[Oberon]

Ping has the right to choose the retail price of the clubs it sells.

Sure...if it owns the retail sales process. If it's selling to third-party retailers, however, I should think its retail pricing rights are sold to the retailer with the merchandise.

[Stone Mountain]

If it's selling to third-party retailers, however, I should think its retail pricing rights are sold to the retailer with the merchandise.

Nope. And as I mentioned, it's not just golf clubs - it's pretty much any big manufacturer item. Pretty much all of those sales you hear about for electronic, sports or other equipment must be approved for the retailer by the manufacturer. It's not in a manufacturer's best interest to have a whole bunch of stores selling their product to different people for different prices, for obvious reasons. For instance, a discount golf store could decide to take a loss for a few months on it's clubs to put a local seller out of business.

[shempy]

I don't dispute the fact that Ping has a right to enforce it's pricing.

If I am the first car at a four way stop, I have a right to proceed through the intersection. But if an eighteen wheeler is speeding through the intersection, I would be a fool to try to enforce my right away.

Likewise, in this case, I think Ping is foolish by enforcing their right because the costs outweigh the benfit. Millions of consumers have the right to hold this against Ping, and many of them will. If one of their competitors seizes upon this blunder and offers a blanket military discount they will rake it in, and not just from the military.