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 11.59

+6.3%

Jan 27 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: flickerful who wrote (3382)	9/10/1998 4:07:00 PM
From: killybegs	Read Replies (1) of 17679

Ampex v. Mitsu (part 2) Mitsu at bat... The acerbic judge, with the wild white hair (really), interrupts immediately with a sharp question.. "Does your case depend on us agreeing that one clock signal multiplied is a different clock signal in disagreement with the District Court's claim construction.?" Mitsu lawyer replies....Judge says that is unresponsive..its a yes or no answer. Do we have to disagree with the claim construction of the DC. Mitsu lawyer goes into long explanation re the clock signal being divided or multiplied and at times is "flat and not doing anything" That's when the Judge said.."What does that prove...that you intermittently infringe. Do we have to disagree with Judge McKelvie's claim construction? McKelvie said frequency changes and gating did not change the signal. Mitsu then went on to element 4 concerning some ruling McKelvie made on that and there was a number of sharp questions as to why Mitsu was bringing that before the Court.. And that was that. I'll have more editorial comment later.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next