At 08:34 PM 12/18/02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/18/2002 12:51:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Frank,
Yeah. I didn't mention that because I didn't know what feature of the SC hosel was patented, nor the terms of the argument. But SC won their coutersuit. So Adams not only didn't get the relief they wanted by taking Nickent to court, they were convicted of infringing a Nickent patent in the process.patent #5106088 and 5328171.
Just looked up those two patents. My browser couldn't open the diagrams, so I had to go by the words in the text. (Fortunately, I used to do consulting for the Bell Labs patent department, so I can often read what these technolawyers write.) Here's what I've come up with.
The first patent (issued in 1992) appears to be for a vertical hosel to be used with a bent shaft, so there is no centrifugal bending (toe bob). Basically, it's the same issue as face-balancing a putter, though putters are specifically excluded from this patent. (Probably because they were already built this way.)
The second patent, two years later, accomplishes the same thing with a bent hosel, so you don't have to bend the shaft. (Again looking at putters, see the tall vertical hosel support, with the shaft bore at an angle to it, so common on Ping putters.)
If I have this right (if somebody can open the drawings, you can check on my interpretation), then I doubt that these were the patents at issue. A club built to either patent would not meet the USGA or R&A specs. All other clubs have to have the centerline of the major portion of the shaft within 5/8" of the heel. Putters have a specific exception.
Cheers!
DaveT
