...If Mitsu wins this round doesn't that increase the chances that any of Ampex' old patents, which seems to be their primary revenue base, will be vulnerable to similar thefts?...
As I understand it, the implications of the '027 Lemoine patent lawsuit go far beyond the the actual damages of $8.1 million jury award. Bramson indicated in one of his letters that this was the first time that a jury agreed with AXC's contention that some of the video signal processing techology used in VCRs was also being used in television receivers, a product category that up to this case has not produced any significant royalty payments for AXC. The $200+ million in total royalties (one-time settlements + non-recurring royalties) that AXC has received over the last 10 years or so have come from VCRs and camcorders.
Again, if I understand it correctly, a final victory for AXC (and it may go all the way to the Supreme Court) in this case would mean the following:
1) With victory in hand, AXC can then go to the dozen or so Japanese, Korean and European consumer electronic giants and negotiate one-time settlements for previous infringement (limited by law to the last six years, I think) and annual royalty payments for continued use.
2) More importantly, a victory strenghtens AXC broader claim that its video and audio signal processing patents, particularly those developed during the AXC's premature move to digital TV in the eighties, are so basic and fundamental that any manufacturer seeking to participate in the convergence of computers, communications and television will have to use AXC's innovations, in whole or in part.
Note that AXC was never to able to participate fully in the mass market for consumer electronics including the VCR and the camcorder. Consequently, they had to limit themselves to the professional market which demands the highest video and audio quality, which means that their innovations rank among the most robust and practicable in video and audio signal processing.
Gus |
