TomD:
If the USGA/R&A really does propose to do something significant with new rules and regs regarding what they've recently referred to as "spin generation" of the golf ball what will truly be interesting is to see what the manufacturers reaction will be to it through the formal "notice and comment" period (that must take place).
If the manufacturers dig in their heels on those proposals through the formal "notice and comment" period the chances are the USGA may back off on those proposals as they did on their "optimization testing" procedure.
But if the manufacturers dig in their heels on the USGA/R&A proposals and the USGA/R&A do not back down through the formal notice and comment period things could get pretty interesting.
The manufacturers may threaten to sue the USGA/R&A on the grounds of restrain of trade but the USGA/R&A will answer that in the same way they've always dealt with I&B rules and reg changes----they will give the manufacturers plenty of lead time to retool and conform to the new rules and regs and to clear out their present inventories totally.
The USGA/R&A will also "grandfather" present equipment and ball conformance for golfers for a certain amount of time (perhaps app five years) as they did with the small ball, the PING radiused grooves (EYE2) and recently COR from what it became back down to .083. They have to do that simply because something like significant "spin generation" rules and regs changes would basically in effect deem "non-conforiming" most all balls on the market and in play today! The new rules and regs would come into effect at some point like Jan 1 2010, and at that point all the former balls (or equipment) would officially be deemed "non-conforming".
It's my belief if the USGA/R&A proposed and instituted I&B rules and regs changes (particularly this interesting ball "spin generation" proposal) that way they would probably never lose a manufacturer law suit in which the manufacturers will always be the plaintiff and the regulatory bodies always the defendant. The reason they would never lose, in my opinion, is the process and the timing of it they offer is completely logical, and it would be rare and odd to find some judge who would see it otherwise. But the real key as to why the USGA/R&A would probably never lose a manufacturer law suit on the grounds of restraint of trade is because they could always claim their rules and regulations on I&B are merely VOLUNTARY for all (manufacturers and golfers alike). If they did not use that defense, in my opinion they'd be insane!
Basically, the USGA/R&A have no direct power to enforce these rules and regs except in their very few tournaments, and so that defense of VOLUNTARISM is real and truthful.
This may bring up a new phenomenon, however---basically an atmosphere where the manufacturers sort of institutionalize a form of cheating on I&B manufacturing the way stock car racing has.
There may even be a bigger problem in the way the manufacturers react in the future even if in the near term they appear to abide by new USGA/R&A rules and regs.
It's my real fear that some of the MAJOR manufacturers may openly make and market non-conforming balls and equipment in the future anyway just to continue to see what the golfing public will do about it. If the golfing public does begin to buy openly "non-conforming equipment en masse basically the USGA/R&A and their I&B rules and regs are cooked and they both will begin to devolve in this area to a point of irrelevancy just the way tennis's old "amateur" USLTA (that controlled tennis) did for other reasons a few decades ago.