Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA)

AMPX 12.44

-8.4%

Jan 30 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: James T. Whittaker who wrote (8)	6/18/1997 9:41:00 PM
From: ACV	of 17679

Spoke to Karen about this a short time ago. She explained that the Judge was forced to set aside the verdict for damages due to a technicality. There is no question that Mitsubishi infringed on the patent, but there was a problem with the trial process that enabled the defense to put forth a motion that required the Judge to set aside the verdict. Ampex will either appeal or ask for a retrial. The specifics are complex and I don't fully understand them. Again, there is no question that Mitsubishi infringed on the patent. The verdict was set aside due to a procedural technicality. "Buy on bad news ...." ACV

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next