VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:36:56 03/25/01 Sun
Author: GeneO
Subject: Re: P.S. Ben
In reply to: Ben 's message, "Re: P.S. Ben" on 01:35:39 03/25/01 Sun

Thanks for the offer, if I'm in the area I will definitely look you up.

FYI, I'm not asking you to read Chaz's posts (which I won't dispute are inflammatory), I'm asking you to read the patent. Then you can argue with him about whether his claims are true or not. Some who have read the patent have said "so what, I like the clubs anyway and I don't care what's on the hosel as long as they work". Others (like myself) question how NG can claim the patent applies when (to me, anyway) it pretty clearly doesn't seem to have anything to do with the current generations of clubs. I don't have any problem with the clubs, as I said earlier, I bought a set about a year ago and I liked them so much I just bought the new driver (which I couldn't hit at all during my first visit to the range).

Some people (NOT me) think that it's just one more piece of evidence demonstrating how NG Corp will do anything to pull the wool over our unsuspecting eyes so they can fleece us of more money. And some people say that patent holders have a lot of flexibility in how they implement their patents (including making changes to it) and NG Corp hasn't done anything out of the ordinary.

I'd love to see a real explanation of the apparent discrepancy and why it's OK for NG Corp to claim the technology in their current clubs falls under the particular patent (not speculation, real facts and explanation of the applicable law). It's not something that's going to make me return my clubs (although if I can't hit the driver after another 3 weeks I'll certainly be returning it--but that won't have anything to do with the patent, as far as I know). All the speculation and heated arguments about the speculation on the speculation are pretty much a waste of time. I want someone who actually knows something about patents to explain what's up.

BTW, there are a number of things I can see in the NG clubs that are unique. In fact, I stronly disagree with Chaz when he says the p3/g3 clubhead are just orlimar knock-offs because I can see some significant differences in the clubheads. In fact, I can take my 2nd gen clubs and hold them up to almost any other clubs and point out several major differences in the clubhead designs. But I don't see those things mentioned in the patent. So when you say that everyone makes basically the same clubs that NG makes (I think that's what you were saying--the double negative had me confused), I must respectfully disagree. There's a lot more different than just fat grips, longer shafts, and a more upright lie. If that's all there were to the NG clubs, I wouldn't have bought them.

GeneO.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.