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: Sal Davis who wrote (1387)	12/6/1997 4:14:00 PM
From: Rainforest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

Here are some of the relevant posts re the overturning of the jury's verdict in the Mitsubishi trial and the subsequent rejection by the trial judge of Ampex's motions for reconsideration and a new trial. Apologies if I missed any. Someday soon I'll see if I can dig up a comprehensive article on the revised doctrine of prosecution history estoppel but this will have to do for now. Gotta do some Christmas shopping. If Ampex announces the filing of their brief on appeal (don't hold your breath), we can get a copy from the court which is where I had to go to get a copy of Judge McKelvey's opinion. IR wouldn't send me a copy. Wouldn't even tell me who their lawyers were so that I could try to get a copy from them. Message 2753733 Message 2284407 Message 2279549 Message 1626757 Message 1626735 Message 1618792 Message 1618685 Message 1618622 Message 1617123 Message 1616548

To: Sal Davis who wrote (1387)	12/8/1997 7:09:00 PM
From: killybegs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

Sal, I think you are misreading the situation. The jury found that Mitsubishi literally infringed on one of the elements and infringed by the docitrine of equivalents on two other elements. I won't get into the technicalities of the Judge's ruling setting aside this verdict. However, what I think should be understood is the patent in question expired in July. However, there have been numerous newer patents issued improving on this original. These are basic patented technololgies that television receiver manufacturers will find difficult to design around. Ampex will appeal this decision just to make sure that no manufacturer gets the idea that they can infringe without consequences. However, waiting to win that appeal does not prevent Ampex from licensing the new pool of patents to digital TV receiver manufacturers. It makes more sense for these manufacturers to license the technology at 1/2 to 3/4 of a percent of the wholesale price of their receivers than to try to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Is this money well spent on the lawsuit?. Do the math. According to CEMA, there are between 800 million and 1 billion TV sets sitting around worldwide with 100 million being sold each year. By 2006 in the USA, all those sets will have to be digital, either converted with a set top box or a new TV. 1/2 % of $200 average cost (just my seat of the pants guesstimate) adds up to dramatic royalties' streams. Do you wonder why Bramson is buying a boatload of stock? I don't believe he is looking for 6 bucks share, but more like 60 bucks.