Dolgoff could not possibly have any claims to any of the hardware having do to with the TI collaboration. And, since no depixelization is being used in the DHT (at least not yet), PJTV is OK there too. However, Dolgoff probably is correct in claiming to be the inventor of the dual front/rear projection concept. I saw a mock-up of this in late '94 in their offices. Will reread their patents to further verify this.
So then we get get right back to the question of who actually has the rights to that technology!! The big question in my mind is what Dolgoff will do if he eventually wins the case. From a FINANCIAL standpoint, it makes no sense for him to want to claim ALL the profits from the DHT, and effectively drive PJTV right out of business. It would make alot more sense for him to sign a licensing /royalty agreement. Assuming he gets $100 - i.e 1.25% of $8K - 1.25% of the gross revenues for the DHT(and I have no idea whether this is reasonable)for each set sold, and assuming 20,000 units, that is $2 million in easy money, per year, starting immediately. And it seems to me that PJTV would not be adversely affected by paying out this royalty -- they have almost no overhead, at least compared to larger competitors -- so the company should still be able to post a nice net profit on the DHT. The wild card is whether Dolgoff would forget about the money (he is already well-to-do), and just be vindictive in his dealings with PJTV. It's a tough call!
I just hope PJTV knows what they are doing in NOT settling with Dolgoff. I hope their case is as strong as they claim, because if they go all the way through with a trial and lose the verdict, things could get real ugly. It would be nice if all those involved could just act like civilized adults and get this thing settled quickly, perhaps through some sort of arbitration hearing! I have to believe that this Dolgoff/PJTV situation has many precedents in the courts. Any lawyers out there care to comment? |
