... a bunch of stuff I basically agree with. Just wanted to respond to a couple of specific points.
Pelz' patent was issued in 1987. Typically it takes 3-7 years (or at least it did then) from patent application to issue. So if what you saw was not a relic, it may not predate the Pelz invention. If it does predates Pelz, then it might well invalidate the patent.On the example, "Two Ball" putter. I believe, somewhere along the line, long ago, someone made a putter with a ball cut in half and stuck some variety of the two halves on a putter head for alignment. I think I saw one at Golf House when I visited there on different occasions in the Mid to late 80's...
Hmmm! Sounds like you had a lot of business with AT&T. If so, could we take that discussion off line? I worked for AT&T in that period.... during a lot of business trips to Basking Ridge, Bedminster, Netcong, and Morristown.
(Stuff deleted about names.) Patents aren't issued for names and trademarks. I don't know what legal protection Pelz or Callaway have for any name whatsoever, and won't comment on that beyond what I've already said about cosmetic cloning.Hence the "Two ball" moniker....
"Some millimeters different" wouldn't begin to make it patent-ok! The patent was well written. The claims do not point to a specific design, but rather to design features. Claim 1 alone covers a putter whose alignment idicia (lawyerspeak for "aiming marks) are a plurality of (more than one) visual simulations of golf balls. That's pretty inclusive. The rest of the claims cover a lot of ways this can be accomplished. Basically, if you build a putter whose aiming device is designed to look like more than one golf ball, it's in violation of the patent.I might look at the Spaulding putter and decide the "name" is ok and the design, since it is some millimeter different from the original and meets patent infringement laws is ok.
Cheers!
DaveT
