TaylorMade vs Costco Kirkland - but how not many more alike?

[Pete Player]

Looking at all the new hollow bodied models off the different makes and specially all them different putter makes and models. I am wondering how there are only once in a while case in point on the patents and design in general. 
 

New Tallion blade with a goose neck hozel could be as much a Spotty Hameron as if it was the P790 vs Kirkland Signature iron case. 
 

There are so much similarities in club design with them bolts on toes and heels for putters and drivers with a railed weight in the back of the head in drivers from different manufacturers, it makes me wonder what is or could be the treshold feature to press charges. 
 

There was a trend a couple of models back in the bladed irons, where about every brand went after a triangular or parallogram shaped muscles in the back either inside a cavity frame or on top of the lump. To me they all looked pretty much the same except the logo and some very tiny brand oriented features. 
 

I would rather than read of the lawsuites see the rivalry in trying to explain the difference in performance, feel or production methods abd explanations, what the so called difference is by the players perspective. 
 

My 5c would be, how much different can a lump of carbon steel be from another, unless it is either off different compound or molded differently into the same shape. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

You may recall TM and PXG also had a dispute when PXG came out with foam in their hollow bodied irons. 

I don't think it is so much about the design and shape, but more about the supposed technologies inside. In the Kirkland TM dispute there was a old TM employee that had apparently worked on the P790 that was involved in the Kirklands which is where a lot of that started. At least from what I recall reading. 

[BringerofRain]

15 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

You may recall TM and PXG also had a dispute when PXG came out with foam in their hollow bodied irons. 

I don't think it is so much about the design and shape, but more about the supposed technologies inside. In the Kirkland TM dispute there was an old TM employee that had apparently worked on the P790 that was involved in the Kirklands which is where a lot of that started. At least from what I recall reading. 

You are correct in your assessment. The more interesting issue is  Taylor Made contradicts themselves in their complaint saying Costco is false advertising because their clubs are not the same as Taylor Made  

[Josh Parker]

I really think it also boils down to the interwebs exploded saying how similar it looked to TM and then how much people really liked how the Kirklands performed for half the cost.  

[bukzfan]

Who cares!? TM is just upset that the world of golf was turned upside down as people clamored to get those Kirkland clubs because of price and the fact that TM wasn’t getting that money. One of these days more people are going to come to the realization that these companies are gouging people, and this is proof!

[Wheelieb]

Anyone remember the Seemore putter vs Scotty Cameron issue in which Seemore won? Seemore had come out with their “Hide the Dot” aid on their putters. Scotty Cameron thought that was a good idea and did the same, Seemore found out and took them to court. Needless to say, Scotty Cameron doesn’t have that on their putters anymore. 
 

with that said, I would surmise that TM  feels the guy who worked for them had the contacts for the formula for the foam. This lead to him getting in contact with the company and making an iron similar to TM. Do I think TM can win? Possibly, but it’ll be a huge uphill battle in order to do so. I feel it’s a lot easier for Kirkland to win and kind of rub it in TM’s face. 

[Bobbers]

3 hours ago, Josh Parker said:

I really think it also boils down to the interwebs exploded saying how similar it looked to TM and then how much people really liked how the Kirklands performed for half the cost.  

Which, oddly but predictably, helped Costco sell a helluva lot more  iron sets...

[Bobbers]

1 hour ago, Wheelieb said:

Anyone remember the Seemore putter vs Scotty Cameron issue in which Seemore won? Seemore had come out with their “Hide the Dot” aid on their putters. Scotty Cameron thought that was a good idea and did the same, Seemore found out and took them to court. Needless to say, Scotty Cameron doesn’t have that on their putters anymore. 
 

with that said, I would surmise that TM  feels the guy who worked for them had the contacts for the formula for the foam. This lead to him getting in contact with the company and making an iron similar to TM. Do I think TM can win? Possibly, but it’ll be a huge uphill battle in order to do so. I feel it’s a lot easier for Kirkland to win and kind of rub it in TM’s face. 

Best guess from here on the sidelines is that it's going to come down to a)was there a patent infringed or b)what sort of agreement had the TM employee executed with TM during employment and how long had they been gone from TM or c)what the laws of are in the state in which the employee in question both had and now works in.

Here in my state an employer, for lack of a more refined way of stating it, "cannot stop an employee from knowing what they know as long as what  they 'know' is not clearly stated by the employer as proprietary or confidential."

The winners are, no offense meant, typically the attorneys who get to litigate the fine points of these issues.

[Wheelieb]

1 hour ago, Bobbers said:

Best guess from here on the sidelines is that it's going to come down to a)was there a patent infringed or b)what sort of agreement had the TM employee executed with TM during employment and how long had they been gone from TM or c)what the laws of are in the state in which the employee in question both had and now works in.

Here in my state an employer, for lack of a more refined way of stating it, "cannot stop an employee from knowing what they know as long as what  they 'know' is not clearly stated by the employer as proprietary or confidential."

The winners are, no offense meant, typically the attorneys who get to litigate the fine points of these issues.

Lawyers will always win in these situations. 

[Pete Player]

Yet the issue seems to be the advertizing, the accusation of an emploee taking knowledge with him to another company is intresting.

Obviously anybbody, who’s taken part in club design have classified, company only information on the developed product.

If a person leaves in the middle of such project, I believe there are terms for thy using the information in his work with a new company. In TaylorMade policy they seem to renew their product line very frequently. I’d consider 2-3 years of not using the newest information would be enough for them to have an edge over someone trying to copy their products.

I would not think one would breach such an aggreement, taking on his new job. And general knowledge gathered in taking part is an asset of a person, and attribute of an expert. Could be decicive point, why one is selected over another candidate.

For instance in F1 Adrian Newey has been the wizzard in designing new cars for different teams winning the championship over and over again.

Yet the product of a wholesale franchise can be called cheap, I doubt the pay isn’t far off from lucrative for a designer of such caliber. And the revenue flows in with the greater numbers in items sold.

Costco is big enough to defend in the court, if that’ll be the case, but in the case of TM winning, it would be intresting to see how much the settlement for compensation would be.

The compensation numbers in civil actions against companies have been ridigulously high for someone like me. Observing from outside the US and the amounts somehow reflect the revenues, not the actual damage done to people.