Let's be honest--this rule is aimed at the tour pro and elite amateur. They have to use the new grooves starting in 2010. Do we really think manufacturers are going to stockpile clubs by manufacturing a bunch of them only to hold onto them and sell them in the future? And if they did, so what? The groove rule says it's OK for us mortals to use such sticks until 2024. That's not cheating, it's playing by the rules the USGA set forth. Fair about distribution? Not really. Covering their you-know-whats? Absolutely. 

GOUGE: Truthfully, I think they should take all those clubs that don't conform to the new rule and throw them in a vat and melt them down right now. But you are missing the point. The point is all about the word "manufactured." But it's a loophole that had to be closed only because manufacturers asked it to be closed. Which I suppose is refreshing. Manufacturers working with the USGA because they really want to make only conforming clubs. Doesn't sound like Armageddon to me. Which is nice. And getting rid of high lofted wedges is even nicer.