Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rainforest who wrote (1249)	11/18/1997 3:41:00 AM
From: Gus	Respond to of 17679

Dragonfly, McKelvey's opinion will be tough to get around. I'm going to try to get hold of copies of the briefs. It will be interesting to see what arguments Ampex is raising. One thing is for sure: were dealing with more than a "technicality". You're forgetting the jury found that Mitsubishi was guilty of literal infringement *and* infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, both of which are considered legal 'points of fact.' The Judge accepted Mitsubishi's argument of prosecution history estoppel apparently based on his interpretation of what Ampex gave up to prosecute the patent. That interpretation is not as black and white as it sounds otherwise his instructions to the jury would have been more precise. If you recall, I highlighted an excerpt from the McKelvie LJX profile which showed that this judge, like most others, was still wrestling with the implications of Markman which was decided in 1996. How much more for the Hilton Davis Supreme Court decision which was decided only a few weeks before the PIP trial started? All that said, AXC has indicated the earliest that its appeal and that of Mitsubishi (Los Angeles countersuit) would reach the CAFC would be sometime during the second half of 1998. I am assuming that Judge Mckelvie would like to see AXC and Mitsu resolve the PIP patent before going ahead with the remaining 2 VCR-related patents so that would make those 2 a late 1998 event as well. Lastly, for ease of reference I'm linking the 2 remaining patents to the IBM patent server: Patent No. 4,224,645 - Method and apparatus for controlling the movement of a recording medium patent.womplex.ibm.com Filed - 2/3/78; Issued - 9/23/80 Patent No. 4,075,666 - Magnetic Tape Recorder patent.womplex.ibm.com Filed - 11/12/64; Issued - 2/21/78 Patent 4,075,666 took 14 years to issue and is known as a submarine patent, a special target of the Japanese corporations who lobbied hard for reforms targeted at this kind of patent that took more than 5 years to issue and which exposed a lot of Japanese corporations to patent infringment claims that they were ill-equiped to defend because they had nothing to design around since patent applications are confidential until issued. The 666 patent, for example, has an effective life of 14 years + 17 years = 31 years of effective patent protection under the old *"first to invent"* system which was changed last year to a *"first to file"* system, ostensibly to synchronize the US Patent System with the rest of the world.

To: Rainforest who wrote (1249)	11/18/1997 6:34:00 AM
From: Sal Davis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

<<Said to check the website for possible announcements that don't make the newswires.>> It would seem to me that the incorporation of Ampex equipment, DST or other, in an analog to digital conversion by a world-wide, 36 bereaus, news gathering organization WOULD be the type of event a company would publicize through a press release on the newswires. Such an announcement would provide the necessary exposure and momentum for DST so that it can meet or excede its true potential. Such newswire announcements are seen each day. Lets hope Ampex's PR firm is still on board and that last month's announcement from them was not a one-time deal; Ampex needs to publicize, not hype, true newsworthy ocurences that can bring us all value. IR's answer to you above is non-comittal as I had expected and unforetunately more of the same-old same-old. Sal