Aaron,
I agree that Ampex will plead for legal fees that include prep time, out-of-pocket expenses, and court time. However, since the prep work was for the combined three patent infringement actions, some apportionment of the total expenses, for this one trial, will be necessary.
Form prior postings, it was mentioned that the court rejected a singular approach for the three infringement issues. This would seem to indicate that the court did not agree with Ampex that the issues were sufficiently similar so as to group them, and judge them, as a single case. From a purely expense standpoint, a single trial would have been preferable to Ampex. From a strategy standpoint, putting all the eggs in one basket, may be something different. It's hard to determine that without knowing the particulars of all the issues.
As I see it, the real long term potential benefit of these proceedings to Ampex is not that they were awarded 8.1 million in damages for "prior infringements" - even if it is assumed that they are awarded additional monies to cover legal expenses - but in future royalty income that hopefully will be decided. The damage award(s) are a blip in the income stream - a one time, extraordinary revenue source. It's better than not having it, but it really doesn't add to the long-term attractiveness of the company. If you are a potential investor and you are analyzing Ampex from the perspective of where and how they make their money - it's not from winning legal suits. It's from what they develop and then sell, license and/or lease to the marketplace. How well they do that, compared to their competitors, is what attracts investors to any company. These current legal proceedings are necessary to protect (and hopefully enhance) the revenue stream, but the critical issue, in my opinion, is how the issue of FUTURE ROYALTIES will be decided in each of these three cases. That is where the real, and continuing, money and benefit is. The damage awards, in-and-of themselves, are secondary.
Lee |
