Ampex Corp: Digital Storage 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 Corp: Digital Storage

AMPX 8.270

-3.0%

Dec 26 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Gus who wrote (2129)	3/6/1997 10:33:00 PM
From: Lee Konkel	of 3256

Gus (and all), A little more information on the "doctrine of equivalents" ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. What the court decided (unanimously) was that the doctrine of equivalents as it has been defined and applied is generally acceptable. They also laid down some rules to clarify when and how to judge patent lawsuits that involve equivalent inventions. Depending on the specifics of a particular dispute some of the changes will help current patent holders while in others cases it might make it more difficult to defend a patent. In general, it does maintain broad protection for existing patents. Perhaps one of the more pertinent clarifications that the court issued was to declare that the lower courts should focus on the similarities to specific claims that are identified in a patent application as being new or novel rather than focusing on broad overall similarities between products or processes. Translated -if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck - even if it doesn't look much like a duck because your competitor made it look like a chicken. Look under the feathers of the chicken and you'll find the duck. Essentially this is what most patent infringement cases are all about. Someone takes somebody else's duck and makes it look different on the outside. Then they claim that they have a new and different duck. Essentially, the high court instructed the lower courts to look under the feathers - focus on the specifics that are claimed to be new or novel. From what I understand of the Ampex case, this recent ruling can only help them. Basically it should come down to core technology and who patented that first. Under all the feathers - it's Ampex's duck. Lee

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next