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 12.57

-7.4%

2:58 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Gus who wrote (11)	6/19/1997 4:36:00 AM
From: Rainforest	of 17679

Gus, I don't think it's possible to understand what happened here without seeing the court's opinion. Perhaps Karen will be kind enough to post it for us. If not, I'll try to get a copy and post it myself. Obviously the judge thought that Ampex didn't introduce sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of "prosecution history estoppel" which the Supreme Court, in the recent decision discussed in the article that you appended to your message, said that patent holders must do in order to enforce their patents under the doctrine of equivalents. Whether Ampex has the evidence to do that is the question. Apparently they believe that they do if they're going to the expense of an appeal or a new trial. A reading of the opinion may shed some light on that question, but obviously, any money from this patent is many moons down the road. There is always the possibility that Mitsubishi will settle for a lesser amount in order to avoid an appeal, but who is going to count on that? Certainly not the street. I'm afraid we're back to the 5's for a while barring some sensational development.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next