Dragonfly,
Good idea! I am actually curious to see how a jury verdict form can serve to trump a jury verdict. This is a setback that could worsen if the same judge does not grant a retrial or if the CAFC further rules vs AXC. A decided negatory tilt in the risk-reward scale. Let us not forget, however, that this is the 1980 patent that Bramson, in his interview with J. Moreland, and even Ampex, in the press release, acknowledged as the first time that they were trying to prove that their video signal processing inventions were also applicable to television sets.
As Merlin so lucidly explained, Ampex probably used the "doctrine of equivalents" to try to expand the application of the claims of a VCR 'time base corrector' to television sets. Also, this same judge had earlier 'bifurcated' or separated the PIP patent from the 2 other VCR-related patents so this one can probably proceed on its own independent course. I wonder if it may be a good idea to go ahead and prosecute the 2 other patents that are presumably less 'groundbreaking.' If those 2 patents are squarely related to the VCR then Ampex would probably be in a much stronger position there. You would have to think that Bramson hedged the risks of litigating a 'groundbreaking' patent with the fairly predictable odds of winning the breach of contract issue involving two VCR patents. I do recall that the people who went to the stockholders' meeting indicated that Ampex fully expected that the decision of the judge would be appealed by either side, and that the 2 other patents would probably go to trial around the end of the year.
Which leaves us where exactly? Approximately $9.0 million spent in legal fees have already been expensed in previous quarters. This adverse decision does not affect the 19 mm tape storage biz. This does not affect KM. This probably doesn't affect the $8-10 million VCR/8mm/camcorder royalty stream. It may affect whatever licensing efforts may have been initiated by the jury verdict and may affect the way Ampex decides to exploit its portfolio of digital video patents. Licensing backed by litigation is one way to exploit a patent portfolio. Building new systems and/or components is the best way.
The latter requires a much larger cash flow than Ampex has now, which brings us back to KM, particularly ready-for-primetime KM+TFI. I have previously referred to the fact that SEG is on its way towards increasing its MR head capacity from 38% (as of the March quarter) to 100% MR, or 80% of its internal requirements, by the end of the year. It now appears that there are "internal production issues" that may, I repeat MAY, slow down the fast train to MR, especially if the other head suppliers falter also. Right now, IBM has the clear lead in the MR density race and it is reaping the benefits in the form of market share points, particularly from SEG's hide in the high-end. The others will have to catch up...most likely by a combination of MR and TFI.
Gus
P.S. Thanks everybody for supporting our new Ampex board. I have to admit that having to look at the screaming introduction written by one of Norman's alter-egos was starting to get to me. What a witch that Norman was/is/will-always-be, huh? |
